Yeah, but there's gotchas to that comparison. Mercedes and BMW are European brands and it would have been problematic for them to do vehicle assembly in Detroit for all kinds of business competition reasons.
Alabama makes a ton of sense as a new industrial center -- if you're importing a ton of pre-manufactured parts, it has easy access to an ocean port. Detroit does, too, kind of, but you have a long transit through the Great Lakes and your ports are closed in the winter. No competition/conflict with a giant competitive industrial base. Low wages, probably weak pollution controls, it's like about as close to a third world county as you can get in the US.
Loss of potential jobs? My guess is that this plant was never going to employee the existing unemployed or "hard to employ" workers. These people were all going to be employed somehow.
Wisconsin's growth problems seem more to be a matter of geography than policy. Their only large city is in the far southeastern part of the state and it faces parasitic competition from neighboring Chicago. The rest of the state is a maze of small towns that lack much growth potential due to small populations, weak transportation and lack of development. Most of Western Wisconsin is a branch office for Minnesota.
I think the idea is that Foxconn is doing the "reconsidering" now that they otherwise would have done later after only making a tiny investment. This was never going to work out as it was promoted.
Silicon Valley, Wall Street, Shenzhen, all these economic hubs generally crop up and persist in a single geography because of the benefits of physical proximity. I can't ever think of a time where somebody was able to clone an existing industry hub elsewhere. Plus it always seems like they're trying to recreate the past rather than the future.
My question is why aren't the major smartphone brands pushing their phones as dockable desktops since they have desktop-like resources under the hood?
You can argue they have bad desktop user experiences and that's maybe true at a Finder/Explorer "desktop" level, but would it really matter for actual applications on an external monitor provided scaling is done right?
You could also argue that maybe Apple specifically doesn't want it because it because it might undermine Macintosh sales. But really, would someone who would dock an iPhone as a desktop actually be a "lost" Mac sale, or someone who would otherwise buy a cheap PC ultrabook instead? It's also hard to see Apple as 100% dedicated in their desktop platform given the lackluster hardware cycles there. It seems more compelling that they *should* pursue this further because of flagging smartphone sales.
It seems like whatever smartphone vendor can pull this off will see a ton of growth and mostly rob from the low-end PC market. With that in mind, I'm kind of left with the conclusion we don't have dockable phones is that the entire computing industry is tied to an economic model of a PC *and* a smartphone per user. This makes sense for Samsung who sell into the desktop hardware market and might just end up shifting total dollars from PC components to smartphones, but less so for Apple whose phones are in the hands of a lot of non-Mac owners and who doesn't make money off the x86 component market.
It could potentially happen, but for the most part most people's money is guaranteed by the FDIC and any massive scale funds transfer would probably result in massive clawbacks.
The problem with stealing a trillion dollars overnight is that you have to hide a trillion dollars overnight. Better to steal a little at a time over the long haul.
But gamed to what end? Are you positing an specific conspiracy (ratings gamed for boosting a studio, filmmaker, star, etc) for gaming the RT scores or is it just chaotic gaming of the process by people with the skills to game the process based on whatever motivates them at the time?
I'm willing to believe some movie ratings are gamed to suit some agenda or other -- like I could see Black Panther being boosted because "black superhero", but I'm not entirely sure that the people who think it should be promoted as some kind of icon of African American equality are the same people capable of actually gaming the ratings for it (unless you want to count social pressure on movie reviewers generally to promote a movie about black superheroes).
Mostly I think the examples are just of recent movies having some kind of advantage.
I always wondered if there was some way of statistically correcting ratings to overcome various biases (ie, more recent movies tending to be higher rated, etc) so that ratings scores were more normalized and could be trusted as a basis for comparison.
It wasn't just political handwaving. It's been the standard attitude among economists all along. They've been cheerleading offshoring and other rapid deindustrialization with a message that boils down to people will get better jobs, like coding.
I mean, they're probably right in the long term / macroeconomic perspective (we can have the AI/unemployment/basic income debate later), but almost none of them acknowledged that most existing workers losing their jobs will wind up with worse employment or none at all. I'm aware of almost no economist who supported taxing the corporate windfall of offshoring/H1Bs to support job training or other long-term support programs. It was an ignored problem, probably because to question it was to second guess the economic righteousness of free markets.
IMHO, the biggest failing of economics is its perverse desire to be seen as a science devoid of politics or social impact. It ends up becoming a tone-deaf cheerleader for corporate policies.
I'm left wondering what the chances are the screw was some proprietary "security" design that complicated the tooling and screw production.
