Very urban focused of course given the site and there's nothing wrong with an urban focus for EVs.
EVs as they are being pushed on us are made for cities. Outside of a dense urban area, EVs without a gas/diesel powered charger (aka hybrid) are much less useful, but I do not want to see charging stations everywhere either.
Kinetic recovery is great, but as there are orders of magnitude less braking required driving outside of cities, the recovered energy is also much less, and the brake dust generated is also much less. Also there are far fewer cars per mile of road (let alone size of the area) and any brake dust pollution is spread over a much wider area.
Many of the negative pollution issues associated with cars are due to excessive density in urban areas, the added amount of braking, the added idling, and the extra acceleration repeatedly required in a city with a stop light every block.
I also use a tiered strategy and FIXME for things that really need to be fixed or I have a solid idea what the next step would be to fixing it.
TODOs are something less solid than a FIXME and are also just about getting it out of your head so you can devote more mental energy to something else or just relax.
Maybe the idea is not fully formed yet, maybe you are not sure you really want to do it, maybe it is waiting on something else, but it needs to be captured or you will have to keep thinking about it lest you forget.
As soon as I write down a TODO (code or other) that was only in my head, I can relax a little more, because now it's captured for future reference.
Datasets are created to be used. Once created they will eventually likely be used for purposes other than the original intention. Depending on the power dynamics in play this may be more or less likely.
There are many many such cases and they are obviously not limited to the current regime. Governments will collect all the data they are permitted to collect without a harsh public response, and they will always have a 'good' reason -- just ask them! After all it's for your own good!
Datasets with personal data create a target for crime and for abuses. The problem is these datasets exist at all, thereby reducing humans to numbers. People are not resources and not material not matter what HR says. Reducing people to numbers is to reduce them to something less than they are -- no dataset (model trained on it) captures everything.
We need real privacy laws not the ridiculous current situation. There should be clear consent required without coercion for any data collection -- a necessarily very high bar.
Unauthorized collection of personal data (i.e. without explicit consent not tied to any benefit bait) should be a federal crime and the organizational leadership should always be held to account. That and that alone will curtail future abuses. Otherwise we are just always complaining after the fact and it will keep happening.
That said, good luck getting any government in this world to go along without a revolution.
Seems more like a scoreboard -- this may have the opposite effect the creators intended? The top 10 virus lists published by some vendors became that for virus writers.
Any suggestions to change that perception? My goal is to educate how significant the impact is right now with these detainments & deportations, especially on people with zero criminal history.
I'm an experienced activist and if this was my issue area I would be heartened to see this kind of work.
As a non-expert who cares about this issue, the "criminal/other" split is very clear and was the first thing I looked for.
This is very counter to the administration narrative that our country is teeming with foreign gang members, and it is presented in a chill, non-shrill, high credibility way. That's very helpful!
Some more explanation or breakdown on what types of "other" violations dominate (e.g. are these all just overstays?) might be nice, but the point is still well made. I would also like to see what percentage were felony charges/convictions if there's a significant percentage of misdemeanors.
I expect with the recent ICE funding boost and the hiring spree they're about to go on, the "criminal"/"other" ratio going to plummet as ICE climbs the s-curve. It will be very useful to have a live measure of that as it happens.
One meta point: I'm always shocked at how rare it is, for issues that are current and important in the public discourse, that someone makes a technically and visually competent, single-purpose website contributing to the debate. I have seen them to be extremely valuable on campaigns I've worked on, such as the campaign to stop the SOPA/PIPA site-blocking bills in 2011/2012, but it's so rare anyone makes one. Thank you for creating an exception to a generally disappointing rule!
Really appreciate these kind words, will take them to heart. I actually recently completed my PhD, and my research was in getting this kind of data for public health & building these kinds of dashboards for vaccine hesitancy from social media. I’ve always felt it’s important to present this stuff super clearly, so I’m happy to have a chance to do so on a seriously important topic like this.
Maybe it's just me, but the words, "Other Immigration Violator" rubbed me the wrong way. I see it's a term from the source data and ICE describes the category as, "Other immigration violators are individuals without any known criminal convictions or pending charges in ICE's system of record at the time of the enforcement action."
ICE alleges these people have violated the civil code so calling them "violators" assumes guilt and comes across as inflammatory. Something like like "No Criminal Status" would be accurate and more neutral.
Personally, I'd call them "Productive Members of Society The Rest of Us Depend On."
Great feedback, will work on improving the language for these categories. I agree that ICE has chosen pretty inflammatory names for these otherwise presumptively innocent detainees
You don't find it ironic at all to call the names ICE has chosen 'inflammatory', while you're here brainstorming with multiple people trying to come up with the perfect terminology, phrases, graphs to include vs not include, even the perfect colors to use in order to best impart your political ideology onto the reader?
