The norm pretty much worldwide is that if you present yourself at a border crossing and are found inadmissible, you are refused entry and turned around. Some people have wrongly used the word "deport", but that isn't what it is: Technically she will have never even been in the country until granted entry, so she should have just been refused entry.
She didn't sneak into the US and get caught walking through the desert. She didn't overstay an expired visa. She did what she was legally required to do and presented herself at a lawful border crossing to apply for the necessary visa. And for those who note that she previously had been refused the same visa, by her story the conditions of her visa had changed leading to a new, unrelated application, which again is how it is supposed to work.
And when they refuse that visa, thus denying entry, they say "sorry, you can't come in" and you have to go back to where you came from, which in this case was Mexico. Even if she flew in on an international flight and they refused entry they would make her stay in the international terminal (which is technically not "in" country) until a flight out happens.
That she was quite literally arrested on some unknown pretence is bizarre, and seems like the "feed the private prison" ploy.
Of course police in the US are now demanding that Canadians answer the question "Canada or the United States", so zero Canadians should be travelling in that country. Law has broken down into some bizarre, hyper-partisan charade, and the end result is going to be civil war.
No one is ignoring that, and it's bizarre seeing people defend Musk in such a ridiculous fashion.
The plausible deniability angle would hit a little better if Musk hadn't also been endorsing a number of Nazi-adjacent parties and views, pushed literal white nationalist views repeatedly (which he has been doing for years -- he isn't concerned about birth rates, he is literally only worried about white birth rates while he runs his creepy birthing farm down in Texas, and that's aside from his endless "empathy is our weakness" attacks on migrants), and most recently literally excused Hitler on the basis that really it's the public servants who are to blame.
It's quite incredible really. If the guy wasn't already absolutely soaked with extremely far right rhetoric and beliefs -- save the absurd "oh he's a centrist" nonsense that zero people believe if they have any functioning grey matter at all -- it might have been excusable as something that just looked concerning.
It's clearly intended to impact new buyers. Most of Musk's wealth is tied up in Tesla, and that funding allowed him to both buy an election and -- gestures broadly -- demonstrate convincingly that he is an absolutely reprehensible, garbage-bin of a human.
The rich used to start ivy leagues and build libraries. This guy is cutting off funding for the poor and declaring himself, proudly, a "deadly threat" to people he perceives as "woke".
And the "99%" thing is pretty dubious regardless. Elon Musk has been a garbage person for years. A self-dealing creep. >80% of Tesla sales have happened over the past four years.
And of the people I know with Teslas, zero of them are "green, left-leaning" buyers. They're people who wanted the novelty with the crazy acceleration and the boasting tech. I feel like this "leftist car" thing was never, ever true for the brand. And if it was sales would have been 0 for the past six years or so, but there are an endless rank of daytraders and crypto bros who need their Teslas.
> And of the people I know with Teslas, zero of them are "green, left-leaning" buyers.
White petit bourgeois center-right corporate capitalist Democrats that engage in environmental virtue signalling are “left-leaning”, if you view things from sufficiently far to the right.
The benefits of QUIC / HTTP/3 have been extremely well defined as-
-higher latency connections.
-packet loss under multiplexing scenarios / suboptimal connections (e.g. mobile).
These are the situations where it shines and runs away from HTTP/2. And this has been the promised advantage from the outset, and is literally the problem it is designed to solve.
Given that the linked paper mentions the word latency once in an irrelevant context, I think that's telling. Of course there is no advantage -- and in fact is an expected disadvantage -- when your client and server are 0ms from each other with 0% packet loss. Now put them 100ms from each other with 5% packet loss/reordering/retransmission and multiplexing.
It is bad packet loss, but is the sort of situations that people often find themselves in. Congestion, bad connections (which is a lot of mobile scenarios), satellite comms, and the like and it's a reality.
