Post your income and a detailed list of how you spend it. If it happens to be less than mine or if I disagree with how you spend it, I am going to publicly berate you for your lack of "humanity"
Anyone here can go to https://h1bgrader.com/, find their favorite tech company or two and see the entire list of positions they needed H-1B for, as well as the salaries.
Web developers, data analysts, project managers, sales analysts, support engineers - these are not highly-skilled roles that just can't be satisfied by the US market.
1) the creditors package up that debt and then sell it off to the next batch of suckers
2) the creditors are first in line to be reimbursed if the company goes belly up, so they are fine with it as long as the assets the company owns are worth more than the debt
Anyone here can go to https://h1bgrader.com/, find your favorite tech company or two and see the entire list of positions they needed H-1B for, as well as the salaries.
Web developers, data analysts, project managers, sales analysts, support engineers - these are not highly-skilled roles that just can't be satisfied by the US market, forcing the company to look international, so the framing of it as such is disingenuous, at best.
orgmode is what helped me write my first self-published novella, without having to worry too much about formatting for print. Apart from the initial configuration, it was pretty much plug and play when going from plain text to something I could upload to KDP.
Collective Shout is just the front and their purpose is to take the heat for this.
There is no chance in hell an organization like that wields anything close to the power required to force these kind of decisions.
Either it is the payment processors or the regulators, or a combination of both, or some other kind of group behind the scenes. Personally I don't know what the true answer is, but it's clearly not some activist organization.
For the most part I can actually tell, but it also depends on the style of the art. A lot of anime-inspired digital images are immediately obvious - AI tends to add quite a lot of "shine" to its output, if that makes sense. And it's way too clean, sterile even. And it all looks the same.
But when the art style is more minimalist or abstract, I find it genuinely difficult to notice a difference and have to start looking at the finer details, hence the mental workload comment. Often times I'll notice an eye not facing the right direction or certain lines appearing too "repetitive", something I rarely see in the works of human artists. It's difficult to explain without actual inage examples in front of me.
It's a fair question and one that I've asked myself as well.
I like to use the example of chess. I know that computers can beat human players and that there are technical advancements in the field that are useful in their own right, but I would never consistently watch a game of chess played between a computer and a human. Why? Because I don't care for it. To me, the fun and excitement is in seeing what a HUMAN can achieve, what a HUMAN can create - I apply the same logic to art as well.
As I'm currently learning how to draw myself, I know how difficult it is and seeing other people working hard at their craft to eventually produce something beautiful, after months and years of work - it's a shared experience. It makes me happy!
Seeing someone prompt an AI, wait half-a-minute and then post it on social media does not, even if the end result is of a reasonable quality.
And it's not just vulnerability reports that are affected by this general trend. I use social media, X specifically, to follow a lot of artists, mostly for inspiration and because I find it fun to share some of the work that other artists have created, but over the past year or so I find that the mental workload it takes for me to figure out if a particular piece of art is AI-generated is too much and I start leaning into the safe option of "don't share anything that seems even remotely suspicious unless I can verify the author".
The amount of art posts that I have shared with others has decreased significantly, to the point where I am almost certain some artists who have created genuine works simply get filtered out because their work "looks" like it could have been AI-generated... It's getting to the point where if I see anything that is AI it's an instant mute or block, because there is nothing of value there - it's just noise clogging up my feed.
all you had to do to stop him was actually enforce the law and protect the borders, as that was the main driving force behind his popularity, yet you couldn't even be bothered to do the most basic task of governance
>What's strange to me is the speed with which some of these changes were made
That's because while the original commenter is correct in terms of companies doing what they believe their consumer base supports, they ignore half of the equation, which is that it was never JUST about the consumers. It was also about protecting the company from disparate impact lawsuits, where any difference in the makeup of a company compared to the general public could be interpreted as discrimination, regardless of whether it actually does discriminatory practices.
My guess is that these companies feel that with the new US administration the risk of these kind of lawsuits has decreased significantly.