I would imagine that screw manufacturers have a lot of existing tooling for common heads at many sizes. My guess is they probably didn't have the time to scale up the tooling required for some proprietary head design, especially if the head itself changed dimensionally.
It would be super ironic if "Apple can't build stuff here" was more or less directly tied to "Apple wants to make it impossible to fix your stuff".
I generally agree that other, focused activities can alter the experience of time. I often work in private IT data centers -- most are shitty, windowless rooms with droning fans and air conditioning, no other people and I'm continually surprised when I look at my watch and realize 4 hours has gone by.
My sense is that time perception is a function of time awareness and environmental focus. The less focused you are, the slower time passes, the more focused you are the faster it passes relative to perception of time.
It's probably tied to something about sensory input and processing, and I'd wager it ties into some primitive survival/hunting ability where intense focus without distraction is important.
LSD seems to alter this somehow, allowing people to experience the time alteration by altering sensory processing. Apparently whatever it affects does so even when the amount is below the amount necessary to produce conscious alteration of the senses.
What's amazing about LSD is the tiny doses at which it works.
I do think that pot can produce a trance-like effect in some situations. I go hiking with my dog and there are times where we'll cross a familiar stretch of ground, maybe a mile or two, and I'll get lost in a train of thought and kind of disconnected from the world around me. We'll be at some transition point in the hike and I won't remember the last couple of miles. During that distance I wasn't unaware of my surroundings, some of the trail is challenging walking with a dog.
I do know that when we get home I'm often surprised we've been gone for 3-4 hours and walked so far.
There's this ultra-marathon runner, Diane Van Deren, who had a brain injury that affected her short-term memory. She can cover these amazing distances and I think my experience partly mimics hers and why she can go so far. I think when you lose part of your short-term memory you don't get the mental fatigue of how far you've been/how far you have to go. You're kind of only in this moment.
This is so true -- one hit today, means two tomorrow and three the day after that to get back to something like one had today.
My problem was always that the good part of acid didn't last long enough and the last half of the trip was always too long with all the good effects dwindled down. Taking more (even if it wasn't a second day trip) didn't really help, either -- the good part got more intense and maybe lasted longer, but the lingering effects lasted longer yet.
I mostly switched to mushrooms, which gave me mostly the same experience but with less "tail end" effect.
I haven't had acid in probably 25 years, but I'd do it again if I had some Xanax or something else to bring the whole thing to an end when I wanted it to end.
Really? I've worked at 3 places, a university, a mid-sized 850 person corporation (independent branch of a larger, 20k person multinational) and a small business (now about 50 people).
The small business has near zero perks. Pop in the warehouse fridge, sometimes and if you like diet cherry Coke or some Mt. Dew variant about half the time. Shitty TGIFridays level appetizer platters about 3 times a year during phony quarterly meetings held at 3 PM on Friday. Travel and other expenses can be parsimonious.
The university was about what you expected from a state institution, there was no free stuff but we seemed to have more food around the office than the small biz. The department was run by seasoned bureaucrats, I imagine they had weaseled in some staff welfare line item that let them buy grub.
The bigger business seemed way more generous. Food/pop was common in meetings, including lunches. Expense limits for travel were beyond generous, I actually asked the guy responsible for them if I could split the savings if I stayed in cheaper hotels and ate cheaper meals but he gave me some song and dance about how I should eat and sleep well to perform well away from home, the company had some concern about employee safety, etc.
My sense is there's just more slop in a large organization than a small one. I'm sure big companies are top notch at treating large groups of identical employees cheaply, but they aren't always very efficient and you can sometimes get in on the extras. Small business is the worst.
For all we know, this battery guy was totally opposed to a bunch of engineering decisions in the Note 7 and told the product managers it would be a problem. And then he got overruled because someone else wanted them to reach a specific thickness/power target that resulted in the battery being compromised.
I always assumed that crappy dental coverage was a byproduct of the fact that a lot of dental problems are preventable if you take care of your teeth.
I actually think they should provide better coverage for major dental work like crowns and root canals, but worse coverage for fillings.
Some of the problem may be shady dentists, too. I've run into dentists that are really big on pushing work that is pretty marginal in terms of necessity, and it seems like there's a lot of effort to push expensive products in the dental office (electric toothbrushes at retail+ prices, specialty toothpastes, etc).