It's interesting how people often say HTTP/3 only benefits the megas like Google. A few years back I worked on a data centric system (fund administration) where we had a single centralized server cluster serving high value users across the globe. Because of the integration and real-time nature of the data, it wasn't possible to replicate to servers around the world, nor was local (relative to the user) caching of much value at all.
QUIC (which became HTTP/3) proved a significant improvement for users of the system. Users in the UK, Singapore, Australia, Germany, California, and so on, were all using a system in Toronto basically transparently, with great usability. That it was continents away suddenly didn't matter.
> These are the situations where it shines and runs away from HTTP/2. And this has been the promised advantage from the outset, and is literally the problem it is designed to solve.
And yet it's somehow being pushed as a be-all solve-all replacement despite this:
--- start quote ---
We experimentally demonstrate that QUIC’s performance degradation affects not only bulk file transfers but also other applications including video content delivery and web browsing, despite their intermittent traffic patterns. QUIC incurs a video bitrate reduction of up to 9.8% compared to HTTP/2 when delivering DASH (Sodagar, 2011) video chunks over high-speed Ethernet and 5G. Again, such QoE degradation only exhibits when the underlying bandwidth is sufficiently high. For example, the impact is hidden over 4G but unleashed over 5G. QUIC’s page load time (PLT) is 3.0% longer than HTTP/2’s, averaged across 100 representative websites, with a long tail of page load time gaps over 50%.
--- end quote ---
Latency is all good ... until latency isn't the only thing affecting the performance
> Of course there is no advantage -- and in fact is an expected disadvantage -- when your client and server are 0ms from each other with 0% packet loss. Now put them 100ms from each other with 5% packet loss/reordering/retransmission and multiplexing.
Indeed, why not claim something that article never claimed and then claim moral superiority for yourself. Nowhere in the article do authors claim to have servers 0ms from each other with 0 packet loss.
Additionally, if your performance degrades even in these ideal conditions, what does this promise for non-ideal conditions?
>And yet it's somehow being pushed as a be-all solve-all replacement
But it isn't a be-all solve-all replacement. The whole point of HTTP/3 is that you can still use HTTP/2 all you want in your build-outs, and it uses as appropriate. If large file, many packet, high speed sustained performance is your thing and you've got problems with HTTP/3, deploy it on an HTTP/2 server. Go nuts. Positively nothing will go awry. Everything will be fine.
You're arguing a strawman.
>Additionally, if your performance degrades even in these ideal conditions, what does this promise for non-ideal conditions?
This is an absolutely nonsensical statement. HTTP/3 is quite literally built for situations where you have many small requests, often in suboptimal situations. The average web user interacting with an average web page over something other than their local ethernet connection, exchanging tens of thousands of back and forths for different resources and navigations and posts. Screeching, with moral superiority I might add, that if it pins the CPU using their oddball no-name server -- oh, and where they bizarrely forced the HTTP/3 server to use HTTP/2 congestion control because that made the results funner -- with their client machine with a CPU 1/4 the performance of my smartphone, downloading a many GB file, isn't the big win you seem to think it is.
> If large file, many packet, high speed sustained performance is your thing and you've got problems with HTTP/3, deploy it on an HTTP/2 server.
Ah yes. Basically back to some links I discussed. Oh, it's amazing but you have to be careful what you deploy, and when, and you have to switch between HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 for some unspecified criteria which may or may not be better in one or another while the article we're in comments to decries "why oh why so few implement HTTP/3"
> HTTP/3 is quite literally built for situations where you have many small requests, often in suboptimal situations.
Google doesn't particularly care if you use HTTP/3. They don't even build it into the tools they build like Go or Dart, at least not in a timely manner. There was a passing bit of technical notes for RFCs and as they added it in Chromium, but otherwise they've been remarkably silent about it.
Yet they moved trillions of web requests to HTTP/3. Maybe they really don't know what they're doing. Cloudflare also clearly hasn't the slightest, right? Fools!
