Canada's spending on housing and healthcare for asylum claimants is OUT OF CONTROL‼️ $3.9m a day, and that's just the federal government's cost. > Total cost: up 7.4× in six years. > Last year alone: up 67%, from $850M to $1.42B. > Health care: up 5.5×, from $162M to $897M, and 52% in a single year The PBO projects the health program alone will pass $1.5 billion a year by 2029-30. It doesn't account for the social assistance, schooling, healthcare and legal aid that provinces pay for. Oh and it doesn't account for the $1B+ taxpayers paid for their hotels.

How I’m gonna feel driving the new Tesla Roadster when Danger Zone starts playing

My dear American friends, in my last post I showed you a number that should terrify you: 70% of Millennials say they're pro-socialist. Today I want to show you why. Not with emotion. With pure logic. Step by step, A plus B, until the conclusion is impossible to escape. Adults, this one is for you. Read it, then explain it to the young people in your life. Start with Peter Thiel. Years ago he summed up our era in one line: we wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters. His thesis is that since the early 1970s, the world of bits has kept racing forward while the world of atoms has stalled. Computers, phones, software, the internet: incredible progress. Housing, energy, transportation, medicine, education: stuck. We build almost nothing physical faster or cheaper than our grandparents did. Why would progress stop in some places and not others? Same country, same people, same capitalism. The only thing that differs is how much the state is involved. Here is the proof. Step one: look at prices. Since 2000, in America, the price of TVs has fallen by more than 90%. Software, phones, toys, clothing: cheaper and better every year. Over the same period, college tuition, hospital services, childcare and housing have more than doubled. Step two: look at which is which. The goods getting cheaper are the ones where companies compete freely and the state mostly stays out. The goods exploding in price are the ones where the state regulates the most, subsidizes the most, or controls who is allowed to sell. Step three: look at what young people complain about. They don't complain about TVs. They complain about rent, student debt and healthcare. Exactly the three sectors the state controls the most. That's not a coincidence. That's a pattern. Let's go one by one. Housing. In many American cities, most residential land is zoned for single-family homes only. Building an apartment building can take years of permits, hearings, environmental reviews and lawsuits from neighbors. When you make it nearly illegal to build, supply can't keep up, and prices go up. The young don't have a capitalism problem. They have a permission problem. Education. Washington hands out loans without asking whether the degree is worth it, so universities raise prices because they can. The money doesn't go to better teaching. It goes to layers of administrators that have grown faster than the faculty. And the accreditation system makes it extremely hard for a new, cheaper school to compete. The incumbents are protected. The students pay. Healthcare. In many states, if you want to open a new hospital or even buy a new MRI machine, you need a "certificate of need," permission from a board where your future competitors often have a say. The number of residency slots that train new doctors is effectively capped by Medicare funding. Getting a new drug approved costs billions. Every rule adds a layer. Every layer adds a cost. Every cost lands on the patient. Energy. America built dozens of nuclear reactors in the 1970s. Since then, only a handful, years late and billions over budget. Not because physics changed. Because the rulebook did. Now step four, the most important one. Who benefits from all these layers? Not the young. Not the poor. The incumbents. The big hospital systems, the big universities, the big developers, the big pharma companies, the big unions. Every complex regulation is a wall