I think the judge would have to do more explain why he thinks she won't get a fair trial in rational terms. Trumps rants aren't relevant because he doesn't control the prosecution or the judicial system she will be tried in. There are laws, procedures and treaties involved as well as the risk of precedent -- it's not a cocktail party where you can simply say "but omg, Trump, it's so unfair". If she can claim the judicial system won't give her a fair trial, couldn't most any extradition defendant in Canada, especially if they're poor or a minority, make the same claim and with better evidence that it is unfair to those people?
I seriously doubt a judge in Canada can get away with simply repudiating the US judicial system as unfair. There's no doubt it has unfair qualities in terms of access for poor people, but that's not what's in question. Trump has had ample opportunities to interfere with the Mueller investigation LEGALLY by pardoning Manafort, et al but hasn't done it, and he has a personal stake in all of these people getting off the hook.
I never used Apple Pay until I activated it about 3 days before a trip to the Netherlands, and it worked almost everywhere there. I ran into about 3 places where the staff apologized for having antiquated terminals that required a physical card.
Back in the US, I'm shocked at how few places I can use ApplePay because the terminals have zero NFC support. I feel like vending machines are doing a better job of supporting it than retailers.
Would it be pure hydrogen, or would it get used to create methane, which would be easier to handle and use as a mobile fuel, especially for ferry-type watercraft?
The thought I had was what if long-distance space probes are some kind of religious or cultural touchstone in their civilization?
Judaism is something like 3000 years old. What if space probes with life cycles of a 1000 years were some kind of religious like custom? Even if the lifespans were human-like, tracking or waiting for one of these probes to return could possibly be something the civilization is based around, somewhat negating the long time span.
Usually in these debates, it's Not Aliens because any civilization advanced enough to cross interstellar space wouldn't do it in person, but would send unmanned probes because they don't have the limitations of needing to move living beings through space.
Now, it's Not Aliens because you can't build interstellar probes capable of that kind of distance or time duration.
I have trouble sorting out Tim Cook's privacy principals so frequently espoused in press releases, op-eds and quips to the press from Apple's business agenda oriented towards marketing their platform as "privacy friendly".
It'd go a long way towards taking Cook and Apple as sincere if Apple would, in great detail, share with us what data they collect on their users, how they use it, and what data they allow Apps to collect, and what if any strings they attach to that data (which I doubt they can enforce anyway).
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Apple's only in the data collection game in any competitive sense if you're an iPhone user, but compared to Google and others, they're bush league and non-competitive, so "Apple as privacy advocate" isn't really because they care about data privacy, but because it's not a business they're competitive in. But if you *are* an i-device user there is, in fact, a ton of data collected about your usage which is of business advantage to Apple.
Which makes me question the sincerity of Cook's privacy speeches -- how do I know that most of this isn't just a marketing ploy to move users to their platform where they can grab the valuable data for themselves? Maybe they don't sell it to third parties, but they still collect it. And there's not exactly a lot of transparency on what they allow Apps to collect, either.
Overall, I'm inclined to believe that my privacy is moderately more protected on an iPhone than an Android, but only modestly.
Switch to the little pod style dishwashing detergents. I've found that in a modern dishwasher with a rinse aid dispenser that they do a great job cleaning dishes. The pods get the right combination of detergents and surfactants without too much total detergent. Supposedly the idea is that dishwashers work based on chemistry, not hydrology.
The only thing to maybe worry about is that I had an appliance repair guy tell me that since the removal of phosphates, they've been using extremely fine mineral abrasives in automatic dishwasher detergent. I think he might be wrong or exaggerating, because I haven't seen any scoring or etching of my glassware like you used to see.
Don't get me wrong, the wall has lots of problems that mean it probably shouldn't be built.
They had teams of testers, including I think some special forces, trying to climb the wall and one of the selection criteria was that trained people couldn't get over it with simple climbing implements.
Tunneling under the wall is problematic in the Southwest as many of the locations aren't easy to tunnel under -- rocky soils, bedrock close to the surface, and the fact that the wall would probably have footings that extended deep enough to make tunneling even harder.
And the difficulty of breaching it wouldn't mean that it wouldn't need to be watched, but that it would need to be watched less intensively than a "virtual wall" or a more simple barrier.
The rejection rate for Presidential cabinet appointees is extremely low and unusual, mostly because I believe the president has the ability to appoint interim appointees and the idea that the President needs a cabinet.
I can't remember a single example where the President wasn't able to appoint cabinet members as a whole, or even faced that much opposition. It's not at all like 3+ parties being unable to name a parliamentary cabinet and prime minister.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but there's gotchas to that comparison. Mercedes and BMW are European brands and it would have been problematic for them to do vehicle assembly in Detroit for all kinds of business competition reasons.
