invalidOrTaken

Wildgate

Broadly, immigration has no effect on crime-rates.

This just isn't true. There are a lot of studies that purport this. There are also a lot of studies that purport the opposite. A quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime shows a bit of the field here.

The details get really important when talking about this. Details like:

- immigrant crime rates are often compared to non-immigrant rates, as if the native-born are a single bloc, rather than distinct segments

- "immigrants" treated as a single bloc

- immigrant crime getting controlled for by age, gender, income, and education --- which is cold comfort if the bulk of your immigration is poor uneducated young men

- first-gen immigrants, if immigrating to work, often have lower crime rates. This effect disappears with second-generation. But when they do crime, it is counted as native crime, rather than immigrant crime. That...doesn't quite cleave reality at the joints.

- labor law violations, tax evasion, etc., often not counted as "crime."

But if the justification for immigration is prior immigration, is there a stopping point here? Like, after you import a bunch of doctors, is it going to turn out that now you need a bunch of fast food workers, back and forth?

If you're a Clojurist like me, Janet (https://github.com/janet-lang/janet) seems to be aimed at this.

Federal

against the governor's will

that's kind of the idea

I haven't tried the others, but J meets all those requirements.

once expertise can drive benefits, expertise becomes a target for corruption

weirdly: if you want good scientists, don't listen to them!

for several years now my resume has labeled me a "Software Cultist"

man, if you want engineering guarantees, you're gonna have to pay for them, both in currency and realistic requirements.

I don't think shareholders really demand anything, most of the time. So much of the market is just passive 401k buckets.

This feels like a pathology of board/C-suite culture, something that they feel like they "have to" do, rather than actual angry letters from Joe Shareholder in Des Moines demanding more user data farming.

A good faith person who was also informed would be aware that this is basically a criticism of Romney-era neocon policies, and that agenda is no longer the animating force of the GOP (and was soundly defeated despite the wishes of the great and the good of the party establishment). In the far-right circles I frequent, the sentiment is, basically, "Triple, quadruple, quintuple the national debt, and crash the economy, if that's what it takes to halt immigration and have a country again, rather than an economic zone."

It was not free-market sentiment that propelled Trump to the WH.

But the only way to get these people visas was to post the jobs publicly and hide them as much as possible. They did this by the hundreds, and it wasn't really a cost saving measure - if you are trying to get anybody in particular from Microsoft or Amazon and they are already here on a Visa, you have to go through the process all over again to sponsor them.

The spirit of the law is that this should not be your intent---that your intent should be to fill the job requirements, not to hire a particular person.

that the shared playerbase is half the fun,

unironically I think this is the next frontier. If "other players" constitute part of the experience, how do you create/attract/curate a "quality" playerbase?

No, this is insane. I will make a thousand people uncomfortable on group dates if that's what it takes to have an actual country.

Are people hurt? Are things unfair? Would it be kinder and more humane if we could see each others' souls, and trust prevailed? Absolutely.

But we can not. And there is an asymmetry to civilization---it is easier to destroy than to build. This makes division and exclusion (other names: protection, safeguarding, immune system, comment moderation, firewalls, safe sex) practical and essential. Do you want your startup's bank account "united and standing together" with some other startup's bank account? Division allows good things to remain good.

None of this is to say all gatekeepers are honest, all standards are fair, or that injustice doesn't exist. Everything is a work in progress. But if the worst you have to complain about is an inconsequential misunderstanding on a group date, count yourself lucky.

Maybe so, but touting Canada's "superiority" over the U.S. would lead to the "obvious solution" of getting rid of black people. If the difference is down to demographics, you want to know that, rather than look at people in country-sized blocs.

Are we supposed to focus only on the certain cultures and ignore others when we talk about health and life expectancy?

If you want to get anything done, then hell yes! If life expectancy is low in Concord because of too many Doritos, but it's low in Phoenix because of a bad medical system, and it's mysteriously high in Fresno, you very much want to disaggregate. And you definitely don't want to ask "What is going so well in 'the U.S.'(Fresno)?" and then look at Concord.

No, I was saying the diversity of American society means that aggregate measures won't tell us much. If Canada is similarly diverse (that seems contested, but accepting it for argument's sake) then aggregate measures there also won't tell us much.

That's my point though: and yet what?

The U.S. is a multicultural society. Aggregate measures don't tell much.

There's a mod for RA3 that re-implements Generals: https://www.moddb.com/mods/command-and-conquer-generals-evol...

DOGE is actually the USDS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Digital_Service

40-yr-old internet troll here. This is fantastic.

wait til you hear what they did in 2001!

anyone can call anything anything, sure(is it a "coup" when I paint a good painting, or win a game of chess? https://www.thefreedictionary.com/coup), but the great-grandparent comment referred to a "bizarre and highly illegal" coup.

There is certainly a transfer of power going on, but whether that's unlawful will be for the courts to decide.

But which of those actually fits the present situation? Four years haven't passed. Congress is not dissolved. It's literally just a bunch of executive orders and firings within the executive branch, which, last time I checked Article II, is under the authority of the president.

I don't think this is an apt analogy. It would be more like "I only robbed your house b/c you threatened to join the neighborhood watch, after twenty years of explicit promises by the neighborhood watch that you wouldn't." And the "neighborhood watch" vs "crime" thing is stacking the deck a bit---in modern society we have a professionalized police force and a norm against vigilante first-strike violence, but sovereign countries can by definition go to war.

This doesn't even mean I "want Russia to win" or whatever, but I definitely would like NATO to put on its adult pants.

I have in mind a friend who on first contact, comes off as somewhat superficial and business-brained, b/c he's always hitting people up for lunches, or calls, and likes to talk about jobs.

The thing is, he does that all the time. Employed, unemployed, rain, shine. And he doesn't just like to talk about (or look for) opportunities for him, but for everyone else, too. So over time, you realize that's just how he is/what he does, and it comes across as completely natural.

He's one of my best friends, honestly.

The key is to mean it. Then it's not inauthentic.

The goofy thing about all this is that HotS is really good if you judge it on its own merits. I played DotA for a long time, switched to HotS, and never looked back.