I think forcing this comparison shows a lack of empathy for how compromised of a position the H1B really is.
If I lose my job I have unemployment insurance, cobra benefits, personal savings, and I don’t require another employer to sponsor my visa. If I lose my job the most likely outcome is I find another one after searching a few months.
If someone on an H1B visa loses their job the most likely outcome is they are forced to leave the country.
Well, truthfully I don't really care all that much about it any more than I do any other problems that people generally experience. It's even more tragic that someone has an H1B means other folks don't - aren't their lives even worse for not having the opportunity that someone else does? Can the H1B visa holder even compete with the person denied the H1B?
The reason I wrote this comment is because the OP itself decided it was warranted with this cynical comment to suggest Americans don't work hard because oh if they get fired well they just find another job but the H1B visa holder gets gasp deported. But this itself diminishes the stresses and experience of those who don't find that other job, or don't find that replacement tech job, or any other devastating affects that someone experiences from job loss. Yea you might have a few months of COBRA benefits, but then what? You might not even have any savings because of some emergency that occurred. What's worse, being deported after a couple of months or becoming homeless in America? What if you're deported to Australia or Japan? Why are you or others assuming a happy ending for someone laid off in America but assuming the worst case scenario for an H1B visa holder and then comparing the two in that way?
I mean worst come to worst you can drive Uber full time until the market recovers? And this is certainly not an option for H1B.
Unless Americans does not want this type of job, which actually validates your cynical interpretation of OP's comment. Meanwhile a lot of illegal immigrants are happily driving for Uber and plenty more will be if they can do it legally.
> I mean worst come to worst you can drive Uber full time until the market recovers? And this is certainly not an option for H1B.
Why can't the H1B visa holder also just be deported and drive for Uber in their home country full-time until the market recovers?
> Meanwhile a lot of illegal immigrants are happily driving for Uber and plenty more will be if they can do it legally.
As a capitalist I'm all in favor of driving wages for workers to as close to 0 as possible. If Uber is $1 for me instead of $15 that's great. I don't think our unions or blue-collar workforce are in favor of that though.
I was recently involved in a civil suit where an 50+ year old easement was brought up. I’m glad you only consider the easement valid for 5 years or when in use, but the courts disagree.
A philosophical difference for sure, I happen to find plenty of laws to be unjust, not right, and even unconstitutional. In this comment chain that seems a bit out of place though, I thought we were specifically talking about the laws at play here (maybe I misread it though!)
Should the limitations really exist in perpetuity? It seems unreasonable that land is forced to be a park in 1000 years because it was donated. The people in one hundred generations should be able to use the land how they see fit.
I don’t think this is fully correct. Athletic skill is not universal across sports. A athlete that can be trained to be a star football player may not be able to be trained to be a star baseball player.
Even though chances of succeeding in any are small, a potential athlete has far more to gain by being successful at football/basketball/baseball than at soccer. It's nearly impossible for even a star athlete to succeed at more than one sport, (see also, Michael Jordan) so anyone who wants to be a famous athlete has no incentive to train for anything other than the top three sports.
> It's nearly impossible for even a star athlete to succeed at more than one sport
I don't think this means as much as you're putting weight into.
I think the fact that somebody like MJ or Tim Tebow could even get a try-out in a different profession sports really speaks to top level talent being fungible. Like just imagine somebody practices being a Doctor for 20+ years and then gets an interview to be a World Cup Referee. Sure, they might not succeed at the other sport but the fact they can still do it is I think proof of sports fungibility.
It's not that top athlete's aren't well above average in a sport that they didn't dedicate their life to, it's that without that dedication they don't have a chance of being a top athlete in that sport that disincentivizes potential athletes from training in multiple sports.
I don’t think that fully aligns with my observations. The US outputs plenty of star athletes in minor sports. Swimming, boxing, gymnastics, etc. It’s not all incentives like the mythical economic rational actor, especially when we’re talking about choices adolescents are making.
I think there is a more self selection process happening for athletes and sports. People with natural athletic inclinations try lots of sports young, they will do well in the ones they are most suited for, and begin taking that seriously.
