Maybe for instant green card you have to be extraordinary, but for regular employment-based immigration you don’t have to be.
The path is H1-B -> Green Card -> US citizen (I have done it), and to get H1-B your potential employer gotta post that $60-80k/year job and show that there were no qualifying US applicants for it.
Not related, but to add some woes of the american immigration system.
There is no instant green card.
If a truly extraordinary Indian-born person (say a Nobel laureate or olympic gold medalist) files for a green card today, they will be waiting for 7-10 years to get a green card. At this point, it may be worse too, because this category's priority date has not moved a single day in 8 months.
This is true, I have omitted this path because I am not so familiar with it. The trouble however is that this only works for employees, not for self-employed or startup founders. So in some way I guess they make it kind-of easier if you just get a job, versus try to create jobs... which is pretty strange?
Remember when cybertruck was supposed to be cheap minimalistic truck? No paint, spartan interior, simple materials and straight shapes. $39k price tag. Yeah…
Apple held three big keynotes in 2024 plus multiple product announcements via press releases:
May 7, 2024 - The “Let Loose” event, focusing on new iPads, including the iPad Pro with the M4 chip and the iPad Air with the M2 chip, along with the Apple Pencil Pro.
June 10, 2024 - The Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) keynote, where Apple introduced iOS 18, macOS Sequoia, and other software updates, including Apple Intelligence.
September 9, 2024 - The “It’s Glowtime” event, where Apple unveiled the iPhone 16 series, Apple Watch Series 10, and AirPods 4.
Via Press releases: MacBook Air with M3 on March 4, the iPad mini on October 15, and various M4-series Macs (MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac mini) in late October.
I really hadn't noticed all of those! I'm mostly intersted in Macs, so I probably subconsciusly filter out the other announcements. I guess I haven't developed that level of 'ignorance' towards AI yet."
Pennywise pound foolish and harming UX at the same time. They could just require that Spotify logs the plays and uploads them on the next connection. Resulting in more plays and more money. But instead they block it for the 0.1% of the time that the watch is lost, destroyed or reinstalled before that sync happens.
> Pennywise pound foolish and harming UX at the same time. They could just require that Spotify logs the plays and uploads them on the next connection. Resulting in more plays and more money. But instead they block it for the 0.1% of the time that the watch is lost, destroyed or reinstalled before that sync happens.
Why are you just blindly accepting their vapid evidenceless postulation lol
> Every demographic commits petty crimes and code violations at about the same rate
Do you have data backing this claim? For example, homicides (that are not a subject for reporting bias) don’t follow a uniform distribution, so I would expect other crimes to also be non-uniform.
I remember, back when cannabis was illegal in most states, a common argument was that white and black people reported using cannabis at the same rate when surveyed. However, many, many more black people ended up in prison for it.
> people reported using cannabis at the same rate when surveyed. However, many, many more black people ended up in prison for it.
As I understand it, people went to prison mostly for selling or possessing amounts that are implying selling. Which might explain the difference. Would you go to prison for possessing a single joint back then?
Direction matters? same or _lower_ frequency of use does not seem like 'shifting the goalposts' on the original claim of disproportionate _incarceration_.
Direction matters, though as the answer to a different question than whether rate of committing crimes is uniform. We are in this sub thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43393070
The above linked data show self-reported cannabis use within +/- 10% over the relevant pre-legalization period (before 2012), if anything with a slight advantage to whites. Drug arrest and incarceration rates vary by much, much more (factors of 2-6 between whites and blacks). Against that, use rates of 15 vs 13ish vs 12.5ish are as good as uniform , esp. on a survey with all the inherent variability therein (even for one as competent and longstanding as the cited work).
So what's the quibble? That the shares aren't exactly equal? Or that there are other demographic cuts with larger differences (and, y'know, aligned carceral disparities)? Or that cannabis use isn't representative of 'petty crime'?
They argument does not depend in the slightest on the equality of crime rates, its depends on the their similarity. The data linked show quite similar rates of reported use for cannabis. You can make all sorts of valid counterarguments at this point.
Refuting the language used to express the argument ('uniform', 'equal') is
meaningless-to-disingenuous nitpicking of its form with basically no consequences for its substance.
That’s my point though? If the argument doesn’t depend on it, why make an easy to nitpick and disprove claim as part of it, especially if it doesn’t even come to bear on the point anyway.
I’m not the one who brought up the nitpick in the first place, so you can argue with them instead if you prefer people didn’t do so in the first place.
Yes, that's what the survey I linked indicates. I didn't want to make that claim because that's not the argument I'd heard in the past, even though that is what this survey indicates.
Do you know of some society in which "petty crimes and code violations" are more or less similar socially to homicides? I'd suggest pondering a comment more carefully. People mostly don't contemplate gunning someone down anywhere near as frequently or thoughtlessly as they might jaywalk, or get a speeding ticket. (though there are exceptions of course)
The comparison doesn't have to be with homicides. "Every demographic does X at about the same rate" is such a flat-out wrong assumption that you'd really have to cherry-pick X, with lots of caveats and conditions, for it to hold true.
I think there's an ingrained sense of revulsion, in all of us that live in the cultural era that descended from Enlightenment ideals of equality for all, against the idea that there exist observable group-level differences on nearly any metric you could think of, but that doesn't make it any less true.
The statement was about petty crimes. Things like downloading a song without paying.
If you think people of certain ethnic, racial, political, or religious demographics are more likely to download a song without permissions, I'd like to know what demographics you think are the most likely and least likely to do it.
Because I don't know of a single person in my life who has a computer and hasn't done it.
Uploading/distributing/broadcasting a song without copyright permission to do so, might conditionally be a crime, if that usage does not fall within "Fair Use" such as for education, journalism or commentary.
Let's stop ceding more power and control to the copyright cartel, and be careful not to repeat their propaganda that misleads people into thinking sharing books or other media needs to always involve a payment to some publishing corporation.
> Do you have data backing this claim? For example, homicides (that are not a subject for reporting bias) don’t follow a uniform distribution, so I would expect other crimes to also be non-uniform.
Crime rates are likely different for different socioeconomic classes for many reasons, but also the socioeconomic class likely determines in part the types of crimes.
For example, poor people are more likely to do petty crime and physical crimes, while rich people tend to do complex frauds involving large sums.
So you cannot compare rates for one particular crime across socioeconomic groups because they will gravitate towards the opportunities that are present to their class.
I read it as a scenario / "even if" for the presented thought experiment, not a load-bearing assertion about reality. As in the argument being made works equally well whether either way, and trying to challenge it misses the point.
> homicides (that are not a subject for reporting bias)
There is very serious bias in which deaths are labelled homicides, and in who is held responsible for them. The idea that homicide stats are bias-free is weirdly pervasive, but absolutely without basis, on either the victimization or (even moreso, since the prior bias also impacts this on top of the direct bias applicable to it) perpetration side.
Given the wide variety of pricing on all of these providers, I keep wondering how the economics work. Do they have fantastic margin on some of these products or is it a matter of subsidizing the costs, hoping to capture the market? Last I heard, OpenAI is still losing money.
The path is H1-B -> Green Card -> US citizen (I have done it), and to get H1-B your potential employer gotta post that $60-80k/year job and show that there were no qualifying US applicants for it.
reply