that only the giants can afford to climb. So they lobby for more of it. They fund the politicians who write it. They hire the regulators when they leave office. That's not capitalism. That's cronyism. Capitalism is a newcomer allowed to compete. Cronyism is an incumbent paying the state to stop him. Step five: so what do young people see? They see prices going up, a system rigged for insiders, and no way to build anything for themselves. Their anger is legitimate. Their diagnosis is wrong. They look at the result of the state's capture and call it capitalism. Step six: and what cure are they offered? Socialism. Which means giving the state even more power over housing, education, healthcare, energy. Giving the keys of the house to the exact institution that locked them out of it. Follow the logic to the end. If regulation creates cronyism, then total regulation creates total cronyism. If a little state control makes things expensive, total state control makes them scarce. That's not theory. The Soviet Union had a ruling class with its own shops, cars and dachas while ordinary people stood in line for bread. Stalin's collectivization caused a famine that killed millions in Ukraine. Mao's Great Leap Forward caused a famine that killed tens of millions. Venezuela went from one of the richest countries in Latin America to a nation where millions fled. Every time the state got all the keys, the insiders ate and the people starved. So here's the conclusion, and there's no escaping it: Where entrepreneurs are free to compete, prices fall and life gets better. Where the state controls, prices rise and insiders get rich. Young people are suffering in the sectors the state controls. Socialism means handing the state everything. So socialism gives you more of the very thing that's hurting you. The enemy is not capitalism. The enemy is a state captured by insiders, blocking the builders who would solve your problems. Adults, this is your job now. Don't tell the young they're stupid. Don't tell them their anger is fake. Tell them they're right to be angry, and show them where to aim it. Ask them: what got cheaper in your lifetime, and what got more expensive? Who controls each one? Let them do the math themselves. The real counter-revolution isn't against the young. It's with them. Free the builders. Let people build homes, open schools, open clinics, build reactors. Give the next generation a stake in the system, and they'll defend it with their lives. I come from your future. We gave the state the keys. Don't make the same mistake.

Google vient d'annoncer 99,99 % de précision sur une opération quantique clé. Ça ressemble à un détail technique. C'est peut-être un des chiffres les plus importants de la décennie. Je vous explique simplement ce qu'est un ordinateur quantique, et pourquoi, couplé à l'IA, il peut déclencher une accélération bien plus violente que celle qu'on vit aujourd'hui. Tout part d'une différence de physique. Votre ordinateur, votre téléphone, les data centers qui font tourner les IA : tout repose sur des transistors. Un transistor, c'est un interrupteur. Comme une lampe : allumée ou éteinte. 1 ou 0. C'est le bit. Des milliards de petites lampes qui s'allument et s'éteignent de façon parfaitement prévisible. C'est la physique du monde macroscopique, celle qu'on a sous les yeux. Déterministe. L'ordinateur quantique, lui, exploite la physique de l'infiniment petit. Atomes, électrons, photons. Et à cette échelle, les règles changent complètement. L'unité de base n'est plus le bit, c'est le qubit. Et un qubit n'est pas obligé de choisir entre 0 et 1. Tant qu'on ne le mesure pas, il peut être dans une combinaison des deux à la fois. C'est la superposition. Et plusieurs qubits peuvent être liés entre eux, l'état de l'un dépendant de celui de l'autre. C'est l'intrication. Pourquoi ça change tout ? Parce que la puissance ne grandit pas de la même manière. Ajoutez un bit à un ordinateur classique : vous ajoutez un peu de capacité. Croissance linéaire. Ajoutez un qubit à un ordinateur quantique : vous doublez l'espace des états qu'il manipule. 