runako

The Garcia case illustrates the various lies embedded in ICE. They say they target people with deportation orders, which is obviously false based on ICE statements and testimony in this and other cases.

It also highlights the importance of adherence to the due process guarantees of the Constitution; Garcia was deported before being allowed to prove his citizenship in court. A US citizen is allowed to have had a passport issued in another country; how else would a naturalized citizen have arrived in the US in the first place, except with a passport in their name? The main point here is the Constitution prescribes how all this is to be handled, and ICE does not want to do it that way so they don't. That's a huge problem here.

Anyway, you asked for names. I'll just pull from the ProPublica database. Most of these boil down to ICE habitually violating Constitutional due process. I'm omitting "obstruction" charges. This person:

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/bronx-man-wrongfully-de...

These two people were deported on fake immigration charges, and then deported. Two individuals, "people," being the plural of "person." "Fake" charges, because people born here are not subject to immigration charges.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2026/03/12/orlando-born-twin...

This citizen was illegally arrested:

https://www.investigatemidwest.org/a-new-immigration-strateg...

I am going to pause here to remind you that citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Even if they don't "look American." Many/most Americans do not own a picture ID that proves their citizenship. Fewer carry one. Most children do not have picture IDs at all.

And why should they? We are not required to do carry proof of citizenship, even if we are physically proximate to people who are not here legally. Which none of us generally know about the people near us. Outside of my family, I have only seen a handful of citizenship documents of other people I assume are citizens. I would not testify to anyone's citizenship outside of my family, whose citizenship documents I personally procured.

Here's a citizen being arrested because ICE agents did not like his accent. Again, a reminder that many citizens, even of those born here, have accents. That does not change their citizenship in any way or require them to carry proof of citizenship.

https://www.kptv.com/2026/01/18/border-patrol-agent-detains-...

Et cetera.

> after naturalization

Say more about this. You are hinting at a kind of conditional citizenship that I do not believe exists under US law.

Are you suggesting that there is a class of citizens who did not commit fraud on their naturalization paperwork, yet who are barred from travel to countries that other citizens are able to travel to?

Since we're nitpicking, you are still not correct.

US citizens cannot be deported.

Naturalized citizens cannot be deported for crimes they commit after they became citizens.

Naturalized citizens who obtained their citizenship through fraudulent means can have their citizenship revoked. Then, they are not citizens and can be deported.

US citizens cannot be deported.

(There should be a time limit on revocation after which citizenship becomes permanent and irrevocable.)

"fake immigration charges" are what they apply to people born here, so that they can deport them. The charges are facially fake because a person born here cannot have immigrated here.

There is no such thing as a legitimate immigration charge levied against a person born in Chicago or Los Angeles. It's definitionally fake, even if ICE says otherwise. This is part of the reason they deport people before the courts can weigh in.

> "Some US citizens have been deported" is also a mischaracterization

You are simply wrong on this, as you admit in your next sentence. I wonder at the motive for knowingly something flagrantly incorrect, then admitting as much in the next sentence.

In any case, the link I provided includes links to cases where native-born US citizens have been illegally deported without due process. In one case, the prosecutor admitted that the deportations were illegal. But because ICE is supralegal and does not follow due process, those citizens never went before a judge before being deported.

This is all correct. The implication is the only long-term solution is dissolution of DHS.

Whatever functions we need can be rebuilt from scratch later. But this is a rebuild moment, not a refactor moment.

Let's be clear here that this is explicitly not just surveillance. This is surveillance in service of abducting people without due process. We can debate surveillance in the abstract, but this specifically is a feeder program to a system that has illegally deported US citizens without any due process. (Which would have, at step 1, indicated that US citizens cannot be deported.)

This is surveillance as part of a department that explicitly says it is not bound by US law or the Constitution.

All of that makes this program materially different than any other US domestic surveillance program or proposal of which I am aware.

"one of the components that caused former intelligence contractors’ concern was that ERO ONE agents will analyze both classified and nonclassified information to produce “network, link and relationship” analyses."

Should the federal government be tracking our interpersonal relationships?

Should an immigration officer be privy to the timing and manner of communications that I, a citizen, have with other citizens? Why?

