my sense is that pure egotistical refusal to acknowledge Tesla's success and significance is the primary reason none of the major manufacturers are interested in taking advantage of the only existing high-speed charging network.
My senses is they thought "We don't run gas stations. Why would we run charger stations?"
The amount of illegal immigrants in the US rivals the entire population of Canada
As long as you define "rivals" as "1/3rd". There's about 36M people in Canada. There's about 12M undocumented immigrants in the US. And that 12M includes people who are working through the immigration process (DACA, asylum, etc).
The US does not have an issue with illegal immigration from Canada
sO yOu WaNt OpEn BoRdErS!!!!
Also, we just deported a former US solider to Canada. Damn Canadians and their rampant drug abuse!!!
You do not have millions of Canadians flowing in flooding the already dwindling manual labour market.
If this concern was actually a problem, farmers would not be scrambling to find farm workers. They are.
It turns out, US Persons don't want to do farm labor for terrible pay.
People protest because they are stupefied by such an asinine statement. Building a wall on the Canadian border would benefit us Canadians more than Americans.
Whatever you do, make sure you stay locked on that obviously sarcastic part of the post, and skip over the parts where the Trumpkin are not upset at all about European or Asian undocumented immigrants.
The only time I ever see it mentioned is by leftists, who seem obsessed with race.
Believe it or not, we are able to notice you are not talking about "building a wall" to keep out the Canadians. Or Asians (~15% of undocumented workers). Or Europeans (~25%).
We also notice that the countries that are not "Shitholes" just happen to contain people who are very pale skinned.
There's a pretty obvious pattern here. Especially when you protest too much when called on it.
You don't get it because there's a lot of misconceptions in your post.
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
That is the current law.
The big stories about things like the kids being caged at the border are people requesting asylum that were arrested before they could make their formal request.
This happens because the "it's illegal to enter the US without permission" and "you can enter the US to request asylum without permission" are both on the books. And there are several other contradictions in immigration law which allows people to either stay or be deported based on what ICE feels like at that particular moment.
Law enforcement based on what ICE feels like at that particular moment is not a good system.
I think we could look to encourage more immigration from those that are educated and can come to the US and help the workforce and economy right away.
There's actually a large shortage of farm workers. US people won't do the work for the wages farmers want to pay. So poorly-educated and impoverished Central American farmers can help the workforce and economy right away.
And this is actually the way farming has been done in the US for more than a century. Farmers import undocumented labor and they work the harvests, moving Northward as the year moves on, including into Canada. Then they went back home for the winter. As we ramped up anti-Latino immigration as a campaign tactic, we made it harder to re-enter the country like this. So the workers started staying in the US for the winter.
Long story short, our economy and food supply have always relied on undocumented workers. There is not a sudden crisis. There is the need to turn out angry white voters for one political party.
There will be some lower educated types too, as that all levels are needed, but the ratio needs to be controlled.
Why? Immigrants (from all education levels) end up making far more money and die far wealthier than equivalent US people.
Think about it: You are willing to leave everything at home and walk 2,000 miles, much of it through desert that will try very hard to kill you. If you are so driven that you do that, you are driven enough that you will bust your ass at any job you get once you arrive. You aren't going to say "Ok, that's done. Time to sit on the couch forever". Because if you're the kind of person who would plop on the couch forever, you won't make it through that journey.
The thing that made the US great was that we imported all of the driven people who didn't happen to be born well off, and then waited for those people be successful.
So no, we don't need to control that ratio. The people that are able to make it here will do just fine.
But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.
That's because it's a caricature designed to turn out votes for Republicans. It doesn't really exist. The proposals that are the most "open border" still require background checks and investigations of immigrants, rejecting the "bad hombres".
You don't get it because you are not supposed to get it. None of the rhetoric makes sense or is internally consistent. "Those 2-year-olds have to be kept in cages because they're stone cold MS-13 killers who are going to invade your town and kill you in your sleep....while sitting around doing nothing and mooching off public services" (which, btw, they can not get because they can't qualify without an SSN).
It's designed primarily to make you afraid and get you to pull the lever for anyone with an R after their name on the ballot.
The secondary goal is to stifle debate on the issue, so that any attempt to discuss reforming this horrific dystopia of contradictory laws where children who can't read yet are suppos
"The... thing that was shocking for me was to understand just how the federal authorizations are allowing Amazon to have such a monopoly over the storage of government information,"
Good thing Google pulled out of the bidding to do anything about that! And Microsoft employees lobbying for MS to also pull out.