2 qubits, 4 états. 10 qubits, 1 024. 50 qubits, plus d'un million de milliards. Croissance exponentielle. Autour de 50 qubits, simuler exactement la machine sur un ordinateur classique devient déjà monstrueux. À 300 qubits, le nombre d'états dépasse le nombre d'atomes dans l'univers observable. Aucun superordinateur, aujourd'hui ou jamais, ne pourra suivre. Attention à un mythe : l'ordinateur quantique ne "teste pas toutes les solutions en parallèle". Quand on le mesure, on n'obtient qu'une seule réponse. Tout l'art des algorithmes quantiques consiste à faire interférer les possibilités comme des vagues : les mauvaises réponses s'annulent, les bonnes s'amplifient. Ça ne marche que pour certains types de problèmes. Il ne fera pas tourner Excel plus vite. Mais sur ces problèmes-là, l'écart est vertigineux. Lesquels ? Le plus important : simuler la nature. Une molécule est un système quantique. La simuler sur un ordinateur classique, c'est comme essayer de décrire l'océan avec des Legos : le coût explose avec la taille. Feynman l'avait dit dès 1981 : si on veut simuler la nature, il faut une machine qui fonctionne comme elle. Concrètement : des médicaments conçus atome par atome au lieu d'être trouvés par essai-erreur. Des batteries bien plus denses. Des supraconducteurs à température ambiante. Des catalyseurs pour capter le CO2. Comprendre comment certaines bactéries fixent l'azote de l'air à température ambiante, alors que nous fabriquons nos engrais avec un procédé qui consomme de l'ordre de 1 à 2 % de l'énergie mondiale. Il y a aussi l'optimisation (logistique, finance, matériaux) et la cryptographie. Les estimations récentes disent qu'un peu moins d'un million de qubits physiques pourraient casser le chiffrement RSA-2048 qui protège une bonne partie d'internet. D'où la course à la cryptographie post-quantique, et les débats autour de Bitcoin. Alors pourquoi on ne l'a pas encore ? Parce que c'est un cauchemar d'ingénierie. Les qubits sont d'une fragilité absurde. Une vibration, une variation de température, un rayon cosmique, et l'information quantique s'effondre. C'est la décohérence. Les puces de Google doivent être refroidies à environ un centième de degré au-dessus du zéro absolu. Plus froid que l'espace. Et chaque opération a un taux d'erreur. Si chaque étape se trompe une fois sur cent, un calcul de milliers d'étapes ne produit que du bruit. La solution, c'est la correction d'erreurs : regrouper beaucoup de qubits physiques imparfaits pour fabriquer un seul qubit "logique" fiable. Mais il en faut des centaines, voire des milliers, par qubit logique. Les puces de Google en ont une centaine aujourd'hui. Il en faudra des centaines de milliers, voire des millions. C'est pour ça que le 99,99 % compte. Plus chaque opération est précise, moins il faut de qubits pour corriger les erreurs, et plus on se rapproche d'une machine vraiment utile. Maintenant, la partie qui m'intéresse le plus : le couplage avec l'IA. L'IA aide déjà à construire ces machines. Google DeepMind a entraîné un modèle, AlphaQubit, qui repère les erreurs des qubits mieux que les méthodes classiques. L'IA conçoit, calibre, corrige. Et dans l'autre sens, le quantique peut donner à l'IA ce qui lui manque le plus : des données exactes sur le réel. Aujourd'hui, l'IA apprend la chimie et la physique à partir d'approximations. Avec un ordinateur quantique, l'IA proposerait des millions de molécules candidates, la machine quantique les simulerait exactement, l'IA apprendrait de ces résultats et proposerait mieux. Une boucle de découverte qui tourne en continu. L'IA accélère la pensée. Le quantique accélère la compréhension de la matière. Ensemble, ils peuvent compresser des décennies de recherche en laboratoire en quelques années. Ce qu'on vit depuis trois ans avec l'IA, c'est l'accélération du logiciel. Le quantique, si on le craque, c'est l'accélération du monde physique : énergie, matériaux, santé. On n'y est pas encore. Mais chaque neuf supplémentaire après la virgule nous en rapproche.

