As long as it's working (and not gross), why do you need a new monitor? My current monitor is a 2010 model, I think I got it around 2013. I don't know what a new monitor would do for me, other than have a worse aspect ratio, cause Dell stopped making 30" 16:10 monitors.
In theory, yes. However a lot of these monitors are still 2560x1440 and are 30”+. The ppi is quite low. I’m looking for 4k and something that looks similar enough to the M4 MBP I’m working on. A lot of these just don’t look good as they used to.
1440p is good enough that you aren't going to see individual pixels - just sit far back enough from the screen and use reasonable font hinting (Mac users are sadly out of luck here, but even then 2160p/4K is overkill).
The last time this topic was posted, it was pointed out that LA specifically says it'll cost $50k+ to do one ADA complaint corner of a sidewalk. $50k - that's during the repaving... Not come back and do it. Explain it however you want but a cutout on a corner of a sidewalk doesn't cost $50k unless you got something fishy going on...
There's very blatant corruption within LA's government and no accountability. Your average American (which LA is full of) is too stupid to do anything about these issues.
Dancing is not considered cool. Most young people are too self-conscious about being seen dancing poorly. Even someone who is a professional dancer will be considered looking "lame" because they didn't dance the exact perfect way for the music (to whoever is looking) and so forth. Critique of dance is at all time high thanks to TikTok and other social media. People see the absolute best of the world at their absolute peak for short moments of time and extrapolate that's how you should be dancing at all times if you are going to dance.
Therefore, not cool to dance anymore. Everyone is too self-conscious.
Work at faang/etc. I don’t see any notable difference between immigrant and non-immigrant. Arguably, one could say the Americans are better because they typically have less education and still manage to do the same job. Somehow managing to do the same job but with less training? That sounds like someone who is “better” to me.
You are proving my point - FAANG hires the top tier talent, and makes extensive use of both the global talent pool and sponsoring immigration in order to meet their needs.
The Americans you work with (along with your other co-workers) meet the bar.
If there were more Americans that met the bar they would employ them before taking on all the extra work and cost of immigration.
I'm not talking about Americans you work with. I'm talking about the mythical ones you don't work with that are somehow disadvantaged by H1B and thus unemployed/underemployed. You don't work with these people because they don't exist.
You’re not really responding to my point. I’ve told you that Americans are in faang and don’t have the same level of education as all the immigrants. This goes in the face of what you’re saying. Americans by your measure are more intelligent and require less education to achieve the same results. (Entry to faang and doing the same quality of work)
I interpreted this:
> I don’t see any notable difference between immigrant and non-immigrant
As your main point.
More educated or not doesn't actually matter, whether they meet the bar or not is all that matters no?
My over-arching point is if there were more Americans to be hired that meet the bar they will usually be hired before immigrants because they are less paperwork and money (immigration lawyers fees).
Also I think comparing to immigrant education isn't necessarily a great idea, immigrants need more on-paper education to simply clear the immigration requirements because most governments around the world place a higher emphasis on that than work experience or their salary. US in particular values years of education at a roughly 2:5 ratio vs work experience with 10 years of work experience necessary to qualify vs a 4 year degree.
If you are somehow implying immigrants are fundamentally less intelligent then yeah I don't know what to tell you but that is probably not correct.
I actually did this and it still didn’t work. Some of us are born so genetically ugly that even modern cosmetic surgery can’t solve it. No surprise, lots of billionaires are still mediocre looking.
> No surprise, lots of billionaires are still mediocre looking
I interpreted that as something billionaires could afford to not care about, like good manners. But tbh. I'm not that well versed with the state of plastic surgery either. Anyway, beauty is subjective and changes over time, there's plenty of more important things to focus on :)
This exists outside NL now too. However, it’s possibly the most shallow app possible. You know literally nothing about the individual except what they look like. For a country like NL where there’s high homogeneity, probably works out. For the US, this is a disaster.