Alabama makes a ton of sense as a new industrial center -- if you're importing a ton of pre-manufactured parts, it has easy access to an ocean port. Detroit does, too, kind of, but you have a long transit through the Great Lakes and your ports are closed in the winter. No competition/conflict with a giant competitive industrial base. Low wages, probably weak pollution controls, it's like about as close to a third world county as you can get in the US.
Loss of potential jobs? My guess is that this plant was never going to employee the existing unemployed or "hard to employ" workers. These people were all going to be employed somehow.
Wisconsin's growth problems seem more to be a matter of geography than policy. Their only large city is in the far southeastern part of the state and it faces parasitic competition from neighboring Chicago. The rest of the state is a maze of small towns that lack much growth potential due to small populations, weak transportation and lack of development. Most of Western Wisconsin is a branch office for Minnesota.
I think the idea is that Foxconn is doing the "reconsidering" now that they otherwise would have done later after only making a tiny investment. This was never going to work out as it was promoted.
Silicon Valley, Wall Street, Shenzhen, all these economic hubs generally crop up and persist in a single geography because of the benefits of physical proximity. I can't ever think of a time where somebody was able to clone an existing industry hub elsewhere. Plus it always seems like they're trying to recreate the past rather than the future.
My question is why aren't the major smartphone brands pushing their phones as dockable desktops since they have desktop-like resources under the hood?
You can argue they have bad desktop user experiences and that's maybe true at a Finder/Explorer "desktop" level, but would it really matter for actual applications on an external monitor provided scaling is done right?
You could also argue that maybe Apple specifically doesn't want it because it because it might undermine Macintosh sales. But really, would someone who would dock an iPhone as a desktop actually be a "lost" Mac sale, or someone who would otherwise buy a cheap PC ultrabook instead? It's also hard to see Apple as 100% dedicated in their desktop platform given the lackluster hardware cycles there. It seems more compelling that they *should* pursue this further because of flagging smartphone sales.
It seems like whatever smartphone vendor can pull this off will see a ton of growth and mostly rob from the low-end PC market. With that in mind, I'm kind of left with the conclusion we don't have dockable phones is that the entire computing industry is tied to an economic model of a PC *and* a smartphone per user. This makes sense for Samsung who sell into the desktop hardware market and might just end up shifting total dollars from PC components to smartphones, but less so for Apple whose phones are in the hands of a lot of non-Mac owners and who doesn't make money off the x86 component market.
It could potentially happen, but for the most part most people's money is guaranteed by the FDIC and any massive scale funds transfer would probably result in massive clawbacks.
The problem with stealing a trillion dollars overnight is that you have to hide a trillion dollars overnight. Better to steal a little at a time over the long haul.
But gamed to what end? Are you positing an specific conspiracy (ratings gamed for boosting a studio, filmmaker, star, etc) for gaming the RT scores or is it just chaotic gaming of the process by people with the skills to game the process based on whatever motivates them at the time?
I'm willing to believe some movie ratings are gamed to suit some agenda or other -- like I could see Black Panther being boosted because "black superhero", but I'm not entirely sure that the people who think it should be promoted as some kind of icon of African American equality are the same people capable of actually gaming the ratings for it (unless you want to count social pressure on movie reviewers generally to promote a movie about black superheroes).
Mostly I think the examples are just of recent movies having some kind of advantage.
I always wondered if there was some way of statistically correcting ratings to overcome various biases (ie, more recent movies tending to be higher rated, etc) so that ratings scores were more normalized and could be trusted as a basis for comparison.
It wasn't just political handwaving. It's been the standard attitude among economists all along. They've been cheerleading offshoring and other rapid deindustrialization with a message that boils down to people will get better jobs, like coding.
I mean, they're probably right in the long term / macroeconomic perspective (we can have the AI/unemployment/basic income debate later), but almost none of them acknowledged that most existing workers losing their jobs will wind up with worse employment or none at all. I'm aware of almost no economist who supported taxing the corporate windfall of offshoring/H1Bs to support job training or other long-term support programs. It was an ignored problem, probably because to question it was to second guess the economic righteousness of free markets.
IMHO, the biggest failing of economics is its perverse desire to be seen as a science devoid of politics or social impact. It ends up becoming a tone-deaf cheerleader for corporate policies.
I'm left wondering what the chances are the screw was some proprietary "security" design that complicated the tooling and screw production.