I don’t. The data is published with a strong political bias which is morally antithetical to our legal system. The point of publishing in this way is to shed light on the human cost rather than the dehumanized political speech currently embedded within it.
Like it or not, this data is highly political. You can’t correctly interpret it in a vacuum.
You already calculate the economic impact of the loss of workers, you could reframe the detention rates based on that. Any way to obviously state, “more is worse,” is a good start.
One other suggestion would be to include, somewhere, an image or oral account of detention conditions.
You could collect oral accounts and invite people to submit them.
From the grapevine (and this makes sense because they're pushing into new numerical territory, and also don't care at all) the conditions are very crowded / harsh. You could also include accounts from family members about the kafkaesque absence of information, e.g. It's good to make the point that almost every number in this chart is a human, and a family and circle of friends, who harmed no one and is being severely harmed.
Maybe the economic impact to the top as a single line? Many people are single issue economics voters so make it clear how much this is hurting the economy. The human rights abuses are unfortunately irrelevant to many.
Also loans forgiven would be nice to see since ICE signups now get a $10K reduction. Not a large number but more to make a point.
I actually think this highlights an important point: the majority of "criminals" in the statistics are likely not to be criminals in any serious sense, and would pose no serious harm to any community whatsoever. After all, the US is a notorious over-incarcerator, and crimes are selectively enforced to keep the underclass in place (you may recall after all that the richest man in the country is an illegal immigrant).
This also underplays the current cruelty of the US system, far out of proportion with any proper policing of immigration (which obviously reasonable people can argue about). So, I don't think you're wrong exactly, and you can play the victim if you want ("I know I will be downvoted", sad violin).
Agree heavily with this. I will be adding more stats on this soon, but you can see on the map chart at the bottom that these detainees are overwhelmingly categorized (by ICE) as low or no threat level, even those convicted of minor offenses & misdemeanors. Very few are “Threat Level 1”, which are the “violent” offenders we hear so much about.
You're downvoted because you're wrong. Illegal entry can be a crime, but that's far from the only way to there the country without legal status, and last I knew visa overstays were the most common immigration violation.
Yeah just CSS color swap the gains and losses to match fidelity or your preferred broker’s website. Seeing a bold green 175% gain in 6 months would make my lizard brain instinctively say “Hell Yeah!” before I even processed what I was reading.
Yea we are talking about politicians who proudly tweet about ruining people’s lives and tearing apart families, and their voting base cheering this on. There is no wording that you can use to turn this into a negative for these irredeemable people.
> we are talking about politicians who proudly tweet about ruining people’s lives and tearing apart families, and their voting base cheering this on. There is no wording that you can use to turn this into a negative for these irredeemable people.
I am so tired of this kind of inflammatory rhetoric. Can we please remember that the people who are being deported did, in fact, break the law? While I have empathy for people who want nothing more than to be productive citizens in the USA, there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. If you did it the wrong way, you're subject to deportation. That's just how it goes. More than anything, I'm profoundly embarrassed that our politicians have allowed the situation to get this bad.
While I don't support all of the methods the current administration is using, do not support using immigration for weaponizing speech, and certainly wish we had a saner system of immigration, characterizing "enforcing our immigration laws" as some kind of "irredeemable" act is just...beyond the pale. It is not irredeemable to enforce laws.
I have friends who have been waiting for years to get a green card, in large part because of the consequences of years of our de facto open border situation, which have jammed the courts with "refugees" who knew that it was easier to enter the country and claim asylum than wait in line for legal immigration channels.
Edit: I have been respectful and polite in this comment, but it has now been flagged down twice (EDIT: three times). Those of you who abuse the flagging system to censor speech you do not like should be ashamed of yourselves.
> I am tired of people ignoring the US Condition. And in this context, rejecting the Due Process clause. Due Process us for all that enter the USA!
Also tired of this rhetoric. Due process is the process that is due, nothing more. It has been -- will can continue be -- redefined by the government to execute laws.
Again, I don't support everything the current administration is doing, nor do I assert that everything they are doing is legal. But that will ultimately be decided by the due process of law, which is what the term means.
Given that there are a great many trials underway concerning these questions, I am not concerned that the due process of law has disappeared.
Many of the people being rounded up did in fact come here using legal methods: the asylum process, Temporary Protected Status (which is being arbitrarily revoked). And that's not counting people with even more established credentials, like work visas, student visas, green cards.
One thing that has been helpful for me in understanding immigration is to think of this as a case where the law (an aggregation of what the public over the past several decades thinks it wants) is in conflict with what the public actually wants, as expressed by its interpersonal and economic decisions.