Why should ICE be able to collect this information when domestic law enforcement generally has to show probable cause to a judge to gather similar information? Who decided to make ICE the country's supreme law enforcement agency?

Related, ICE is arresting citizens on fake immigration charges[1]. Some US citizens have been deported.

US citizens "can't" be deported, but ICE has supralegal powers. Should we have a law enforcement agency that is not bound by our laws? Why? What guardrails does it have if not law? Who defines those guardrails?

1 - https://projects.propublica.org/american-citizens-detained-d...

Isn't this like Costco requiring manufacturers to offer SKUs at Costco that are not sold anywhere else? Or mattress stores offering to match price knowing full well that the SKUs in their store are not sold elsewhere?

This policy feels like incentive enough for Chinese manufacturers to not build behind a single brand, so the policy will not apply. Materially the same product, different SKU under a different brand name.

Feels trivially easy to get around this policy.

"Services" includes everything from iCloud storage to AppleCare to Apple Card to Apple Music & Apple TV subscriptions.

Services growth is only tracking slightly ahead of installed base growth. One theory of Services was that it would grow high-margin business organically alongside the growth of the installed base. More iPhone users => more iCloud subscriptions. Notably, this growth rate is roughly predictable even without ads being a factor.

Don't forget Safari. Most of the sites I visit in Safari are absolutely jammed full of ads.

Anthropic likely would not be saying, in October, that they planned to go public next month, if this were also true of their business.

In the last ~month, OpenAI announced a delay to its IPO and Anthropic put a relatively near-term range on its IPO date. These are very different signals.

Researching what the article meant by "rocket" (I assumed it was a Britishism), I found this article that includes more pictures.

https://www.aol.com/articles/unassuming-bungalow-hides-netwo...

> you don't have to commit to watching 40+ minutes of something

This is funny because I have stopped clicking YouTube links for the simple reason that every video seems to be 45+ minutes. Which I get is based on how monetization works on YouTube.

Like Old Twitter, short-form video is a forcing function with value in forcing posters to get to the point. (I have never seen a YouTube Shorts or whatever link in the wild.)

So 16 in 30 days is a rate that, if sustained, trends toward ~3x the high end of your estimate of normal.

I don't expect "trucking" to fail, I expect stronger players to push price that will eventually show up in inflation stats.

This is like sitting in 1997, confidently assuming all future Internet services would run on one of Sun, Compaq/HP, DEC, or SGI, and projecting costs accordingly.

Some families have multiple children. Those kids are quite frequently of different ages, and thus will have entirely different activities (most high school football teams will not allow 5th graders to play, for example).

Those activities frequently overlap. No, Cub Scouts does not care that the high school basketball game overlaps with the camping trip because Cub Scouts are not in high school. Parents are (still) not able to be in two places at a time.

This means that at least some of the time, the older kid goes to their game without their parents. (Because the younger child frequently cannot.)

If you are able to solve this for those parents, you can be the first $1B single-employee company.

> it was rare that I had a scheduled sports event on a Friday or Saturday evening

When I grew up in the South, football & basketball games were Friday & Saturday nights. Apparently this was common[1].

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_Night_Lights_(TV_series...

Not all of it, but Americans are working significantly more now than they did in 1975[1]. One would expect compromises to be made to clear space for more work hours.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060

Because the downsides that exist for other companies simply do not exist for this tier of rich companies. Examples:

- product liability

- negligence (civil or criminal)

- Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (requires intent, which after N "accidents" seems like a jury should at least evaluate whether intent is present as understood in a courtroom. Hard to blame "surprise" after the Nth "accidental" breakout.)

The bottom line is that if you or I trained a local model and it did any of this stuff, we would experience Consequences. ("Don't try this at home!") But an artifact of our unequal legal regime is that big rich companies generally do not and thus brazenly touting their immunity is part of their business strategy.

A key issue is that there don't appear to be even cursory investigations to determine intentionality.

Are police routinely collecting prompts/guidance given to these agents and determining whether the agents were directed to commit crimes? If not, this seems like a huge oversight.

Also as you are a lawyer -- how does this law align with the authors of viruses/worms? Are they de facto assumed to have had ill intent because others labeled their works as "viruses" or "worms"?

