The second option. The military dictatorship had an official censorship bureau in place. Proposed news articles had to be run through it before publishing. When some story was barred, it was usual for journal staff to fill its empty slot with something else, like poems, short stories, tall tales, et cetera, that obviously felt out of place. This way people were made aware something that should be there did not make it.
1) how many of these people leave the country in this analysis.
2) OPTs likely will get h1b/l1s/leave the country and are being counted distinctly.
3) not all h1b/l1/OPTs are for tech. majority for sure, but there's a conversation factor.
specially in the current situation that green cards are much harder to obtain and many OPTs don't find a job, I expect 1 to be much larger than in the past.
Oh, there's a name for it! I've sometimes been struggling to verbalize in the past the logical issue I perceived with the "immigrants steal are jobs" absolutists, and this is a useful reference.
how cooked do you have to be to synthesize that sentence without universal healthcare and an enormous chunk of the population living paycheck to paycheck
Some would say having a choice of which healthcare to pay for, the ability to choose a provider, the right to not pay for healthcare (maybe you value an extra holiday more than being able to go to a GP) is a good thing.
I'm from the UK, everyone I've met in the NHS has good intentions but the system itself means the standard of care is very poor. I have no option to go elsewhere with my £'s if a receptionist is extremely rude to me or a doctor won't listen.
Not to say the US system is perfect, just that adding even more government intervention (and associated plunder) by making healthcare universal, is perhaps not the answer.
It's easy, in this discussion, to get into the weeds and be distracted by details (like lots of people have by your "no option to go elsewhere with my £'s" remark).
If you want free at the point of healthcare, clearly you are better off in the UK than in the USA. If you want to pay for better care (like, well off middle class, not millions) then you're still better off in the UK than in the USA because we don't have perverse incentives for healthcare insurance, so the cost is lower even when you include the price of NHS services you aren't using. And if you're paying literal millions for healthcare then you ought to be paying for others' healthcare even if you aren't using it in principle.
Does it make logical sense that public healthcare should work better? That's irrelevant because, empirically, it does.
>Not to say the US system is perfect, just that adding even more government intervention (and associated plunder)
Uh huh. Because companies that have the explicit purpose of making as much money as possible don't "plunder". Why do you think it is that the US spends more public money per capita than many other countries and yet still has worse healthcare outcomes?
You're the richest country in the world (Andorra isn't real, don't @ me). And if you want universal healthcare, come and experience the joy of the NHS. I have to actually live with it.
Don't you have private healthcare in the UK too, if you aren't satisfied with the NHS?
IMO universal healthcare is awesome as the final safety-net that provides critical care, no matter your financial or employment situation. Yet it doesn't need be the only option. If businesses or people with money want to pay more to get care faster from private sector, that's okay too. It's how the system works here in Finland.
Ditto Australia, hybrid public / private healthcare ...
* private is good for better rooms, more scenic views, personalised spa like service and near immediate access to non life essential procedures
* public keeps the majority of people alive and triages procedures, you can get overnight heart stent surgery for free if required, might have to wait a few months for non critical knee surgery.
Private healthcare exists in the interstices of the NHS. The gorilla in the room squishes everything else into the corners.
Safety nets would be great, but a net that arrives several days after you have already fallen to the ground is not very helpful. That is what rationing-by-queueing does. Maybe Finland is great - I believe you! Britain's system is not.
> And it may sound paranoid but remember that China was caught operating their own "police" force around the world not long ago
Have you heard about ICE? That one's not a paranoid thought. It's a very real personal police designed for oppression. I'd much much rather chineses EVs flooding the market over Teslas.
American citizens being shot and brutalized by a state sponsored force of masked thugs without training. Sounds pretty clandestine to me and it's happening in us soil.
Ragebait would be trying to argue that China running secret police and propaganda operations on Canadian soil, against Canadian citizens, is in any way equivalent to a domestic force taking actions primarily against foreign nationals, in a statutorily authorized way within a legal framework that can be challenged.
There are many cases of law enforcement being imprisoned for shooting people while on duty. It is well established that enforcing laws does not give you carte blanche to shoot people
These two concerns do not need to be mutually exclusive. Either one can be recognized as a threat to our liberties without diminishing the severity of the other.
The more relevant discussion is the lack of policy/legislation to prohibit government agencies from sidestepping the 4th amendment and purchasing access from private corps, like Flock, to surveil individuals without a warrant. It’s ICE today, maybe DEA tomorrow, and the FDA in some broken future. In a decade or two, when nearly all vehicles are inherently advanced optical sensors with wheels, what stops auto manufactures becoming real-time surveillance companies, like Flock?