The vast majority of the times I've seen a company use contract workers, it's a management problem.
Manger has work that needs to be done, and all existing employees are busy. This work is not some sort of short-term bump in the road, there will be work for years.
Manager asks for another employee.
Executives and/or HR say "No", because it would violate some arbitrary rule on number of employees or number of direct reports or something similar.
However, the manager is allowed to hire a contractor at 150% the cost of an employee, because that doesn't violate the arbitrary rule. Contractor ends up as de-facto employee, and everyone desperately hopes that doesn't bite them in the ass.
So what should we assume about you when we demonstrate that sexuality and gender is a lot more complex than the structures that develop between someone's legs?
For example, there's people who are XY who are born with a vagina. Do you want to count their genes as the "right" answer or their crotch? What's the answer for people born with both?
This is biology. Nothing is binary. Everything is gradients, and many times things "don't work like they're supposed to".
The relative bipartisanship from roughly the 1940s to roughly the 1980s was an artifact of the Southern realignment. Before this, there were Republicans in all-but-name representing much of the South because Southerners hated the idea of voting for "the party of Lincoln". So while technically the various caucuses in Congress were party aligned, there also was a split between Southern Democrats/Western Republicans vs Northern Democrats and Republicans. So the leaders in Congress had to maintain their party split and the ideological split at the same time, resulting in far more bipartisanship than had ever happened before.
Then we get to the 1960s and civil rights legislation, and Southerners decided they hated black people more than they hated voting for "the party of Lincoln", so the Southern Democrats gradually converted to formally being members of the Republican party.
Once the Southern realignment was done, we went back to business as usual. And that isn't bipartisanship.
Either way, both sides are simply dismissing the other's because they don't want to actually reach some middle ground
Think about any controversial issue today. There is not a stable middle ground.
Subsidized shitty private insurance is not a middle ground between what the parties want in healthcare. There is not a middle ground between "you are slaughtering children" and "the state can not be given absolute control of someone's uterus". "We should only sort-of invade countries" is not a middle ground between conquest and non-intervention. Just like there was no way to successfully compromise between slavery and freedom.
There is conflict because these issues can not be solved by compromise.
According to the UK's High Court, it does. I'm gonna trust them a wee bit more than an AC.
Someone I know was charged and convicted in Sweden, and only then did Sweden ask his home country for an extradition. The guy did 2 years in a Swedish jail.
r/thathappened
but in that case, it would not have been possible to play one of those "lose him in the airport in the hands of CIA" tricks the Swedes are so good at.
You realize that the UK could just as easily seize Assange for the US, right? It's not like British Intelligence has the cleanest hands in the world.
Because the law says so. Whether or not that should matter is fine to debate, but currently you have to tell the US government you are getting paid by a foreign government.
A private foreign PAC would be okay?
IIRC, it would not be OK directly, but that PAC could create and fund a PAC in the US to dodge it.
Slashdot Mirror
"We don't want the government to give all $10 billion to Amazon"
Does it happen to be a bulk mail thing? Since those are presorted, perhaps they don't go through the scanner.
my sense is that pure egotistical refusal to acknowledge Tesla's success and significance is the primary reason none of the major manufacturers are interested in taking advantage of the only existing high-speed charging network.
My senses is they thought "We don't run gas stations. Why would we run charger stations?"
The amount of illegal immigrants in the US rivals the entire population of Canada
As long as you define "rivals" as "1/3rd". There's about 36M people in Canada. There's about 12M undocumented immigrants in the US. And that 12M includes people who are working through the immigration process (DACA, asylum, etc).
The US does not have an issue with illegal immigration from Canada
sO yOu WaNt OpEn BoRdErS!!!!
Also, we just deported a former US solider to Canada. Damn Canadians and their rampant drug abuse!!!
You do not have millions of Canadians flowing in flooding the already dwindling manual labour market.
If this concern was actually a problem, farmers would not be scrambling to find farm workers. They are.
It turns out, US Persons don't want to do farm labor for terrible pay.
People protest because they are stupefied by such an asinine statement. Building a wall on the Canadian border would benefit us Canadians more than Americans.
