muninn_

So you’re advocating for the US to restrict immigration to only highly-skilled migrants? Would you be ok deporting non-engineer Dreamers?

Ok so stay in India and build businesses in India. What’s so difficult about this for you? You’re not entitled to move to another country nor am I. If we have too many people from one place how can we build a multicultural society? If you’re truly high-skilled then you should be advocating for the US to restrict immigration like Canada and others do to a points-based system. Do you advocate for this or do you prefer a liberal immigration system like the US now has? You can’t have both.

And if you spent any time in the West you would know that just because a few people (even many) hold a wrong opinion (I.e. downvoting) doesn’t make them right.

And next time instead of making a throwaway and calling people trolls I think you should post under your real username and spend more time discussing the merits of their arguments.

Incredibly poor rebuttal.

1. Saying “you’re unaware and I’m too lazy to post links” means you don’t know enough (and no I don’t care if you’ve immigrated before) to discuss the point.

2. Yes some countries allow people who secure jobs to work in those countries - that doesn’t mean they allow them to become citizens.

3. All countries have confusing immigration systems and tests - boohoo. I have friends from Somalia who live in the United States right now as permanent residents who have not taken any exam. Even so - not a big deal.

4. I didn’t say much about refugees, so for you to suggest that I’m not knowledgeable about the process is a naive assumption you’ve made to argue some silly point.

5. Yes most folks can’t choose their country. Too bad. If every country on the planet opens its borders than fine, if not we are just arguing over arbitrary numbers. Can I without restriction move to Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, or New Zealand? No? Ok then discussion over. I don’t want to hear one single criticism about liberal US immigration policies while the rest of the world is ass-backwards.

6. Yes it’s sad and tragic that some people are born in war-torn countries or countries that become involved in war. Life goes on for the rest of us. I didn’t choose to be not born a billionaire or not born in glorious Germany. You get the hand your dealt and make the best of it. And if the West keeps letting all the best people from these war-torn countries in, there won’t be any good people left to seek justice. It’s amazing the backflips that people will do to justify their racist, imperialist policies while pretending the U.S. is yet again some big bad boogeyman. It makes me sick.

No. I mean people who are African from Africa and Hispanics as colloquially defined. Should Indian engineers get precedence over them?

You’re implying we should just welcome every Indian to the country. Sorry I’m more concerned with making sure Africans and Hispanics can make it here.

Maybe Canada should do the same? Instead of increasing brain-drain on the rest of the world by providing an easy avenue for immigration to highly skilled people (and increasing their interest in loving) Canada should allow millions of people from Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere without much education to immigrate to Canada? Why not?

Ok so Canada makes it easy for high-skilled while US makes it easy for low skilled. What’s the problem? Should we deport and restrict immigration unless you’re high skilled?

The point is that the US is very forgiving and easy going with respect to immigration and everybody acts like we’re a bunch of Nazis. Newsflash, we have the most liberal immigration policy in the world. Try getting permanent residency in Japan, or Switzerland, or China and let me know how that goes. It’s only difficult because we have too many people that want to move here.

And while I trust that you think you’re “giving back” to India, it’s easy to say you are while enjoying a nice cushy life in Canada.

I don’t mean this to be personal but I’m really sick and tired of hearing people complain that the US is shitty wrt to immigration when we are not. Does any other country have Dreamers? Will Canada allow 11 million undocumented kids to become permanent citizens? Hell no. Would India? Japan? China? Korea? Germany? Brasil? Nope nope nope - you would be deported in a heartbeat. Why does Canada even make you fill out paperwork or have a point-based system if they are so liberal?

implying doctor’s don’t want 6-figure salaries

The manufacturing operations-ization of hospitals is both good and bad. Good because that means we have standard care (as desired by regulators and single-payer advocates) but bad because doctors lose the ability to perform customized care solutions.

I’m in favor of single-payer but we have to guard against turning healthcare into a manufacturing operation while also bouncing out bad actors and poo-quality physicians.

Where immigrants come from matters too - family-based system vs points-based system.

Intuitively do you believe it's easier to govern a group of people with very different opinions and very different backgrounds and socioeconomic status, or easier?

Female dominated jobs have less flexibility on average then male dominated jobs. It is mostly that primary caregivers after they have children need more flexibility, but original choice of occupation does not reflect this later need.