I hesitated before linking that specific statute because I suspected someone would parse it as you have. Not a bad thing, just distracts from the larger point that the US government currently has tools (of which Robinson-Patman is only one) to prevent & reverse the extreme consolidation that harms every American.

In the context of this article -- we may not need a new ban specific to preventing private equity from owning medical practices. We could simply enforce existing laws around e.g. market consolidation, consumer harm, etc.

Adding a new law to also be ignored seems silly.

> We’ve allowed Amazon and Ticketmaster and Walmart to exist and they shouldn’t exist in their present form.

Unpopular knowledge is that these businesses are generally illegal in their current forms under existing US law. The relevant laws are still in effect, they are just rarely enforced. The scale of the lawbreaking runs to the trillions of dollars annually, and it directly harms every US consumer.

The illegal conduct is so pervasive that even explaining the existing federal law makes one sound ridiculous, because companies have been explicitly advertising illegal behavior for decades. Because there is no sanction.

One of my faves is the notion that $BIG_RETAILER can buy in bulk and get better pricing, which they pass on to the consumer. You may have seen a company advertise something like this. It sounds like smart business! There is an active federal law[1] that explicitly prohibits this arrangement.

Lack of enforcement of that law is a factor in the disappearance of the American "high street" and the demise of many small retailers.

My #1 call for reform in the US is to simply start enforcing laws, even if doing so makes rich people/companies uncomfortable.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson–Patman_Act

Was aiming for more pithy but the crux is

> “Died of a COVID linked complication with COVID and other issue that is also linked to that complication.”

Where people refused to acknowledge the "linked complication" part of it at all. Many people refused to consider a death as being due to Covid unless the person literally suffocated, ignoring Covid's clear links to many other cardiovascular conditions.

Anyway, I agree with what you're saying here.

It's not the clicks, it's the cognitive load of discovering & remembering which sites break due to an adblocker. (This set of sites changes as the sites themselves evolve.)

The main point is you were writing advice to someone as if they were building the website, when most of us are not generally building the sites we use.

"With Covid, not of Covid," but for military casualties. One does see something new every day.

That is true, but does not help a person who is not building a given website.

I have had financial websites impacted by adblockers, which is why I stopped using them. (I do not work on all of the teams building the financial websites I use.)

Google has in excess of $121 billion of cash (& equivalents), net of total debt.

Big rich companies take on debt for reasons that are sometimes inscrutable from the outside. Recently, they have been borrowing for ~5%, about a half point above what the US government gets for 10-year Treasuries.

Apple has been financing operations with debt for a number of years as part of a complex optimization plan.

No, Google is not broke.

> Water vapor? The stuff we drink?

This is really obnoxious coming as people are still missing after historic flooding in Asia (via lots of concentrated water vapor, I guess).

There are a couple of statistical errors in your argument here.

First is frequency. Even using Pangram's claimed numbers, the University of Georgia should expect to see several false positives every week. Remember that the metric is # of assignments run through Pangram, not number of students. A campus of 40k students will see many more than 40k assignments every week, and so should expect honest students to be accused of cheating with some high degree of frequency. You're comparing infrequent events (death penalty sentences) to high-frequency events (students submitting assignments).

And obviously, you are citing a company marketing document as fact, of which we should all be suspicious. (There are also obvious problems with the eval dataset that the paper does not address.)

Second, you're using the upper bound for Pangram's claimed numbers and the lower bound cited in the NIH publication.

> at least 4.1% would be exonerated. We conclude that this is a conservative estimate of the proportion of false conviction among death sentences in the United States.

The one commonality is that

> ~98% of students flagged by pangram actually cheated

That 2% is a large number! Of people who will have their integrity impugned for no good reason! That's not okay!

Your calculations also are mixing assignments and students. The rate of false positives of 1/10k is of corpuses, not students. 10k students might each submit 2-3 written assignments per week. Obviously, this greatly increases the impact of the false positive rate.

And all of these numbers are dependent on lab conditions for usage, which are not the case in the real world.

> I don't think 100% accuracy is logically possible.

Yes. Which is why marketing this product as it currently is, is a deeply irresponsible endeavor.