Whatever you do, make sure you stay locked on that obviously sarcastic part of the post, and skip over the parts where the Trumpkin are not upset at all about European or Asian undocumented immigrants.
As a result, even they were born in America, raised in America, and have lived all their lives in America, they can still be looked at as immigrants
And that applies if they are this poster's grandkids or if they're a 7th generation American.
The point is the attitude and behaviors of those grandkids will be just like that 7th generation American.
The problem is the second term in your equation is false.
Just like every group of immigrants before them, it's grandchildren who are fully assimilated.
The only time I ever see it mentioned is by leftists, who seem obsessed with race.
Believe it or not, we are able to notice you are not talking about "building a wall" to keep out the Canadians. Or Asians (~15% of undocumented workers). Or Europeans (~25%).
We also notice that the countries that are not "Shitholes" just happen to contain people who are very pale skinned.
There's a pretty obvious pattern here. Especially when you protest too much when called on it.
The melting pot isn't about you. It's about your grandchildren.
Immigrants remain somewhat distinct. Their children mostly assimilate but still are a bit of a bridge. Their children completely assimilate.
Your grandchildren will be indistinguishable from any other American. That is the melting pot.
So give them an easy process to apply for a work visa that expires after, say, 6 months, and a process and criteria to renew that visa
We used to have such systems. Then "fear the brown hordes" became a useful campaign slogan.
You don't get it because there's a lot of misconceptions in your post.
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
That is the current law.
The big stories about things like the kids being caged at the border are people requesting asylum that were arrested before they could make their formal request.
This happens because the "it's illegal to enter the US without permission" and "you can enter the US to request asylum without permission" are both on the books. And there are several other contradictions in immigration law which allows people to either stay or be deported based on what ICE feels like at that particular moment.
Law enforcement based on what ICE feels like at that particular moment is not a good system.
I think we could look to encourage more immigration from those that are educated and can come to the US and help the workforce and economy right away.
There's actually a large shortage of farm workers. US people won't do the work for the wages farmers want to pay. So poorly-educated and impoverished Central American farmers can help the workforce and economy right away.
And this is actually the way farming has been done in the US for more than a century. Farmers import undocumented labor and they work the harvests, moving Northward as the year moves on, including into Canada. Then they went back home for the winter. As we ramped up anti-Latino immigration as a campaign tactic, we made it harder to re-enter the country like this. So the workers started staying in the US for the winter.
Long story short, our economy and food supply have always relied on undocumented workers. There is not a sudden crisis. There is the need to turn out angry white voters for one political party.
There will be some lower educated types too, as that all levels are needed, but the ratio needs to be controlled.
Why? Immigrants (from all education levels) end up making far more money and die far wealthier than equivalent US people.
Think about it: You are willing to leave everything at home and walk 2,000 miles, much of it through desert that will try very hard to kill you. If you are so driven that you do that, you are driven enough that you will bust your ass at any job you get once you arrive. You aren't going to say "Ok, that's done. Time to sit on the couch forever". Because if you're the kind of person who would plop on the couch forever, you won't make it through that journey.
The thing that made the US great was that we imported all of the driven people who didn't happen to be born well off, and then waited for those people be successful.
So no, we don't need to control that ratio. The people that are able to make it here will do just fine.
But I just don't get these seemingly increasing number of folks in the US promoting full blown open borders, with no control of who gets in here.
That's because it's a caricature designed to turn out votes for Republicans. It doesn't really exist. The proposals that are the most "open border" still require background checks and investigations of immigrants, rejecting the "bad hombres".
You don't get it because you are not supposed to get it. None of the rhetoric makes sense or is internally consistent. "Those 2-year-olds have to be kept in cages because they're stone cold MS-13 killers who are going to invade your town and kill you in your sleep....while sitting around doing nothing and mooching off public services" (which, btw, they can not get because they can't qualify without an SSN).
It's designed primarily to make you afraid and get you to pull the lever for anyone with an R after their name on the ballot.
The secondary goal is to stifle debate on the issue, so that any attempt to discuss reforming this horrific dystopia of contradictory laws where children who can't read yet are suppos
Yeah, it COULD have been a google or ms monopoly instead.
Considering the contract is explicitly written to award more than one provider, that's not exactly likely.
"The ... thing that was shocking for me was to understand just how the federal authorizations are allowing Amazon to have such a monopoly over the storage of government information,"
Good thing Google pulled out of the bidding to do anything about that! And Microsoft employees lobbying for MS to also pull out.
