Student visa caps in Canada, the UK and Australia are pushing some applicants to look at the US and Germany. Canada, the UK and Australia have put limits on international student visas since 2024. Canada uses a hard national cap. The UK and Australia use tighter rules and higher costs. Students looking for other options have started checking the US and Germany more carefully.

STEM and humanities attract international students for different reasons. Funding and immigration policies can shape those choices. STEM fields often get special attention in international education. In the US, Germany, and Canada, scholarships and immigration policies can influence which courses students choose.

Work hour limits for international students differ across the US, UK, Canada, Australia and Germany. International students can work part-time while studying in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and Germany. Limits are about 20 hours a week in the US and UK. Canada allows 24. Australia uses 48 hours every two weeks. Germany has flexible day rules.

STEM and humanities attract international students for different reasons. Funding and immigration policies can shape those choices. STEM fields often get special attention in international education. In the US, Germany, and Canada, scholarships and immigration policies can influence which courses students choose.

Short shared with the line “NEVER MIND WHO I AM!” Officer wants a name. Person filming treats the request as optional. The exchange continues without a clearly stated crime. In most places, police can ask questions and can ask for ID. A demand that someone provide a name generally requires reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime, or a specific statute that authorizes it under those conditions. Filming in public or simply being unknown to the officer does not create that suspicion by itself. When the only stated reason is that the officer wants to know who the person is, the request remains optional. The person can decline and, if not detained, can leave. “Never mind who I am” is the practical expression of that limit. It separates the officer’s curiosity from any legal obligation. The short centers on that distinction rather than on any described offense. The encounter extends past the point where a concrete reason for continued detention has been given. Police can inquire. They cannot turn ordinary curiosity about identity into a requirement that someone stay and answer when no crime has been articulated. When that is the only remaining justification, declining and ending the interaction is the response the law permits. The clip records the refusal more clearly than it records any underlying violation. youtube.com/shorts/XkEmoryv7…

Main tech costs for students: phone plans, broadband, laptops, and software. Phone plans, home broadband, laptops, and software subscriptions are the main tech costs for students. A local SIM gives mobile data and calls. Broadband is the fixed internet at home. Software covers tools like Office or cloud storage.

Main tech costs for students: phone plans, broadband, laptops, and software. Phone plans, home broadband, laptops, and software subscriptions are the main tech costs for students. A local SIM gives mobile data and calls. Broadband is the fixed internet at home. Software covers tools like Office or cloud storage.

Woman sues her former roommate, a fitness influencer, for using her body and clothing in posts without permission. The defendant showed the plaintiff’s bra and compared sizes, posted a corset that belonged to her, and later shared a photo of the plaintiff while talking about how hard it is to lose weight living with someone who’s “naturally skinny.” Plaintiff said it was belittling and asked for $5,000 for therapy and emotional distress. Judge awards $560. She points out they no longer live together, notes the defendant kept posting after being told it made the plaintiff uncomfortable, and criticizes the lack of any apology. She tells the defendant to share her own story instead of using the roommate as the comparison. Posting a roommate’s personal items and body as recurring content is not neutral. Once someone objects, continuing turns it into public use of another person for an audience. The award is small relative to what was asked, but it treats the ongoing posts—not the initial compliment—as the issue. Roommate content still needs basic consent after an objection. youtube.com/shorts/1tWX6j0mR…

Officers approach a man wearing a mask and ask for his name and address. He asks if there’s any law against wearing one. They say no, they just want to know why. He says he’s going to be on TV because of the cameras. They ask if he intends to interfere; he says no. They still press for his details because he “may be involved in a crime about to commit a crime.” He points out he’s not under arrest, refuses the information, and ends it. Wearing a mask in public is not a crime. Police can ask questions, but a demand for name and address generally needs a specific lawful basis. Speculation that someone might be about to commit an unspecified future crime because of a mask does not meet that standard. The officer’s own statement that the man is not under arrest confirms the request is optional. The man treats it that way and leaves. The short shows the stop continuing after the stated reason has been answered and after any intent to interfere has been denied. When the only remaining justification is the possibility of some future crime, the person is entitled to decline and walk away. That’s the exchange the clip captures. youtube.com/shorts/sxrNb5mV7…

