nomilk

My Cloudflare solver is command + w. It's 100% reliable in a headful browser and occasionally results in finding an alternative site that doesn't place its priorities (denying bots) over the user's (judicious use of time).

Chrome extensions do the same thing, but worse (the warnings make it sound like the creator of the extension is going to see every page you visit, when really it's code that runs in the browser; it doesn't take html or any other data anywhere)

Measuring the size of the heist in USD is convenient but arbitrary, as what was stolen was predominantly Stablecoins, BTC and ETH. So it makes more sense to measure the heist in Stablecoins, BTC and ETH. But that doesn't create as exciting a headline, as the BTC component was almost 50x smaller than the Mt. Gox heist!

Interestingly, this 18,270 BTC Binance theft is only "the largest crypto theft on record" when measured in USD. In terms of pure BTC, it's not even close to the 2011-14 Mt. Gox loss of ~850,000 BTC!

> the largest crypto theft on record

Interestingly, this 18,270 BTC Binance theft is only the largest when measured in USD. In terms of pure BTC, it's not even close to the 2011-14 Mt. Gox loss of ~850,000 BTC.

He said the same of the stylus during the iPhone launch, but it eventually came to life (just in a much more specific setting/use case)

The original question was why do people take issue with the US enforcing its immigration laws, but not with other countries enforcing theirs (when the laws are approximately the same).

Your point is that immigration laws don't sufficiently take into account an illegal migrant's economic status (i.e. make reasonable accommodations for those in poverty or desperate circumstances), which is a totally fair perspective.

But that doesn't affect OP's initial question/observation, since countries other than the US also apply their rules uniformly, which disproportionately affects the poor.

> the United States has spent a long time having a tacit policy of only partially enforcing its immigration laws

This seems relevant. In other policy areas (unrelated to immigration), there's the concept of gradual change, or a 'glide path'. For example, when raising prices on things like licences or levies, sometimes governments do it gradually over a number of years. Another example: when something is banned, the ban is not enforced immediately but intermediate steps are taken to ensure the public can adjust. By contrast, the transition from immigration rules being unenforced to enforced seems to have been sudden.

The primary problem others have with ICE is thuggish enforcement and lack of accountability, especially when reckless.

But your problem seems to be a combination of the wealthy having an easier time accessing the US (agree, but many countries have purchasable visas), and poor illegal immigrants having no other option (partially agree, but not all illegal immigrants are poor, and many who are do have alternative places they could go legally).

This seems like an obvious and workable solution. Could it be being blocked by something - perhaps unions representing local workers? (only guessing)

Snideness aside, your argument is that laws ought not apply to someone who is poor.

That's sometimes reasonable - e.g. the apocryphal loaf of bread being stolen to feed a starving family. But it's not a universal defence. And not all illegals are poor in the first place.

Got it. So distain is more for ICE's thuggish approach than the laws/consequences themselves.

To play devil's advocate for the heavy handedness and harsh detentions, Australia had a problem with 'boat people' in the 2000's, and subsequently built a massive detention centre on a island, meaning those intercepted never made mainland. The heat was oppressive, processing times were usually measured in years, and illegal arrivals were mostly sent back to where they came from.

But.. the illegal arrivals basically entirely stopped. So although it was harsh (including on a lot of legitimate refugees), it did force entry via legal channels (of which Australia has historically had many).

Helping refugees makes sense, but should existing laws be changed or broken? (there's a big difference). It feels like many smart people are advocating the latter, which appears at odds with their behaviour and attitudes in most other domains (i.e. law abiding). Also, what makes refugees specifically the US's responsibility? E.g. verifying, processing and integrating refugees puts strain on domestic systems, and strain scales with volume.