Source? In finance I don't see my boss making my female colleagues skip going to the dentist while letting male colleagues go. I do see the lady that sits near me leave all the time for appointments or what have you for her kids. I don't really mind, I think it's good that we have flexibility, especially with all the top-down directive to make sure women (not men obviously just women) have more scheduling freedom. Personally, I'd take the scheduling freedom and work half time and stay at home with my kids instead of being stuck in a high-pressure career - but I don't have that option.

That would be unusal, nurses I know have to be on the job on time and at schedule

True to some extent. When you're actually scheduled you have to be on there on schedule, obviously, but if you don't like your schedule then you can just jump to another hospital, at least in any mid-sized city with a few different hospitals and clinics. I don't see men working at Ford or something complaining that they can't just come in whenever is convenient for their family. I was actually having this discussion with a pharmacist (obviously not a nurse but a nurse on my team was listening in) and she was lamenting about her schedule - really likes her job but doesn't like the schedule - so I was giving her advice (mansplaining and placing an emotional burden on her and others if you live in SF) on how to handle having this conversation with her manager. Ultimately though you don't get everything you want and you have to be willing to quit the job if it doesn't fit your schedule - some people just aren't because of the money or whatever (not unique to women either, obviously). If you're a nurse (because that was the example) and your kids demand more time than your job allows, you should find a new job - it's not your employers responsibility to pay you for not being there or not doing work. They can accommodate you if they can - tech is easier to do that in, but otherwise it's your life and those are your decisions. Be an adult.

Sorry but this is completely ridiculous and disingenuously undermines the OP's very good point.

First, even if some Americans don't support universal healthcare, that doesn't mean that all Americans don't support it. Even if they do, there are arguments to be made both for and against universal healthcare. I happen to fall on the pro-universal healthcare side, but it's certainly not without drawbacks.

Second, the OP wasn't suggesting that we should have privately funded militaries and private roads, but that one possible government outcome is the government paying for such things while leaving other items (maybe donations to scientific foundations as an example) up to private sector interests. If you're Dropbox, and you strongly believe in a cause and you want to support that cause, it makes far more sense to withhold taxes (so far as it is legal to do so) that you have no control over and set up a foundation to pursue the cause that you're aiming for. Not only can you ensure that money goes toward that cause, but you're nearly guaranteed to do a better job than the government which is, by it's very nature, subject to the whims and opinions of people who may not share your view on the use of your money and less efficient in the handling of your money.

I have a big problem with American companies not paying their fair share of taxes, and even more so with the obscene wealth inequality that has come to dominate the last few decades, but your post here is a drive-by at a reasonable discussion point, followed by a trite comment about Americans for no reason other than to stir up trouble.

Then the correct approach is "you are likely not ready for this material, I recommend you do XYZ and come back".

There's no problem with telling a reader they are not ready for a text - in fact, it can save them time. The way in which you do it though can encourage or discourage a student.

That's not very rational.

Don't need to be rational. Human beings aren't rational.

That your feelings are hurt has no impact on how good or bad the book is.

It could be a great book, but if somebody is rude then (some are suggesting that the comment is tongue-in-cheek but meh) I don't really need to engage with that person. There are plenty of great books that cover this material so I would just suggest others to look elsewhere instead. Ultimately - I don't reward poor behavior. There are very few people who could make a significant enough contribution that I would give a pass on rude behavior towards others, particularly if they are condescending or mean for no reason.

I also found it peculiar that you would believe that my feelings would be hurt. Why would they be? I just found out about this particular book and have no emotional attachment to it, nor the author whatsoever. Maybe you're defensive because you believe the book is good and worthy of being read despite the author's rudeness? That would certainly better explain your need to attempt to attack my "rationality" and suggest that my "feelings were hurt" alongside posting a link that wasn't worth reading.

now would be an excellent time to leave

What does the author gain from this statement? Now, if I were to be interested in this book, I would now be not interested and would encourage others to avoid it.

Quite rude.

Well, because they want to have their cake and eat it too. "Everybody has a voice, we're accepting of all cultures, everybody is welcome" etc.. until they aren't.

And believe it or not, people in the south have to (from their point of view) put up with "the liberals" too - similar to people in SF or wherever.

Frankly, what is interesting here is that instead of the United States becoming more culturally similar with the advent of planes, mobile phones, and what have you it would appear, at least on the surface, that we're becoming more different. I live in the Midwest and when I hear somebody from Vancouver saying that explaining something to someone automatically is "mansplaining" and "placing an emotional burden" on that person I find that just as idiotic and incompatible with my way of life as some bible-thumping anti-climate change person from Mississippi. Now, both of these are of course generalizations, but the most pervasive noise, if you will, is this instead of the most likely interaction I would have with most people which is just a hey how are you, thanks, yes I like XYZ as well.