>while the article we're in comments to decries
HTTP/3 is complex to implement. Very complex. It's pretty simple to understand why it hasn't seen wide implementation in every random tool. And for many people HTTP/2 is fine, especially as you're probably just going to drop Cloudflare (which has HTTP/3) with caching in front of it anyways.
The immune system is a complex, only partly understood system, and there isn't a single unifying solution to all of its edges. Broad understandings don't necessarily translate to individual cases.
At some point your immune system faced an adversary and conquered it, but one of the signatures it learned from the enemy encounter unfortunately also matches some molecular component of eggs. There is evidence that some people come out of norovirus infection with an egg allergy, for instance. Similar to how a bite from a lone-star tick can give you a meat allergy.
All sorts of auto-immune diseases can be kicked off by relatively benign things, and often we might never discover the cause. Our immune system learned the heuristics of something, but it's too broad so ends up looking too much like our thyroid glands, nerve myelin, pancreas, etc.
Maybe one day we'll be able to enum all of the signatures an immune system has learned and delete some of them.
I have a Brother multifunction colour inkjet (MFC-J995DW). I generally only printed in B&W on the very rare occasion I printed, so when a colour ran out (usually because one of my children errantly printed some giant colour thing) it was perfectly happy to keep printing black content using the giant, very full black cartridge.
A recent (as in the past two years) update removed that benefit. Now it fully refuses to function in any capacity if a colour cartridge is out. It won't let me print fully-black content, and it won't even let me scan.
Companies churn through people constantly. Google famously has an employee tenure of like a year[1]. Most companies that subscribe to the Jack Welch "fire your bottom 10% yearly" philosophy don't usually declare a media stock-pump "layoff" but are just letting go of purported non-performers constantly. And there are a lot of "top 10%" performers who are very happy that the so-called deadweight isn't kept around just for some foolish notion of "loyalty".
Sometimes layoffs are unfair, and sometimes the wrong people are let go. But often it's entirely necessary and the right people are let go.
[1] - Which makes the whole gruelling, multi-month hiring process positively ridiculous. It would be much better for this industry if companies hire fast and fire fast, instead of delusions that they're finding the magical employee base that will be with them forever.
The Google tenure stat is misleading because it was taken at a time when the company was growing 20% per year. The actual statistic worth looking at was how long a person who is leaving had been with the company on average at the time of leaving or what percentage of the overall headcount leaves per year. While I don't feel comfortable sharing those numbers, I can confidently say they lower than the industry norm.
The industry norm is incredibly short tenures, and often when it starts increasing, it's paradoxically when the company is on the track towards complacency and eventual failure.
This isn't some Google specific thing. The cargo cult "look at our super exhaustive, endlessly demanding hiring process" is a farce everywhere. It's actually a bit paradoxical because it actually selects for employees who don't want to actually stay with you, they just want to be able to say they were willing to endure your gauntlet.
I’ve worked in places where people stuck around for years because they believed in the company and technology and wanted to successfully ship a product. In fact, I still view repeated 18-month stints as a bit of a red flag.
It’s a big industry. There’s a difference between a norm and something that a sizable subset of people do.
I think if you look at companies like Citadel, which routinely fire the bottom 10% as part of the job description, it attracts a certain set of people who actually do feel "safe" in that environment. The trouble comes when you break your norms about layoffs.
Also, Google's median tenure of <1 year was due to hiring, not employees leaving. In other words, that number included people who hadn't left yet. I think if you look at people leaving Google, average is about 3 years.
>Also, Google's median tenure of <1 year was due to hiring, not employees leaving
Google would have to be growing at >300% per year for this math to make sense.
But even if it's 3 years ({X} doubt), that's still cartoonishly low for a hiring process that drags on for months and months.