Officer stays engaged after the person filming tells him to leave and says he’s done nothing wrong. The auditor frames the continued presence as pride and harassment; the officer talks about reducing tension and being belittled. No crime is stated. Police can ask questions. They generally need reasonable suspicion of a crime before they can detain someone, demand ID, or order them to stay. Discomfort with the camera or with being told the conversation is over does not create that suspicion. The auditor’s tone is confrontational, but the speech itself is protected. The short centers on the officer treating the refusal to defer as the problem rather than pointing to any specific obstruction. When the stated issue becomes the person’s attitude or the officer’s feelings instead of a concrete legal reason for the stop to continue, the officer is the one extending the encounter past what the law supports. That’s the exchange the clip actually captures. youtube.com/shorts/EerGVDkwo…

Officers approach a man wearing a mask and ask for his name and address. He asks if there’s any law against wearing one. They say no, they just want to know why. He says he’s going to be on TV because of the cameras. They ask if he intends to interfere; he says no. They still press for his details because he “may be involved in a crime about to commit a crime.” He points out he’s not under arrest, refuses the information, and ends it. Wearing a mask in public is not a crime. Police can ask questions, but a demand for name and address generally needs a specific lawful basis. Speculation that someone might be about to commit an unspecified future crime because of a mask does not meet that standard. The officer’s own statement that the man is not under arrest confirms the request is optional. The man treats it that way and leaves. The short shows the stop continuing after the stated reason has been answered and after any intent to interfere has been denied. When the only remaining justification is the possibility of some future crime, the person is entitled to decline and walk away. That’s the exchange the clip captures. youtube.com/shorts/sxrNb5mV7…

Officers approach a man wearing a mask and ask for his name and address. He asks if there’s any law against wearing one. They say no, they just want to know why. He says he’s going to be on TV because of the cameras. They ask if he intends to interfere; he says no. They still press for his details because he “may be involved in a crime about to commit a crime.” He points out he’s not under arrest, refuses the information, and ends it. Wearing a mask in public is not a crime. Police can ask questions, but a demand for name and address generally needs a specific lawful basis. Speculation that someone might be about to commit an unspecified future crime because of a mask does not meet that standard. The officer’s own statement that the man is not under arrest confirms the request is optional. The man treats it that way and leaves. The short shows the stop continuing after the stated reason has been answered and after any intent to interfere has been denied. When the only remaining justification is the possibility of some future crime, the person is entitled to decline and walk away. That’s the exchange the clip captures. youtube.com/shorts/sxrNb5mV7…

Daughter sues her father for destroying her PS5 and asks for $548. She says she didn’t want to go to college but went to avoid disappointing him. She failed two classes in her final semester, lied about passing, and he later accessed the grades. They argued. He believed the gaming was part of the school problem, tried to take the console, they struggled, and he threw it at the wall. She was starting to stream and earn from it. Judge says he didn’t have the right to destroy her property but understands the frustration. She notes the roughly $4,000 he paid for the last semester, tells the daughter she should have been direct that she was done with college instead of letting him spend the money under false pretenses, and declines to order him to replace the console because she is also not ordering the daughter to repay the tuition. Both sides bear fault; judgment for the defendant. Destroying someone else’s property is not justified by an argument. At the same time, accepting continued college support while concealing failing grades creates its own problem. The short treats the two as offsetting and does not transfer the $548. It does not excuse property destruction in general; it simply declines to award the money in this case where both parties contributed to the breakdown. youtube.com/shorts/HPpp2rkKP…

Daughter sues her father for destroying her PS5 and asks for $548. She says she didn’t want to go to college but went to avoid disappointing him. She failed two classes in her final semester, lied about passing, and he later accessed the grades. They argued. He believed the gaming was part of the school problem, tried to take the console, they struggled, and he threw it at the wall. She was starting to stream and earn from it. Judge says he didn’t have the right to destroy her property but understands the frustration. She notes the roughly $4,000 he paid for the last semester, tells the daughter she should have been direct that she was done with college instead of letting him spend the money under false pretenses, and declines to order him to replace the console because she is also not ordering the daughter to repay the tuition. Both sides bear fault; judgment for the defendant. Destroying someone else’s property is not justified by an argument. At the same time, accepting continued college support while concealing failing grades creates its own problem. The short treats the two as offsetting and does not transfer the $548. It does not excuse property destruction in general; it simply declines to award the money in this case where both parties contributed to the breakdown. youtube.com/shorts/HPpp2rkKP…