Bernie Sanders says the top 1% owns more than the bottom 93%, that fewer than a thousand billionaires got $2.2 trillion richer last year, and that it's "obscene." It's the most seductive and most wrong economic argument of our time. Let me explain why. First, wealth distribution follows a power law. Always. Everywhere. Books, music, startups, followers on X, goals in soccer. A small minority captures most of the value. That's not a bug of capitalism. It's the mathematical signature of every system where value gets created. So the only question that matters isn't "how big is the rich's slice?" It's "is the cake growing, and is the slice of the poorest growing with it?" And the answer is yes. In 1990, more than one human in three lived in extreme poverty. Today it's about one in ten. During exactly the period when billionaires multiplied. Bernie shows you the slice. He never shows you the cake. Second thing he won't tell you: past a certain level, wealth stops being consumption. It becomes capital allocation. Elon Musk isn't sleeping on a pile of cash. He owns stakes in Tesla, SpaceX, xAI. Jeff Bezos owns Amazon stock. That "$2.2 trillion" isn't sitting in a checking account. It's factories, rockets, data centers, millions of jobs. Nobody can eat $100 billion. You can only decide where to invest it. Once you understand that, the whole debate changes. The real question becomes: who allocates capital better? The people who built Amazon, SpaceX and Nvidia? Or politicians? A 5% wealth tax isn't "taking money from the rich." It's taking investment decisions away from people who proved they can create value and handing them to people who proved the opposite. Because the fundamental difference between an entrepreneur and a politician is consequences. The entrepreneur invests his own money. If he allocates badly, he loses everything. The market corrects him brutally, no appeal. That's why most startups die: the system kills bad decisions. The politician invests other people's money. If he allocates badly, nothing happens. Worse, he gets a bigger budget to "fix the problem." Milton Friedman put it better than anyone. There are four ways to spend money. Your money on yourself: you care about price and quality. Your money on others: you care about price. Others' money on yourself: you care about quality. Others' money on others: you care about nothing. Government is the fourth box. By design. Perfect example: California high-speed rail. Approved in 2008 for about $33 billion. Current estimated cost: over $100 billion. Passengers carried: zero. No entrepreneur would have survived that. The politicians who pushed it built careers on it. And when allocation has no consequences, it eventually finds a buyer. A politician who controls billions without accountability becomes the most profitable target in the world for anyone who wants to steer that money. The irony is that the left that rails against billionaires is itself funded by billionaires. George Soros is one of the biggest Democratic donors in history. The Gates Foundation shapes public health policy across the planet. Politicians don't fight billionaires. They pick their own. The ones who fund the state over the ones who compete with it. So if we actually want fewer poor people, we have to stop judging ideas by their intentions and start judging them by their results. And the results are brutally clear. China, 1978: Deng Xiaoping opens the economy to markets. More than 800 million people escape extreme poverty. The largest retreat of misery in human history. Not through redistribution. Through the freedom to build. India, 1991: liberalization. Same movie. South Korea and North Korea: same people, same language, same starting point in 1953. One became one of the most advanced economies on earth. The other has famines. Poland and Ukraine: comparable living standards in 1990. Today the average Pole is more than three times richer than the average Ukrainian. Argentina: a year and a half of liberalization, and the poverty rate falls from over 50% to around 30%. No country in history escaped poverty by punishing the people who build. Every single one did it by letting them build. And if you want to see what Bernie's program looks like in real life, you don't have to imagine it. It exists. It's called France. We've been running it for 45 years. Mass nationalizations in 1981. Two years later, Socialist president Mitterrand has to reverse course into austerity. Retirement at 60. The 35-hour workweek. A wealth tax for 35 years. Hundreds of wealthy households left every year for Belgium, Switzerland, London, taking their capital, their companies and their future taxes with them. Macron finally scrapped it in 2018. Hollande's 75% tax: raised a few hundred million, drove talent out, abandoned after two years. One of the highest tax burdens in the OECD. Public spending around 57% of GDP, a record in the developed world. Last balanced budget: 1974. Public debt: over €3.4 trillion. Mass unemployment for four decades. If taxing the rich and growing the state made people prosperous, France would be the richest country on the planet. It isn't. GDP per capita in France is barely more than half of America's. It's lower than Mississippi, the poorest state in the US. Not a single global tech giant. Our best engineers build Silicon Valley instead. I've been going back and forth between Paris and San Francisco for years. I see it every week. And California is about to replay the movie. Prop 40, on the ballot November 3rd, would take 5% of billionaires' net worth. Even Gavin Newsom, a Democratic governor, opposes it. The state's own nonpartisan budget analyst warns that income tax revenue could drop every year if the wealthy leave. Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Peter Thiel have reportedly already started moving their assets out. You don't fight poverty by shrinking the top. You fight it by growing the cake. Bernie wants a society where nobody has too much. I want a society where nobody has too little. The first has been tried everywhere and produces equality in stagnation. The second lifted a billion people out of misery. Choose.