Americans are overall extremely happy to transact with, socialize with, be neighbors with, have children with, and educate the children of undocumented immigrants. This strong expression of what we really want (in our actual decisions) creates a powerful incentive pulling people here. Put differently, if a majority of Americans hated undocumented immigrants, impeded them at every turn, and boycotted their labor and the services of businesses that hired them, the number of people who come here would be very different.
In an analogy to tech policy, when you ask the average voter "should people have access to private communication tools that are private even against legitimate warrants under the rule of law, even in cases of serious crimes or terrorism" everyone says "no!" But if you ask them, would you like an app where your own messages are private, many people choose that app, and many engineers and major publicly traded companies choose to build such apps.
We explicitly run a society that uses multiple dueling measures of what people want, the main ones being the will of voters and peoples' choices in the marketplace. Immigration is one place where those two measures collide, and here we are.
As a result, I think it's insufficient to simply point to the law. Maybe the laws are wrong. If we have a strong signal that this is true (in this case the economic and social reality of broad acceptance and integration of undocumented immigrants) we should be especially cautious to be reasonable in how we enforce the laws. This is an important principle in freedom-based societies.
I actually agree with most of what you said, up until the last paragraph. Specifically this part:
> If we have a strong signal that this is true (in this case the economic and social reality of broad acceptance and integration of undocumented immigrants) we should be especially cautious to be reasonable in how we enforce the laws.
Maybe the laws are wrong -- and I disagree with many! -- but street protests and loud people on social media are not sufficient proof that we should abandon enforcement. Consider, for example, that you might be surrounded by a bubble of opinion that matches your own, while ignoring the opinion of a larger group of people who disagree with you. Or (similar to my own case), there are a large number of people who disagree who simply keep quiet, most of the time, because they don't want to be insulted, or worse.
If you don't like the laws, you can try to elect people who will change them, influence their behavior via legal speech, etc. But if your favored people don't get elected, or they otherwise ignore you, that's tough beans. We live in a republic.
The comment you originally responded to was calling out cheerful cruelty, and in response, you gave a lukewarm "I don't support all of the methods the current administration is using" in the midst of a comment otherwise defending the current administration. Consider the meaning of the phrase "praising with faint damns". Also consider that much of what the current administration is doing has nothing to do with laws, and has repeatedly targeted people who have broken no law and in fact did everything entirely legally.
You quoted the entirety of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44553357 apart from the "Yea" and the period at the end, and then provided a spirited defense on behalf of the current administration, suggesting that everything's largely fine if only people would just stop breaking the law, and complaining about people who call the current administration irredeemable. You then acted surprised and annoyed that your "respectful and polite" comment was downvoted and tried to shame people for flagging it. Won't someone think of the poor beleaguered right-wing politicians who are just enforcing the law, and get called cruel and irredeemable for it?
Respectfully and politely: you are completely failing to appreciate or acknowledge the situation, and doing so helps enable the abuses that are taking place. To give a parallel example, you'd get a comparable response if you said "police only kill criminals, with a few high-profile cause celebrè exceptions; people should just stop breaking the law".
Many years ago I used to believe in the narrative of the "right way" to immigrate to the US. However after learning a lot more about the immigration process and the history of immigration in this country, I've learned that the "right way" has extremely high arbitrary barriers that are intended to keep some people out who come from some countries while allowing more from others. This is the quota system.
IMO this is a flawed application for immigration policy because it can cause some people who go the "right way" years to get through the system with one or two minor mishaps meaning you jeopardize your chance of becoming a citizen. It really shouldn't be that hard to become a citizen of this country. Immigration reform has been long discussed as the only solution to this problem, but Republican lawmakers have decided this is too good of a wedge issue to ever fully fix the problem.
So, yes, while I agree with you on the surface, where I disagree with you and this argument is that it papers over the extremely hostile, dated and ineffective policy that has largely been the source of problems for Immigration for decades that lawmakers don't seem to want to solve because it benefits their campaigns.
Being undocumented in the US is a misdemeanor. How does that justify the dehumanizing rhetoric on the right, the escalating and illegal tactics ICE is employing, and the creation of literal concentration camps?
Part of the issue is that this has gone on for so long that to make any meaningful difference there needs to be a large amount of deportations in a short amount of time.
I wish we had kept up Obamas numbers instead of slacking between here and then.
> characterizing "enforcing our immigration laws" as some kind of "irredeemable" act is just...beyond the pale. It is not irredeemable to enforce laws.
Setting aside the other aspects, this misses the point, in my opinion. The irredeemable part is their pride and glee in the unfortunate effects of their “enforcing our immigration laws.” Joking about alligators getting detainees, filming in their Salvadoran gulag, the “deportation ASMR” video, etc. If they were decent people who were “only” enforcing the laws, they would at least do it quietly without all the cruel grandstanding for their fans.