No one in any country is going to be a famous athlete for swimming, boxing, gymnastics, etc., so they're all competing against athletes that are also competing in that sport for the love of the sport, whereas someone playing whichever sport is called football in that country has a chance of becoming a famous athlete.
There are many multi sport athletes in the high school ranks and elite athletes in college are drafted in multiple professional leagues. You can see known lists here including baseball:
The list for college and high school would be huge. There is such a thing as athletic skill, I’ve heard it called a kinesthetic gift. People with particularly good builds, strengths, speed, agility, etc. can train those attributes across several different disciplines. As you get higher and more elite you will eventually have to specialize. “Jocks” in high school frequently played multiple sports and many lettered in multiple as well.
This is probably less true than you'd think. Freak athletes are great athletes no matter the sport.
There's kind of a soft cap on NFL player height at about 6'5" or 6'6" - hardly anybody is taller than that. But the NBA is majority guys 6'6" or taller. That split isn't because all those kids got sorted into the right sport when they were kids. It's because if you're enough of an athlete to go pro and tall enough to make a living off basketball, that's a lot easier life with a longer career than playing football.
Kids don't pick a sport based on the one they have the most potential in. Some parents might, but kids would pick a sport based on the one they enjoy, which will be influenced by social pressures. The question isn't "can they go pro in the second sport," the question is "can they play the second sport well enough to play with / impress their friends."
I absolutely agree. There are so many prongs to a complete education; mandates, curriculum changes, social and political injections, funding issues (particularly taxpayers needing to see a return on their educational investment), and so many more. One bad systemic decision can set off downward spirals in one, some, or all of these.
I suspect the number of picks you would need is surprisingly small to reach high parity with the S&P.
If you don’t pick the right grocery company, you have a shot at picking the right telecommunications company. You pick fewer winners, but you’re also picking fewer losers.
The real reason to do this is because you want to avoid specific companies that are inside the index. You would only do this if you felt confident in your ability to avoid investing a lot of capital in losers. Even if you’re great at avoiding the telecommunications loser, you might be worse than average at avoiding the loser in other sectors.
The whole concept of optimal levels of firearms ownership should have been expanded upon, as this premise is probably new to the audience and a cornerstone of their entire research.
Agreed, there's not a lot of substance here. I read the article more than once and still don't know if "overarming" means too many individuals own guns or too many guns per individual. I assume the former based on context. Also interesting is that they focus on the US but two out of three groups studied are not in the US.
Their cohort studies are across three completely different populations. I would be willing to listen to an argument that for some specific population there’s a firearm ownership level above which there are diminishing safety returns, but I find the idea that this same level would hold across wildly different populations absurd
I'm willing to bet this is defined by some base levels in their equations as a default utility. So they aren't trying to say what the optimal level for the various uses of guns are, they are using math to prove that people are being driven to purchase more guns than that level, whatever that level is.
The pace of data creation is only increasing, and our capabilities of sharing and storing it is growing as well. Lots of this is out in the open, ready for anyone to crawl and scrape.
There probably is a point of “peak data” where the amount of new data will start decreasing, but that’s likely a 22nd or 24rd century problem.
Pace of data creation ignores the fact that the majority of the big gains in LLM “intelligence” has come from scraping and feeding in the huge amount of public data that already exists.
Unless we’re producing data on the order of an entire new internet every couple of years, then it’s hard to see how LLMs can achieve further huge leaps in capability compared to training on effectively 0% of the internet vs 100% of the internet.
That is without going into fact that many already use AI to type out and write stuff. I have a customer in Far East that routinely uses it even for simple emails, he is not so familiar with English.
The majority of the gains come from the size of the supercomputers used to train them on. That's still growing. The algorithms used, and how the data is annotated is also some secret sauce.
If anything, trend will go towards sharing data less. It will become more important to keep the knowhow and data to yourself so the companies will do that.
And individuals will loose motivation to share, because it wont be that pro-social activity anymore anyway.
reply