Okay this is genuinely insane. SpaceX just unveiled a satellite whose only job is to run AI. Not internet. Not GPS. Just compute, floating in orbit. It's called AI1, and the reason behind it breaks your brain. AI data centers on Earth are hitting a wall, not a chip wall, a physics wall. They need staggering amounts of power and water just to stay cool, and we're running out of grid and land to build them. So Musk's answer is: stop building them on Earth. In orbit, the sun never sets. Free power, 24/7. No water for cooling, you just radiate heat into the vacuum of space. The two things choking AI on the ground barely exist up there. And here's the wild part: Musk says it's easier to build than a Starlink satellite. Strip out the complex antennas and it's "a lot of solar cells, a radiator, and some laser links." One AI1 carries the compute of an Nvidia GB300 rack, the same hardware data centers fight over down here. AI1 is just the first one. The plan is a constellation of up to a million of them. And the timing isn't an accident, SpaceX goes public this week at a ~$1.75 trillion target. This isn't a rocket company anymore. It's positioning itself as the power grid for AI, in space. The race for AI compute just left the planet. Literally.

Elon Musk a dit que la robotique commencerait vraiment à arriver l'année prochaine. Je crois que les gens n'ont pas encore compris ce que ça veut dire. On parle beaucoup de l'IA qui remplace les tâches cognitives. Mais la vraie bascule, c'est quand l'intelligence reçoit un corps. Quand Optimus fonctionne, ce n'est pas un nouveau produit qui arrive. C'est une nouvelle primitive, comme l'électricité ou Internet : une brique de base sur laquelle tout le reste va être reconstruit. Et une primitive, ça ne s'ajoute pas au monde. Ça le réécrit. Pendant toute l'histoire de l'humanité, le facteur limitant de presque tout, c'était le labeur humain. Combien de bras, combien d'heures, combien ça coûte. Notre économie, nos villes, nos chaînes logistiques, nos États et même notre géopolitique ont été construits autour de cette contrainte. Retirez la contrainte, et tout est à repenser. Prenez la Chine. On y a externalisé une énorme partie de notre production pour une raison simple : le coût du travail. Mais si le travail devient un robot qui coûte le même prix à Lorient qu'à Shenzhen, et qui tourne 24h/24 sans pause, l'argument s'effondre. Ce qui compte alors, c'est l'énergie, la proximité, la vitesse et la résilience. On va relocaliser, pas par patriotisme, mais par simple optimisation. On verra des usines au cœur des territoires, des micro-usines au coin de la rue, des chaînes de production courtes et reconfigurables en une nuit. Ce sera une réindustrialisation qui ne ressemble à rien de ce qu'on a connu. Mais il y a un piège. Réindustrialiser par la robotique, ce n'est pas reconstruire les usines d'hier avec des robots dedans. C'est réinventer chaque système de zéro : la logistique, l'agriculture, la construction, le soin, la maintenance. Tout. Et ça, aucun ministère ne saura le planifier. Ni plan quinquennal, ni commission, ni comité de pilotage. La bureaucratie centralisée a été conçue pour gérer un monde stable. On entre dans un monde où tout bouge en permanence. Le seul modèle qui marche, c'est de redonner une latitude énorme aux entrepreneurs : de la verticalité, de la vitesse, le droit d'essayer, de rater et de recommencer. Les pays qui le comprendront vont exploser. Les autres vont regarder passer le train. Encore une fois. Maintenant, descendons à l'échelle de votre salon. Vous avez un robot chez vous. Question simple : est-ce que c'est lui qui va faire vos courses ? Ou est-ce qu'il n'y aura plus de courses du tout, parce qu'un réseau de robots logistiques réapprovisionnera votre frigo avant même que vous sachiez qu'il manque quelque chose ? Le supermarché tel qu'on le