What we need to do is police the most radical people if we want the United States to be a united country. If we'd rather break it up or something then that's a different story.

Which could be a fine solution, except one or more groups still are making rules which affect the lives of all of the other groups. So disengaging means letting other groups you may disagree with dictate parts of your life.

It's also in your nature to murder other humans, steal things, and participate in all sorts of mischief. If you're of a certain disposition it's in your nature to rape children, maybe hang cats, or try to destroy the lives of other people in other ways. I personally do not eat meat but I also don't shun those who do - my goal is only to do my best to reduce suffering as much as I can - but I think that to argue that it's in your nature to do something is a very poor argument. Being human means we can largely overcome our nature, or at least make rational choices about it.

Agreed, though we will all need to pray that GPU costs come down - I saw 1080s on Amazon going for $1400 the other day, granted it was just a spot check and I’m sure it’s cheaper elsewhere.

And the reason they're not leaving and don't want to leave? Where else are you going to connect up with old friends and remote family members?

Pick up the phone. There's FaceTime, Skype, text messages, actual phone calls, going to visit, sending letters, sending emails.

Or, if you can't be bothered to do any of that maybe you should not even bother trying to connect?

I thought this was an interesting quote: "discourage men from believing a degree is worth the time and money"

I don't think that's so much the case as it is men are shamed and discouraged in popular culture right now and particularly on campus. There are so many women's programs (which I have no problem with), yet how many men's programs are there?

The typical rebuttal is always "man up and take it" or men have an inherent advantage, but what happens when that advantage has actually disappeared? If I attempted to form a men in engineering group when I was a student I would have been sued and expelled for gender bias or sexual harassment or something.

We need to make sure we continue to make men feel valued by society. I think with the 24/7 news cycle and how focused it is on the bad things that some men do (and how all men are subsequently guilty be association) it's no wonder that men are dropping out of society.

Well, if you're an exploited contractor from India or China or a member of a family that already has residence you should have no problem. If you're a well-educated person from the Netherlands you'll never get in - unless you try moving to Canada and use their point system.

Instead of Harvard, Stanford, and MIT attempting to address "the dark side" I'd prefer to see people who aren't graduating and going straight to work at the companies who bring out the worst (and sometimes best) of tech's ethical problems address this problem or at least be heard. Do we really need Goog.. I mean Stanford lecturing us on ethics?

I guess it's good that they've at least somewhat seen the problem, even if it's a problem because it harms future revenue streams. Maybe the NYT (which I have a subscription to) is going to tell me next that Clinton has a 100% chance to win the 2020 election?

Not to mention, you can still be a fan and objective in your review of a product. The two are not mutually exclusive.

This wasn't a very good article.

China was without a doubt a Communist country.

For the vast majority of people the supplied Apple ear phones are just fine and I don't see that as an issue. You don't have to be obsessed with music quality to enjoy reasonably sounding music. I don't not watch movies if I can't see them in theater.

This sounds good, until Google wants me to sign into a Google account to use Nest products and then I have to uninstall them from my home.

People don't have the money to spend on clothing, but can spend it on experiences and travel? Either one of those seems like a free money purchase, with clothing being less of one.

I don't disagree with your assertion that wages have been stagnant and that cost of living is increasing (which should be obvious as more people == fewer resources) but even from my own anecdotal experience as somebody who is paid very well I buy fewer clothes than I used to. I buy nice clothes, but the clothes I have are clothes that don't go out of style, or even if they do I just don't care. Maybe more Americans feel this way as well?

And as others have mentioned, the work place is fortunately becoming more casual with respect to dress. I work in finance and even here we wear t-shirts and jeans. There's no reason for me to buy 10 shirts from Brooks Brothers, 3 suits, ties, dress shoes, sweaters to go with the shirts, etc. as my casual clothes are also what I wear to work.

Maybe more people are spending less on "brands" like Burberry and more on H&M or lifestyle brands (Arcteryx/Patagonia/NF) or basic colors/styles that don't require you to repurchase?

I've never even installed it.

Adjustment is probably a better word to use here - correction implies that the previous state of a naturally fluctuating system was "right".