Why are you suddenly, when faced with data that doesn't fit your narrative, using that word when it was nowhere to be found in the original discussion?
>Why? Does the UK need to deal with this "fact" too then?
If the interests of UK and China ever seriously clashed and led to a conflict, yes, they would. I can't believe that military capabilities and force projection in the modern world need to be explained on a website meant for professionals.
>China has grew out of manufacturing because a lot of it is moving out of China
China's Manufacturing Production [1] and Industrial Production has increased year-on-year for the past 10 years, excluding abnormal events such as Covid, so where are you getting your data? If you meant to say that they are transitioning to a higher level of manufacturing, instead of the sweatshops they were associated with in the 90s, this is true. But it was the low-level manufacturing that allowed them to build up both the capital and the skill necessary to advance further and further.
Hell, you've got a naval empire (the United States) that is currently unable to come even close to the Chinese ship-building capabilities - their output dwarfs the US by 232x [2]. It's not something that happened overnight and it's certainly not something that was strategically planned out 30 years ago - it is a slow process that started with low-level outsourcing and allowed China to grow into the behemoth it is today.
Sooner or later the US was going to have to deal with this fact and it seems like that time has come. Whether or not there's a plan, whether or not it will even work - I have no clue, you have no clue and neither does anyone on this forum.
Also, to counter another point you made - "When we talk about these trade deficits do we include streaming services, television shows, films, games and whatever else?" - you can't fight a war with an economy based on streaming services, TV shows and games.
China made that choice in the late 1970s and early 1980s and has progressed ever since and is now powerful enough to be able to stand up to the United States.
You have a warped view of what manufacturing is and how it can be built upon that is closer to children's cartoons than reality.
>Can you demonstrably prove white people were harmed by DEIA?
Sure, here you go. This is just one example, but it's been widely covered in tech circles as well as here on HN and I chose it simply because it's one of the most egregious and shockingly honest account of how DEI works in practice as opposed to nice-sounding social theories
Things like this have been covered and talked about on HN for years, I am surprised you missed it, with a lot of commenters speaking out about their own experience which more often than not paints the same story each time - a company needs to reach a certain quota based on race or gender to avoid potential discrimination lawsuits, their hiring pipeline does not support that quota so the only options they have is to discriminate against the only group it is socially OK to discriminate against - white men. And on some level - asians - as is mentioned directly by the CEO of IBM in the leaked video posted above.
It is not an either-or proposition. It would be hard to find a single thing in this world that is 100% bad or 100% good.
I do agree that the article you posted is a very good implementation of equitable practices and I would think it difficult to find anyone who would disagree with the mandating of female test dummies. Mostly because it's a very simple-to-understand example and the implementation of it doesn't hurt anyone else or take away from one group to give to another.
My problem is the pretending that your example is what DEI actually is and any other examples, like the ones I posted, from a number of mainstream media publications no less, are, for whatever reason, NOT considered DEI or, as you put it, are just "silly and inconsequential examples".
Those "silly and inconsequential examples" are supported by every mainstream DEI proponent, including every single DEI department at every large publicly-traded company. There have been numerous articles posted both here on HN and on the wider web about how these DEI implementations turn out to work in practice when it comes to employment prospects, promotion availability and the issues with general hiring practices (lowering standards to achieve some magic number of "equity" in female/minority representation).
My suggestion - if you truly care about the programs such as the one you listed in your comment, you better make sure that's what DEI actually focuses on. Otherwise, you should not be surprised that it gets swept away along with everything else that people feel falls under the DEI umbrella.
>helping impoverished communities, adding guardrails to prevent old-boys clubs and enable skilled individuals to enter fields without prejudice for “being black” or “being gay”
Exactly, like I said - "it's dressed up in definitions that sound beautiful and moral to the supporters of DEI".
I do not care for theoretical definitions of why your ideology is good and moral, I care about its practical effects on me and the world around me. And somehow, those practical effects always turn out to be "less white people".
And I will NEVER support an ideology that disenfranchises me under the cover of equality!
He isn't.