I guess it depends on how you define "poor". If "poor" is never having to work, getting to chase your dreams and ambitions with your entire life, and never having to worry about food and housing and healthcare, then sign me up.
"Forward Deployed Engineer" is on your website and links to LinkedIn, but it's listed as not accepting applications there.
Your company is awesome, I tinkered with something exactly like this but with a little plastic RC excavator. I'm a web developer but probably not a competitive candidate. Just wanted to say "cool!"
Instead of LinkedIn just mail career@machines.run. We closed linkedIn because we were getting 100+ applications every day and many of them low quality (no idea what our company does etc). Feel free to mail us, we’re hiring for a lot of roles! (Including Forward Deployed Software Engineer)
What's the best combination of close to the US, high living standards, good healthcare, and feasible to immigrate to as an American with a pretty normal professional career?
If you want a decent public answer, then I need to know which continents are off limits to be able to help you. You are being way too vague here. Also, a lot of the help I can give is only useful when discussed privately. I obviously do not want anything to do with confidential information, and I do not need that to help people. It's just that posting certain details about yourself online is not appropriate via public websites. That is why I give my email (see profile).
Typically getting citizenship in /any/ European Union + European Free Trade Association country (minus Liechtenstein--has an immigration quota) is the best deal for an American.
The reason why? Becoming a citizen of one of these countries confers you EU or EFTA citizenship (let's just call it EU citizenship). Once you become an EU citizen, you have the right to live/work/retire in about 30 different countries. You are also always seen as "The American" with your American educational credentials and American work experience.
So, if you can just spend like 5-10 years in one of those countries (sometimes a less desirable one), get the citizenship, you can then move to somewhere more desired that is much harder to obtain citizenship in--permanently.
Usually the place to go for Americans is Ireland, where you can get citizenship in 5 years. Ireland also permits dual citizenship. Not only can you live/work/retire anywhere in the EU+EFTA: because of ties to the UK, having Irish citizenship gives you rights to live/work/retire in the UK.
Also, pay attention to who is top on this list (5 of the top 10 are in the EU + EFTA):
This means that they do not have to get their employer to do a skilled work test, which means they would otherwise have to prove that they are "not taking away a job from an EU citizen", which is a very high standard to meet.
The problem with Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, is that they have medical inadmissibility clauses in their immigration laws. This means that if you or anyone in your family is expected to (or do) cost more than $19,500 CAD/year, $8,000 AUD/year, or $7,500 NZD/year in medical or social services, or both, as an individual: you and your family are medically inadmissible to those countries and will be denied entry. If you or a family member goes over that threshold at any point, your entire family will be forced to go home and leave, even if working full-time and otherwise fully contributing and integrating into society. I would not be surprised if the UK does something like this post-Brexit.
Space junk isn't a problem at the altitude that Starlink operates at and they harmlessly fall back into the atmosphere after a given number of years. Please take the Musk-bashing astroturfing elsewhere.
To dig through the materials these bunkers are made of would require technology advanced enough they would know what radiation is and how to detect it.
And this is the problem with the world. We easily have the resources to home, feed, educate, and provide medicine to everyone. But we don't due to greed
Civil forfeiture has a bad track record because it's used on poor and lower class people 99.999% of the time. I imagine if it was only used on rich people it'd have a stellar reputation.
> if it was only used on rich people it'd have a stellar reputation
We've tried this, a lot, in Latin America. It doesn't work. Throwing out the rule of law because you don't like a group of people is a short-term strategy.
