Maybe I'm wrong as I've not read many papers in this field, but the writing is so needlessly repetitive or lengthy in certain trivial descriptive sentences that if LLM was used for any editorial assistance I think it was used poorly and without enough proofreading. Or, is recent sociology(?) papers this bad.
Does H1-B really carry that 100k per-case fee? I remember hearing of it, but afterwards also individual stories of people getting H1-B. I don't know them personally unfortunately; not sure whether it was sponsored by not-for-profit research institutes or for-profit companies. I can't imagine this rule being economically feasible for most, though. And if the answer is actually a yes, would the company want to make sure that here's a repayment clause in the contract, e.g. if the worker leaves within X years, he/she will have to refund the company for Y% of this visa fee? Is that even legal?
Related, iirc H1-B has a 6-year limit. Under the current policy what's the path forward if the holder is not ready to adjust their status to PR within the timeframe or not qualified to EB category? O1? But there were a wave of news stories about O1 being abused and I wouldn't be surprised if that was a prelude to major changes to the category.
I think you missed my point. I do not deny the existence nor validity of the immigration questions, or whether certain implemented policy is questionable or not. What I tried to argue was that the Trump administration uses those issues, and people's discontent over them, to engineer a mass power consolidation that may do so much harm in the long run (or, probably, within merely a few years) that even if in the process it helps some Americans to gain jobs or whatever it still by no means worth the price yet to be paid.
Did border crossing drop? Yes. Is economy gotta improve? It is complicated like usual. Do these worth to give up a working democracy , i.e. the ability to replace a leader other than waiting for their natural death or committing a revolution? Absolutely not. Democracy's merit isn't that it's the most fair system to pick candidates, but the power to replace leadership without bloodshed and do so within people's lifetime.
What could be the better answer to immigration policy is out of the scope, therefore I would echo the other comment that says this is not about immigration. If this wasn't clear before, it should've been after the two Minneapolis murders and the arrest of Don Lemon, etc etc.
Can't you see that they are using immigration questions as an excuse to consolidate power that exceeds immigration enforcement by a large margin? The ability to detain lawful workers or pull people off the street without a warrant from a judge & hold them illegally for a significant duration can become political retaliation or terror tool and a racial profiling vehicle very quickly.
And more over, they basically have proved that the law has no sufficient ability to actually enforce court orders on the ground when the administrative branch is firmly on not obeying them. Even worse, the public opinion has been just mildly annoyed by this - by mildly I mean that only some people decided to bring themselves to the streets, separately and only on the weekends or a single day in most cases.
> A country can't decide who comes into their country?
Reading someone else's mind but I think the author could've phrased it better: The ongoing deportation is concerning not because of the legitimacy or not of nation states. It's the abrupt voiding of existing policies (people being deported under conditions that should not have applied to them) & its normalization, and the possible damages to be inflicted upon American citizens in the process, e.g. if you require all aliens to carry their papers all the time and can be searched for any reason, in practice how could this be made distinguishable from racial profiling and prevented from individual abuses?
Anti-American is such a curious word. In authoritarian regimes political dissidents are never prosecuted as such, they are labeled as anti-$homeland. I've never thought the Americans have a taste for using it.
> The second amendment, and guns, means that is easier to defend myself and my family.
I thought the second amendment was meant to let citizens retain means to rebel a tyrannical government when the time comes, not to defend themselves from average armed robbery,
> Or that a smaller, weaker person can defend themselves and their property against a larger stronger person. They are the great equalizer.
What do you think modern policing and the whole institution around it is for?
I'm flagging because early on these obvious alerting news got flagged within seconds, while the equally political happenings, the less immigration-related thus somehow more relevant and appropriate ones, were tolerated.
I have since decided that this site does not deserve to know.
I suppose the article meant cap itself was a carbon fiber/epoxy build, implying nothing about the connection?
On a separate note, although the submarine failed catastrophically, that doesn't mean every decision it took was wrong. I wonder if the bolts actually make sense under high water pressure.
The ban is an reaction to a creative way of using Airdrop as a not mass-censored communication tool with strangers, by pure chance of them having Airdrop open. This method was know for some time, but has been more extensively exploited following the Beijing Sitong Bridge protest[1] and during the course of 20th National Congress meetings, even though this is extremely inefficient, unsafe in terms of anti-forensic, and only available to a rather small group demographically.
The user base of the above method is extremely small, yet retaliated by their schools or police apparatus. Now they want to make sure that this communication channel to not exist.
Absolutely. But I thought the production team could've find a combo that works better. Any combo. They don't even have to actually have someone that high up in the ladder to make an ok podcast imho...
Right now it sounds straight PR and ingenue due to the tone & the scripting, even for a regular company's PR piece, let alone CIA's.
Listened about 10 minutes into the first episode, why do the speakers sound so nervous? Maybe it's because of a stubborn script or lack of prior preparation? It's just not very... podcast-like.
Living can be intolerable real fast. It does not have to be death. I think the OP was not saying literally.
Also, if the majority of the population is losing heating and need to do your suggested preparation, I wouldn't bet my luck on successfully getting a heater and a electric blanket. There was a freaking toilet paper shortage in covid because of panic buying. These and whatnot will be gone in minutes.
The Russian government will only take advantage of denied accesses and doubledown with any domestic propaganda they have in the pocket, aren't they? I still don't get what other expectations are on the table when the western world talks about cutting Russians off the internet.