connaît est peut-être une anomalie historique. Et la cuisine. Aujourd'hui vous téléchargez une appli. Demain vous téléchargerez un chef : la gestuelle exacte d'un trois étoiles, sa précision, son timing, son tour de main. Un soir un ramen de Tokyo, le lendemain le kig ha farz de votre grand-mère, reconstitué à partir d'une vieille vidéo d'elle en cuisine. Le savoir-faire devient un fichier. Et un fichier, ça se partage à l'infini. Allons plus loin. Vous avez quatre robots à la maison et un soir vous leur demandez un quatuor à cordes. Ils sont trente dans votre quartier, ils se synchronisent, et vous avez un orchestre philharmonique dans le parc. Du théâtre à domicile. Un professeur de piano infiniment patient pour vos enfants, qui joue avec eux à quatre mains. Un partenaire d'entraînement pour le tennis. Quelqu'un qui veille sur vos parents la nuit. Ce qui était réservé aux rois devient accessible à tout le monde : le majordome, le cuisinier, le précepteur, le musicien de cour. Pendant des millénaires, seuls quelques privilégiés ont vécu entourés de gens dédiés à leur confort et à leur élévation. On s'apprête à démocratiser l'aristocratie. Alors oui, le travail humain va changer radicalement. Beaucoup de métiers vont disparaître, et il ne faut pas le nier, il faut s'y préparer. Mais je crois profondément que l'homme n'a jamais été fait pour porter des cartons dix heures par jour. Libérer l'humain du labeur, c'est le rêve de toutes les civilisations. On est la génération qui va le vivre. La question ne sera plus « comment je gagne ma vie ». Ce sera « qu'est-ce que je fais de ma vie ». C'est une question beaucoup plus vertigineuse. Et beaucoup plus belle. Je pense que les gens ne se rendent absolument pas compte de l'ampleur du tsunami qui arrive. On n'est pas face à une amélioration du monde. On est face à un nouveau monde. Ceux qui le construisent maintenant vont écrire les règles des cinquante prochaines années. Moi, j'ai hâte.

FIRST READING: David Eby's pledge to make B.C. the highest taxed jurisdiction on earth nationalpost.com/opinion/dav…

Study the news, you'll conclude that things have never been worse. Study history, you'll conclude that things have never been better.

"The Liberals have a 30 point lead with those aged 60 and up with 18 to 29 year olds, Conservatives have a lead by almost 10 points." "Conservatives also lead with 30 to 44 year olds." "And if you have a lot of time on your hands to sit around consuming 24 hour news and taking in the threat of Donald Trump, perhaps you're a little more perplexed with that in ranking that issue higher." "So I still think that there's a real audience for the Conservatives on some of these more domestic issues around immigration and crime and affordability." "And when you peel back those broader numbers, the generational story is told in that." @KatlynHarrison

Hodgson did not merely defend Canadian oil..🇨🇦 he punctured the comforting delusion surrounding it. Activist reporter: “But it pollutes.” That is an observation, not an energy policy. The world still consumes oil. If Canada refuses to produce it, demand does not disappear through moral alchemy; production, prosperity and geopolitical leverage simply migrate to regimes with weaker standards and none of our values. A barrel does not become virtuous merely because Canada imports it. Oil left underground funds no pensions, heats no homes, strengthens no sovereignty and displaces no dirtier foreign crude. Canada’s responsibility is to produce the energy the world still needs as cleanly as possible while investing seriously in what eventually replaces it. Reducing methane, lowering emissions intensity and developing carbon capture is not climate denial. But outsourcing emissions and unemployment, then congratulating ourselves for both, is climate theatre. Well said, @timhodgsonmt. Video : @cbcwatcher