The 150% cost is still less than paying the various benefits and taxes to the employee
The 150% includes that. It's not like the staffing firm does not have costs when their employee works as a contractor.
Plus upper management likes being able to fire on a moments notice if they need a quick stock bump. Most jurisdictions require a few months notice.
Zero in the US do. And since Silicon Valley is the subject of the story, US rules would seem to be the most relevant.
A contractor is, or should be, or at least might be, an independent expert who doesn't need a lot of directions
And here's the point where you didn't read the last sentence in my post, making everything you're talking about here moot.
Perhaps you could explain why it's a good thing first.
And if you use the words "self-employed", you are disqualified. >90% of these contractors work for staffing firms.
The vast majority of the times I've seen a company use contract workers, it's a management problem.
Manger has work that needs to be done, and all existing employees are busy. This work is not some sort of short-term bump in the road, there will be work for years.
Manager asks for another employee.
Executives and/or HR say "No", because it would violate some arbitrary rule on number of employees or number of direct reports or something similar.
However, the manager is allowed to hire a contractor at 150% the cost of an employee, because that doesn't violate the arbitrary rule. Contractor ends up as de-facto employee, and everyone desperately hopes that doesn't bite them in the ass.
So what should we assume about you when we demonstrate that sexuality and gender is a lot more complex than the structures that develop between someone's legs?
For example, there's people who are XY who are born with a vagina. Do you want to count their genes as the "right" answer or their crotch? What's the answer for people born with both?
This is biology. Nothing is binary. Everything is gradients, and many times things "don't work like they're supposed to".
I like how you claimed to agree with the concept in the post, and then immediately disregarded the concept in the post.
and I'm pretty sure it'll ultimately swing back to something resembling sanity
Why?
Multiple Congressmen have died in duels. There was literally an assault in the Senate chamber.
The relative bipartisanship from roughly the 1940s to roughly the 1980s was an artifact of the Southern realignment. Before this, there were Republicans in all-but-name representing much of the South because Southerners hated the idea of voting for "the party of Lincoln". So while technically the various caucuses in Congress were party aligned, there also was a split between Southern Democrats/Western Republicans vs Northern Democrats and Republicans. So the leaders in Congress had to maintain their party split and the ideological split at the same time, resulting in far more bipartisanship than had ever happened before.
Then we get to the 1960s and civil rights legislation, and Southerners decided they hated black people more than they hated voting for "the party of Lincoln", so the Southern Democrats gradually converted to formally being members of the Republican party.
Once the Southern realignment was done, we went back to business as usual. And that isn't bipartisanship.
Either way, both sides are simply dismissing the other's because they don't want to actually reach some middle ground
Think about any controversial issue today. There is not a stable middle ground.
Subsidized shitty private insurance is not a middle ground between what the parties want in healthcare.
There is not a middle ground between "you are slaughtering children" and "the state can not be given absolute control of someone's uterus".
"We should only sort-of invade countries" is not a middle ground between conquest and non-intervention.
Just like there was no way to successfully compromise between slavery and freedom.
There is conflict because these issues can not be solved by compromise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They're developing their own technology because of implementing RDS. IIRC, RDS was originally a customized MySQL, and then they implemented Aurora.
Businesses aren't going to use tools that specifically work worse than others
You haven't spent much time working in a larger business, have you?
No, Swedish law doesn't require such a thing.
According to the UK's High Court, it does. I'm gonna trust them a wee bit more than an AC.
Someone I know was charged and convicted in Sweden, and only then did Sweden ask his home country for an extradition. The guy did 2 years in a Swedish jail.
r/thathappened
but in that case, it would not have been possible to play one of those "lose him in the airport in the hands of CIA" tricks the Swedes are so good at.
You realize that the UK could just as easily seize Assange for the US, right? It's not like British Intelligence has the cleanest hands in the world.
Why does that make a difference?
Because the law says so. Whether or not that should matter is fine to debate, but currently you have to tell the US government you are getting paid by a foreign government.
A private foreign PAC would be okay?
IIRC, it would not be OK directly, but that PAC could create and fund a PAC in the US to dodge it.
As long as their home country's government is not funding their efforts, they're legal.
And the companies are American (incorporated in the US), and Citizens United is still precedent. So that's legal.