>I think if you look at companies like Citadel, which routinely fire the bottom 10% as part of the job description
Almost all tech companies target firing/pushing out a considerable percentage of employees per year. It actually is incredibly common, even if it usually doesn't make the news. They used to do it overtly via stack ranking, but now they just do it more quietly. Microsoft punted 2000 "low performers" in the first two months. Brutal firings with zero severance, immediate cancellation of health coverage, etc.
Just to do the math for you, a 1 year average tenure would be a doubling of company size per year without any attrition, not a 300% increase. Google "exponential distribution." With attrition, you get there pretty fast. Also, the statistic you quoted comes from ~2012 IIRC, which was a period of explosive growth at Google.
> Almost all tech companies target firing/pushing out a considerable percentage of employees per year.
Not firing, but managing out. It's very different culturally.
>just to do the math for you, a 1 year average tenure would be
The guy I replied to did say median tenure (where I was talking about mean or average tenure), so relative to a median tenure sure, doubling the staff would do that.
But you said average, in which case no that isn't true. Google is a 26 year old company. If you randomly distributed tenures across a hypothetical employee base (1-26 years), it would take something like 1200% growth to get the average tenure under 2 years. And of course Google's actual employee count growth rate over the past decade and a half is more in the range of 12%, so a couple of factors off for that.
Even when people say the average tenure is 3 -- doubtful -- that still requires an insane level of turnover for a company growing so slowly, relatively, and being so old.
The first Trump admin was positively benign and adult compared to the current one. The first Trump admin had significant checks and balances on its behaviours.
And of course almost everyone who served in that first Trump admin campaigned against/warned about Trump this time, which should be telling. Or maybe they're just "RINOs" or something.
"As much as it's trendy in 2025 to talk about this admin as though it's entirely unprincipled"
This administration is extraordinarily unprincipled and self-serving. The DOJ as a tool for use at the leisure and to the benefit of the president/king is blatantly in the open[1].
"Google's not getting out of this from just a small amount of kowtowing now"
I would bet real money they absolutely will get out from this. Not only that they will get out from it, they'll get the public "treated unfairly" speech as well.
[1] - There is a major plot point in the 1993 movie The Pelican Brief where the simple insinuation that the president influenced the DOJ in any way would be so politically devastating that it would destroy his administration. This is so quaint now. How far the country has fallen.
You are being downvoted, but people surely realize this is 100% true, right? Not only is it 100% true, it is inevitably going to be the outcome. Google will not have to divest Chrome.
Sundar just has to pay the $5M to have dinner at Mara Lago and the next day Trump will be talking about how unfairly Google has been treated, probably blaming China or Canada or something for this DOJ action, and the DOJ will drop the remedy. Probably will fire some employees for daring to pursue this while they're at it.
Whichever oligarch or ruling class ultra-rich whispers in Trump's ear last gets the full force of government for their cause.
Like, surely everyone knows this is absolutely how your banana-republic, profoundly corrupt government works now, right? At least be honest about it.
This is way beyond the point of diminishing returns. There are some edge situations that people will cite, but for the vast, vast majority of users, none of the cellular data improvements over the past half decade have made an iota of difference.
She didn't sneak into the US and get caught walking through the desert. She didn't overstay an expired visa. She did what she was legally required to do and presented herself at a lawful border crossing to apply for the necessary visa. And for those who note that she previously had been refused the same visa, by her story the conditions of her visa had changed leading to a new, unrelated application, which again is how it is supposed to work.
And when they refuse that visa, thus denying entry, they say "sorry, you can't come in" and you have to go back to where you came from, which in this case was Mexico. Even if she flew in on an international flight and they refused entry they would make her stay in the international terminal (which is technically not "in" country) until a flight out happens.
That she was quite literally arrested on some unknown pretence is bizarre, and seems like the "feed the private prison" ploy.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/music/article-canadian-...
Of course police in the US are now demanding that Canadians answer the question "Canada or the United States", so zero Canadians should be travelling in that country. Law has broken down into some bizarre, hyper-partisan charade, and the end result is going to be civil war.
reply