I would imagine that screw manufacturers have a lot of existing tooling for common heads at many sizes. My guess is they probably didn't have the time to scale up the tooling required for some proprietary head design, especially if the head itself changed dimensionally.
It would be super ironic if "Apple can't build stuff here" was more or less directly tied to "Apple wants to make it impossible to fix your stuff".
I generally agree that other, focused activities can alter the experience of time. I often work in private IT data centers -- most are shitty, windowless rooms with droning fans and air conditioning, no other people and I'm continually surprised when I look at my watch and realize 4 hours has gone by.
My sense is that time perception is a function of time awareness and environmental focus. The less focused you are, the slower time passes, the more focused you are the faster it passes relative to perception of time.
It's probably tied to something about sensory input and processing, and I'd wager it ties into some primitive survival/hunting ability where intense focus without distraction is important.
LSD seems to alter this somehow, allowing people to experience the time alteration by altering sensory processing. Apparently whatever it affects does so even when the amount is below the amount necessary to produce conscious alteration of the senses.
What's amazing about LSD is the tiny doses at which it works.
I do think that pot can produce a trance-like effect in some situations. I go hiking with my dog and there are times where we'll cross a familiar stretch of ground, maybe a mile or two, and I'll get lost in a train of thought and kind of disconnected from the world around me. We'll be at some transition point in the hike and I won't remember the last couple of miles. During that distance I wasn't unaware of my surroundings, some of the trail is challenging walking with a dog.
I do know that when we get home I'm often surprised we've been gone for 3-4 hours and walked so far.
There's this ultra-marathon runner, Diane Van Deren, who had a brain injury that affected her short-term memory. She can cover these amazing distances and I think my experience partly mimics hers and why she can go so far. I think when you lose part of your short-term memory you don't get the mental fatigue of how far you've been/how far you have to go. You're kind of only in this moment.
This is so true -- one hit today, means two tomorrow and three the day after that to get back to something like one had today.
My problem was always that the good part of acid didn't last long enough and the last half of the trip was always too long with all the good effects dwindled down. Taking more (even if it wasn't a second day trip) didn't really help, either -- the good part got more intense and maybe lasted longer, but the lingering effects lasted longer yet.
I mostly switched to mushrooms, which gave me mostly the same experience but with less "tail end" effect.
I haven't had acid in probably 25 years, but I'd do it again if I had some Xanax or something else to bring the whole thing to an end when I wanted it to end.
Really? I've worked at 3 places, a university, a mid-sized 850 person corporation (independent branch of a larger, 20k person multinational) and a small business (now about 50 people).
The small business has near zero perks. Pop in the warehouse fridge, sometimes and if you like diet cherry Coke or some Mt. Dew variant about half the time. Shitty TGIFridays level appetizer platters about 3 times a year during phony quarterly meetings held at 3 PM on Friday. Travel and other expenses can be parsimonious.
The university was about what you expected from a state institution, there was no free stuff but we seemed to have more food around the office than the small biz. The department was run by seasoned bureaucrats, I imagine they had weaseled in some staff welfare line item that let them buy grub.
The bigger business seemed way more generous. Food/pop was common in meetings, including lunches. Expense limits for travel were beyond generous, I actually asked the guy responsible for them if I could split the savings if I stayed in cheaper hotels and ate cheaper meals but he gave me some song and dance about how I should eat and sleep well to perform well away from home, the company had some concern about employee safety, etc.
My sense is there's just more slop in a large organization than a small one. I'm sure big companies are top notch at treating large groups of identical employees cheaply, but they aren't always very efficient and you can sometimes get in on the extras. Small business is the worst.
For all we know, this battery guy was totally opposed to a bunch of engineering decisions in the Note 7 and told the product managers it would be a problem. And then he got overruled because someone else wanted them to reach a specific thickness/power target that resulted in the battery being compromised.
I always assumed that crappy dental coverage was a byproduct of the fact that a lot of dental problems are preventable if you take care of your teeth.
I actually think they should provide better coverage for major dental work like crowns and root canals, but worse coverage for fillings.
Some of the problem may be shady dentists, too. I've run into dentists that are really big on pushing work that is pretty marginal in terms of necessity, and it seems like there's a lot of effort to push expensive products in the dental office (electric toothbrushes at retail+ prices, specialty toothpastes, etc).
