slashdev

You’re arguing with a strawman you’ve built from my comment.

> If you mean that the constraints put on the US by itself to not police immigration in overly violent or cruel ways mean that it does not control immigration.

I don’t mean that. I’m saying you do have to control the borders and you do have to deport people who break the rules and enter our stay illegally.

It seems we agree that at least some of that is necessary, and we can both disagree, at least partly, with the way it’s currently being handled.

> The riots in Europe are not primarily about immigration.

Where did you get that idea? The riots are caused by the immigrants. Look at them, there’s hardly a single European among them. These are undesirables they let into their country and they’ve been paying a price for it ever since.

The term combines two concepts: Nation: A group of people who identify as belonging to a shared community. State: A political entity with a defined territory, a government, and sovereignty over its internal and external affairs.

I would argue this requires at least some sovereign control over borders.

The EU defines their borders as a bloc. States are not nations - and that’s one of the reasons why.

Border control is an important expression of state sovereignty. If you have zero controls the state would experience net migration until conditions declined below the global average and nobody wants to move there anymore. That’s pretty self evident, it’s how economics works and how systems maintain an equilibrium.

Both legal and undocumented immigrants in the US show lower incarceration rates than native-born Americans in major studies; the picture in Europe is different, with clear overrepresentation for non-Western and asylum-related groups. Fiscal impacts depend heavily on skill/education level rather than legal status alone, with low-skilled migrants (legal or not) more often a net cost over their lifetimes.

So control over borders is important, and having standards is a good thing.

There is no magic soil. A nation is the people who make it up. Bring in the violent, stupid, and culturally incompatible people from the shithole countries they are trying to escape and things will trend downwards to some average between those terrible places and our desirable countries. That’s not racist our xenophobic, it’s acknowledging the facts.

People are not equal. Countries are not equal. Education and culture and religions are not equal. There are better and worse versions of all of them. Again just facts. To ignore that is to live in fantasy land that doesn’t exist in the real world.

I have traveled to nearly 50 countries. I have lived in the developing world. My ancestors have had to flee countries and been refugees. I know what I’m talking about. You sound very idealistic and naive.

That’s an extreme take. What other laws do you think should be ignored? Traffic laws? Building codes? Tax laws?

A nation is literally defined as an entity that has control over its borders. If it permits just anyone to enter or exit, it is technically not a nation anymore.

I’m all for changing immigration laws, giving more people a legal route to becoming temporary workers, students, residents, and citizens. But being choosy about who gets in and who does not. Attract the best and brightest to lift your country up, not freeloaders and criminals that tear it down. Look at the riots in Europe right now - and learn from their mistakes. Immigration is good but there have to be limits, laws, and control over borders.

Those things may be worthwhile, I’m not smart enough to know. But you can’t fix the deficit without also cutting entitlements.

How so?

You’ve misdiagnosed the problem. Taxing billionaires more is worthwhile, but it’s not causing the deficits and won’t fix them.

That’s kind of funny because Nvidia’s biggest moat is arguably CUDA, the software ecosystem around their chips

Exactly, that’s the low margin part of the market. They don’t care about it.

That's less an issue than the new emissions going forward from Asia and Africa.

We can't very well tell them to stay poor. They're going to increase their energy usage and they're right to do so.

Hopefully renewables and EVs are competitive enough to reduce the impact of the rest of the world developing to Western levels. Which they may well, thanks to China and Elon Musk's Tesla for jump starting that transition.

The population in the US has grown 17%, but emissions have reduced 18%. I think it's doing a good job and merely needs to continue that trajectory. The Trump administration is making some poor decisions there, but won't last much longer, it matters more if that's a long-term Republican position or merely an aberation.

China also built more coal than the US has in total. Don't forget the scale is different there.

But yes, it's sad to see America about face on climate change under Trump.

Per capita is rather pointless when talking about climate change, but yes, it doesn't absolve responsibility.

You'll note that's not what I said, just that the US is doing well at reducing CO2 emissions. The population has grown 17%, but emissions have reduced 18%. That's a good job.

US manufacturing has not decreased either, it has just not increased while offshoring elsewhere. So for the most part that decrease in CO2 is not simply moving the problem elsewhere.

Yes, I think so. I doubt a court would interpret that as being reasonable use of force though. In English common-law it's not just the wording of the laws that matter, one must also look at how the courts have interpreted and applied them.

US emissions have declined 18% since 2005.

Look at Asia.

It also mentions:

> theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

Seems like that qualifies

I thought it was the other way around. Too fine/round is not good for concrete, which is why desert sand is unsuitable.

This is true. But it’s more of a pricing power problem. The US can no more rid itself of the dependency on Canadian heavy oil than Canada could on exporting to the US. We’re bound together on that front, and it’s why oil has been exempt from tariffs.

If Canada had the ability to sell that oil on the global market, we’d get a better price for it (if you only have one customer you can sell to, you have little pricing power). Western Canada Select trades at a discount to WTI.

US refineries are built for a mix of heavy and light oil and that’s not practical to change. The US can’t just replace Canada with its own oil or imports from elsewhere.

What about Venezuela? Another potential source of heavy oil? It would take decades of investment and development to bring that up to the point where it produces an extra 4 million barrels a day for export. With the uncertain political environment there, it’s unclear where that would come from.

Police robots and drones.

You say no plausible path to automating - I beg to differ.

It would get officers out of harms way.

Not imminent but not zero risk either.

Maybe I’m missing the subtler geopolitical point here, but I don’t think it’s about oil. It’s about preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons and threatening the region via their missiles, drones, and proxies.

Whether they succeed at it or not is an open question, but it seems clear that’s what it was about. Take operation midnight hammer last July. That was clearly only about the nuclear issue.

Meh. No matter which side gets in power it’s almost certainly a narcissistic grifter. Who wasn’t over the last twenty years? The current one is a bit of a long term aberration, that doesn’t have to be the norm going forward.

In fact you could argue he was a response to some of the more extreme positions on the Democrat side.

I’m hoping things move more towards the center. But that may be only a fools hope.

Give it two years more then it changes again.

Agreed, that’s a silly argument.

You should worry more about your daily commute than a little ring.

It’s plastic straws all over again.

It works on planes, ships, and in remote areas with no coverage. I live in Canada where the whole of Europe would fit many times over, nothing else would work in the remote areas at that scale. My parents live in Panama and use starlink to get reliable high speed internet at the beach. Even when the power goes out, their solar panels keep the internet online.

What is Microsoft rust? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Or did I miss the joke?

Waste heat into the atmosphere is hardly pollution. I think you don’t understand the scales involved

Very surprising! Thanks for sharing

It is when you have a billion dollars.

It’s all relative.

That’s crazy. I thought maybe some of the other elements used in modern semiconductors might melt first. The wiring seems like a potential problem. But before that even the elements they use in the transistors themselves could be an issue.

Pure silicon melts at 1400 C

You must be thinking of something else

They can use it at home.

Using it school is likely undermining their learning.