His is not the only case, but is certainly a very obvious one - and that is what people are reacting too. Along with the rhetoric from the current administration that makes it plainly obvious that actual illegal behavior is neither required, not even necessarily desired, to deport someone.
The very public behavior and words of the current administration is extremely unhinged on this topic, and appears to have nothing to do with actual purposes you’re claiming it does.
You might want to re-read your comment again, because you definitely explicitly said that people being deported were being deported because they did something illegal. Full Stop.
I provided two high profile and clear examples where that is either 1) unlikely, or 2) definitely not the case, and actually absurd in context, because she is a born US citizen, and the threats the US President is leveling at her are clearly not even close to legal.
Which you continue to ignore. And which even appear to be headline examples the administration is not only creating, but persisting in making very public.
In that context, how can anyone reasonably assume that the other, less high profile, cases are being done ‘correctly’?
Fixating on a specific example that has become a cause celèbre is not a counterargument to what I said.
Even in the Garcia case, there's no dispute that the man is/was here illegally. Everything revolves around a secondary debate regarding the temporary suspension of deportation.
“He gained legal permission to remain in the United States and established a life here. But in March of 2025, Mr. Abrego Garcia would find himself unlawfully deported and detained in a Salvadoran prison with the very gang members he had fled.” [https://www.gwlr.org/kilmar-abrego-garcia/]
A Immigration Judge had reviewed his situation and given him protected status. Which the Trump admin willfully ignored.
I’m not focusing on a specific example to hide the truth - I’m focusing on a clear, very public, example where the Trump admin itself is making a clear example that they’ll do everything in their (significant) power to do exactly what you are saying they won’t be doing.
So we both agree, he was deported while he was here legally.
And notably, the reason the gov’t has been giving for doing that deportation appears to not be the original illegal immigration offense you seem to think it is - but an apparently purely fictitious claim that he was in MS-13 (including a doctored photo of tattoos presented by Trump).
So to repeat, it seems quite obvious that ICE didn’t deport him because he was here illegally in the past (a Judge had prevented that previously), that he was here legally when he was deported (on a Immigration Judge’s orders even), and that the evidence presented as to why he was a member of MS-13 was clearly faked - but still presented as the truth by the President himself to the public. Ala ‘Iraq WMD’.
And the second example is the President threatening to make a born and raised US citizen stateless and ‘deport them’, which is also blatantly illegal eh? Constitutionally, that isn’t even supposed to be a thing.
The LACK of concern here is what appears to be unjustified. Are there probably completely normal and legally justified deportations still going on? I certainly hope so! But the concern here is that the President (ICE’s boss) is sending a very clear message that it is not only not required, but apparently undesirable, that these deportations be legal.
Agree with this 100 percent and to add further part of the reason this wasn’t dealt with is because people on both sides of the aisle know that it brings cheap labor.
Heck, even Trump wanted to make farm and hotel workers exempt until there was too much blow back.
Every other country enforces its immigration laws. There’s no good reason that we shouldn’t.
I put it in quotes, because one can claim asylum, while not actually being a refugee. And a great many people have done exactly that, knowing that it essentially guaranteed them to be released into the USA pending a trial years in the future.
In case you were wondering, this is a large part of why it takes years to get a review for something like a green card application.
Independently of political opinion, I believe your edit and anger at downvotes are due to misunderstanding the etiquette of the forum. Forum moderators have repeatedly described the culture here as "downvote without a comment is a perfectly fine way to express disagreement, but of course it would be better if you also comment".
Keep manually refreshing that AS400 screen! In the late 90s while I was in college, for a while I had a graveyard shift job running backups and printing shipping labels at a large retailer and most of the work was done on an AS400 and also SCO UNIX before they became a zombie copyright troll.
While I did get to use a Vic20 in school I did not have a c64 but my friend did. At home I had an Apple IIe (which I still have) and it was great but boy was I jealous of all those color C64 games and also the modem they had for it! I didn't get a modem until I switched to a PC in 1989.
Someone broke into my house and stole my Vic20 and tape deck; we used the insurance money to buy a C64 and disc drive. At the time it was very tramatic, but turned out to be a big blessing!
EVs as they are being pushed on us are made for cities. Outside of a dense urban area, EVs without a gas/diesel powered charger (aka hybrid) are much less useful, but I do not want to see charging stations everywhere either.
Kinetic recovery is great, but as there are orders of magnitude less braking required driving outside of cities, the recovered energy is also much less, and the brake dust generated is also much less. Also there are far fewer cars per mile of road (let alone size of the area) and any brake dust pollution is spread over a much wider area.
Many of the negative pollution issues associated with cars are due to excessive density in urban areas, the added amount of braking, the added idling, and the extra acceleration repeatedly required in a city with a stop light every block.
reply