> Have you heard about ICE? That one's not a paranoid thought. It's a very real personal police designed for oppression.
Oh, come on. ICE may be behaving badly right now, and you might be mad at them, but that's not an excuse for flights of fancy. Stay grounded in the truth. ICE is not "personal police designed for oppression," they're police designed to enforce immigration and customs laws (ICE literally stands for "immigration and customs enforcement").
> The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) removals program contributes to upholding the integrity of Canada’s immigration system by removing people who are inadmissible to enter or stay in Canada.
> ... The CBSA also prioritizes the removal of failed refugee claimants who entered Canada irregularly between points of entry. These cases are prioritized due to their significant impact on program integrity and on Canada’s asylum system.
I'm under the impression that Canada has historically actually been much more strict with enforcing immigration laws and deporting people than the US had been.
Do you know what the word "designed" means? Because I don't think it means what you think it means.
I am in no way saying what that ICE agent did was right. I'm just saying being mad is not an excuse for being a sloppy thinker. What's happening here is the ICE agents' behavior is out of control and they're probably behaving illegally. That's not being anyone's "personal police" (whatever that means) or they are "designed to beat up anyone in the US," but believing such false things will probably lead to stupid slogans that end up doing more harm than good (e.g. "defund the police").
Designed means exactly that I meant: today ICE is designed (meant to) beat up anyone in the US. When ICE agents kill people, they get immunity from the feds (that guy who shot Renee Good will not see a day in prison).
If my comment led you to a conclusion that I support "Defund ICE" you would be correct.
All of this to show you that my understanding of the work designed is correct.
> Designed means exactly that I meant ... designed (meant to) ...
> All of this to show you that my understanding of the work [sic] designed is correct.
All right, I see what's going on here. You just don't know what the word designed means.
To illustrate: if went to the hardware store to buy a claw hammer and meant to use it to murder someone, which you then did, does that mean the claw hammer was "designed" to murder people? No, of course not. The hammer was designed to install and remove nails. It can also be used for other purposes for which it was not meant for, such as murder (as hypothetical you showed), but it was not designed for those purposes.
You're not Humpty Dumpty, words don't mean whatever you choose them to mean. The "defund the police" people thought they could do that, and look where that got us.
If you disagree, find me the design documents for ICE (they're surely public), and show me where it says it's "designed to beat up anyone in the US." Remember that's not going to be a Trump executive order, because time machines aren't real.
> If my comment led you to a conclusion that I support "Defund ICE" you would be correct.
And I guarantee you that even if you do that, some other agency will be tasked with what ICE was designed to do.
Sure, if the red herring is the sloppiness that distracts from what's actually going on, and then digging in to defend that (e.g. the clearly false statements about "design").
But it's not a red herring to insist on not being sloppy. Saying false things helps no one.
The cars are higher quality and, more importantly, cheaper. US manufacturers can't make a cheap car to save their lives. The average age of cars on US roads is now 13 years, nobody can afford new cars.
There's a huge market opportunity here that all our manufacturers are missing, seemingly on purpose. BYD, and others, would absolutely sweep the competition.
> US manufacturers can't make a cheap car to save their lives.
They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to never make low-margin (read "cheap") cars. If someone is looking for a competitive automotive market, they won't find it in the US. The financial engineering is world-class though.
High quality? I’ve ridden in several. It’s an all plastic deal with a flimsy feel. The ride is horrible and from the reviews I e read the handling is terrible.
Handling on basically all EVs except maybe what porsche is doing is terrible. And American cars are all plastic and flimsy, and this includes Tesla. But they're also much more expensive.
> The Chinese EVs were particularly atrocious in their handling.
I disagree, again, pretty much all EVs handle like shit because they're very heavy and have a ton of torque. It doesn't help that most American cars are very large and particularly tall, which makes handling even worse. The reality is that a sedan will basically always handle better than an SUV, no matter what, even if it's a piece of shit sedan and a 100K Cadillac SUV. At least, on pavement.
> And sure some American cars are plastic and flimsy
No, like, all of them. You can't buy a Tesla with an interior that isn't mostly plastic. GM is still doing that bullshit where most of their components are binned from 20K shitboxes. There's SOME exceptions, but they're rare. And you'll find that what Xiaomi and some other's are doing is not plastic. They have leather interiors and stuff, this is all very easy to verify online. I'm not telling you anything that isn't trivial to find out.
The only logic anyone really needs is the US's refusal to approve BYD cars for sale in the US because they would destroy US auto manufacturers. Past that the much cheaper price for the same or higher quality level of vehicle.
What does a 2025 US car have over a BYD vehicle? Questionable parts availability?