I think the judge would have to do more explain why he thinks she won't get a fair trial in rational terms. Trumps rants aren't relevant because he doesn't control the prosecution or the judicial system she will be tried in. There are laws, procedures and treaties involved as well as the risk of precedent -- it's not a cocktail party where you can simply say "but omg, Trump, it's so unfair". If she can claim the judicial system won't give her a fair trial, couldn't most any extradition defendant in Canada, especially if they're poor or a minority, make the same claim and with better evidence that it is unfair to those people?
I seriously doubt a judge in Canada can get away with simply repudiating the US judicial system as unfair. There's no doubt it has unfair qualities in terms of access for poor people, but that's not what's in question. Trump has had ample opportunities to interfere with the Mueller investigation LEGALLY by pardoning Manafort, et al but hasn't done it, and he has a personal stake in all of these people getting off the hook.
I never used Apple Pay until I activated it about 3 days before a trip to the Netherlands, and it worked almost everywhere there. I ran into about 3 places where the staff apologized for having antiquated terminals that required a physical card.
Back in the US, I'm shocked at how few places I can use ApplePay because the terminals have zero NFC support. I feel like vending machines are doing a better job of supporting it than retailers.
Convert it to methane? It makes it a lot easier to store and transport.
Would it be pure hydrogen, or would it get used to create methane, which would be easier to handle and use as a mobile fuel, especially for ferry-type watercraft?
The thought I had was what if long-distance space probes are some kind of religious or cultural touchstone in their civilization?
Judaism is something like 3000 years old. What if space probes with life cycles of a 1000 years were some kind of religious like custom? Even if the lifespans were human-like, tracking or waiting for one of these probes to return could possibly be something the civilization is based around, somewhat negating the long time span.
Usually in these debates, it's Not Aliens because any civilization advanced enough to cross interstellar space wouldn't do it in person, but would send unmanned probes because they don't have the limitations of needing to move living beings through space.
Now, it's Not Aliens because you can't build interstellar probes capable of that kind of distance or time duration.
It feels like the goalposts are being moved.
I have trouble sorting out Tim Cook's privacy principals so frequently espoused in press releases, op-eds and quips to the press from Apple's business agenda oriented towards marketing their platform as "privacy friendly".
It'd go a long way towards taking Cook and Apple as sincere if Apple would, in great detail, share with us what data they collect on their users, how they use it, and what data they allow Apps to collect, and what if any strings they attach to that data (which I doubt they can enforce anyway).
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Apple's only in the data collection game in any competitive sense if you're an iPhone user, but compared to Google and others, they're bush league and non-competitive, so "Apple as privacy advocate" isn't really because they care about data privacy, but because it's not a business they're competitive in. But if you *are* an i-device user there is, in fact, a ton of data collected about your usage which is of business advantage to Apple.
Which makes me question the sincerity of Cook's privacy speeches -- how do I know that most of this isn't just a marketing ploy to move users to their platform where they can grab the valuable data for themselves? Maybe they don't sell it to third parties, but they still collect it. And there's not exactly a lot of transparency on what they allow Apps to collect, either.
Overall, I'm inclined to believe that my privacy is moderately more protected on an iPhone than an Android, but only modestly.
Switch to the little pod style dishwashing detergents. I've found that in a modern dishwasher with a rinse aid dispenser that they do a great job cleaning dishes. The pods get the right combination of detergents and surfactants without too much total detergent. Supposedly the idea is that dishwashers work based on chemistry, not hydrology.
The only thing to maybe worry about is that I had an appliance repair guy tell me that since the removal of phosphates, they've been using extremely fine mineral abrasives in automatic dishwasher detergent. I think he might be wrong or exaggerating, because I haven't seen any scoring or etching of my glassware like you used to see.
Don't get me wrong, the wall has lots of problems that mean it probably shouldn't be built.
They had teams of testers, including I think some special forces, trying to climb the wall and one of the selection criteria was that trained people couldn't get over it with simple climbing implements.
Tunneling under the wall is problematic in the Southwest as many of the locations aren't easy to tunnel under -- rocky soils, bedrock close to the surface, and the fact that the wall would probably have footings that extended deep enough to make tunneling even harder.
And the difficulty of breaching it wouldn't mean that it wouldn't need to be watched, but that it would need to be watched less intensively than a "virtual wall" or a more simple barrier.
The rejection rate for Presidential cabinet appointees is extremely low and unusual, mostly because I believe the president has the ability to appoint interim appointees and the idea that the President needs a cabinet.
I can't remember a single example where the President wasn't able to appoint cabinet members as a whole, or even faced that much opposition. It's not at all like 3+ parties being unable to name a parliamentary cabinet and prime minister.