In the US, you’d only get matched if you were a hot guy. It was more brutal than tinder, hinge, etc. Women in the US aren’t gonna spend a single cent on a guy unless he’s mega hot.
I think capitalists just want cheap labor. The US itself doesn’t have a unified position on population. Plenty of people want a population decrease because they feel everything is overcrowded.
Well, when I say "US" I mean the current administration and the people that have power within it. Maybe that's not their actual intention or desire, but that is the story their policies and actions are telling.
It's interesting how the sides flipped. Left was strongly anti-immigration because it saw it as a tool of capitalism to drive down wages and just general abuse of working-class rights. Now Left is pro-immigration, and the right is against for the same reason the Left was.
When did this change happen?
I'm on the left and am anti-immigration. Always have been. I think pulling the cream of the crop is objectively good for the country, but bad for the places they come from. Liberal low skilled immigration is just bad for everyone except the handful of people that actually employ them.
Globalists have been taking over liberal institutions since the 90s (they have control of the DNC for longer). Media, academia, education are aligned with the globalist agenda. And the left dare not speak out against it, or they get mobbed.
When the “left” started becoming more about social wokeist policies than about economics and fiscal policy.
I think the reason the left became this way is due to neoliberals trying to fracture the left by getting center left people all concerned about social issues. Secondly, the left became completely disjointed and hopeless many years ago. Once the capitalists had completely thwarted the movements and fucked with the parties, the left collectively realized they really couldn’t do anything against the economic engine that was running against them. So they were left with virtue signaling, woke shit, and so on as a means of trying to get some kind of change.
The left of today is very soft and unwilling to engage in violence. At least in the US. I think abroad there are other movements that are willing to throw down and actually suffer for their principles. Americans aren’t and I don’t think we’ve ever had a real leftist movement here anyway. People will think Bernie 2016 is probably the closest thing we’ve had in 50 years and he’s pretty mild…
It's amusing. The left is always accused of "woke" but the ones constantly crying about it are those on the right. The right will even vote against their own economic interests to "stick it to the woke."
Seems to me we need to fix the narrative here, the right are woke obsessed while the left would rather vote on economic principles like reducing healthcare costs and improving jobs (not just availability but also pay and quality).
YMMV. Plenty of groups out there to meet other parents and become friends with. I know several people who had kids and were SAHP and made lots of friends this way. Mind you, as the kids got older everyone moves around so friendships might not always last but it’s very possible. And you have a very obvious thing to bond over - being a parent.
I work at faang and have no friends from that. I’m surrounded by thousands of people every day I’m at work. Everyone is there to work - not be social or hangout or be friends. People show up to social events to grab food and take it back to their desk.
As long as collusion exists, I don't see this changing. Manhattan is more expensive than it was a 100 years ago but less people actually live there now. Not a little less either - 700,000 people less. We've built way more housing at the same time. And yes, people have more square footage per person now but the housing doubled and the population went down dramatically.
Rent is always going to go up there even if they build more. Same in other places. As long as rent setting tools exist to collude - we will see the rent not go down. You're not gonna dump $100m in new buildings and not maximize your return.
Rent isn't high because of collusion. It's simple supply and demand.
There may be fewer people in manhattan, but that's mostly because fewer people live in each living unit. The same number of living units is being demanded by the market because of evolving living preferences.
If you allow sufficient living units to be built, it doesn't matter how much landlord try to collude, they won't be able to keep rent high. Someone will break when the vacancy rate reaches 15%.
Rent is high due to supply and demand, but collusion lowers supply. Ironically enough, "affordable housing" arrangements and rent-control, which is common in NYC, are examples of such collusion and end up raising rents over time compared to the alternative where the collusion isn't there.
vacancy rates are extremely low in most cities. That clearly implies supply and demand and not collusion. In new york units are often empty because they are illegal to rent unless massively expensive repairs are made while under rent control. That's not collusion, that is regulatory failure
Where are these luxurious big corporations that give their employees nice new equipment? :(
reply