As the other commenter replied: thank you for facing this head-on! Your statement now is commendable.
Also — for anyone wanting to get accurate science reporting in the US (about COVID specifically, but I'd also say more generally), definitely check out NPR's large collection of recurring podcasts. I knew those numbers the grandparent commenter posted back in Feb, thanks to NPR's great reporting, and watching this pandemic play out has felt like dramatic irony. NPR has been on the ball with accurate science reporting for years, and it's a crying shame that their audience is dwarfed by those of cable networks.
no, npr has not been balanced at all. the scientists and doctors they choose for their shows have been carefully curated to amplify the dangers and fear. they mention masks incessantly, even when it's completely irrelevant ("here is carrot farmer, don majors, sowing his fields. not wearing a mask, i might add!")
they don't even pretend to be balanced any more, especially anything related to politics, and the covid response is squarely political at this point. npr no longer holds any esteem regarding science reporting or balance.
Yeah, I recall when NPR had an "expert" on All Things Considered who advised holding your breath when walking by someone on the street (this was back in March/April, when they were doing "the conversation" segments during the national lockdown).
Their science reporting on the whole has not been great, but some programs (e.g. Science Friday) are better than others.
ha, exactly, the producers agressively filter for the messaging they want from their guests, no matter the veracity or plausibility of their claims.
and agreed, science friday is better than their entire stack of daily news coverage of science-adjacent topics. marketplace, planet money, and hidden brain are pretty good for business/economics.
Here's a fun one — my (foreign) girlfriend graduated from a US undergrad, and stayed in the country over the summer to begin her US PhD. She was legally covered as being able to stay in the country in both directions by the grace period after/before her undergrad/grad school respectively. When going to the embassy to renew her Visa, she was told she was staying in the country illegally, and the idiots there wouldn't renew the Visa on those grounds. They are literally legally incorrect, but there's nothing you can do with these absolute buffoons, these insipid recipients of a national work plan who are too unpleasant and immovably stupid to contribute to a real workforce.
As an immigrant in another country (thankfully more immigration-friendly), I completely understand the frustration. I think however we must see beyond the incompetence of some front-line workers and turn the frustration and complaints towards who's running the country and its policies, not providing training and overall setting a bad example on how to treat immigrants (legal or illegal). I've declined good offers to move to the US because of concerns with the immigration policies, which quite honestly are exacerbated by the current administration.
As someone who married someone abroad - moving to them is a far simpler and cheaper process than having them move to you. You may be thinking of the loophole of getting married overseas (which does exist) but the government is pretty strict with the requirements around that.
If you want to do thing legally and immigrate to the US then you'd better have a decade of your life and tens of thousands of dollars to throw at lawyers to guide you through the process.
I'm now a Canadian and I think the process in total (including the marriage certificate since I came over on a Fiancee visa) might have put me back about 1.5k. The process was reasonable, there were certainly requirements but people were available to guide you through it in English & French and, wonderfully, Canadians are quite nice to new Canadians so I didn't get much flack from my new coworkers.
From what I can see this takes at least four forms, multiple years, and possibly a significant chunk of change to a lawyer. Could you explain the process more since google is telling me it looks like a pain in the ass?
Pretty much any international person can emigrate to the USA by marrying an American. If they're already here on some type of visa like H1B or student visa, just simply upload your passport to NYC's marriage website (or go to Vegas I guess) and get a marriage license. Then have someone officiate your wedding and for a few hundred bucks and maybe 48 hours of planning total you are now legally married.
You can take this marriage to the US government to make an application for a green card for the international spouse, which will be received in less than 18 months typically.
Short answer, find an American (or even just an existing green card holder) that you love, marry them, and now you are able to stay in the country permanently and work in pretty much any tech job you like :)
Oh okay, I was actually looking at citizenship. If you don’t care about being a citizen and just want to work, I can understand that’s an easier process.
I gotta disagree with the "just marry an American" advice; sure, it makes some things easier, but due to a paperwork mistake in 1979 or so my mother-in-law was almost deported two years ago after being married to an American and living in the US for almost forty years (the mistake was a date on a form that no one had looked at for those forty years...). Green card was still quite slow for my dad even though he married a citizen....
Sorry for the lack of clarification. Citizenship would actually come relatively quickly after holding the green card as per normal. I suppose around 5 years is the normal waiting period? You just have to pass a simple test where you memorize key value pairs like "Who wrote the Star Spangled Banner?" "Francis Scott Key"
However American citizenship is of extremely dubious worth, even if you really like to travel like my wife and are limited by travel visa paperwork like with a Chinese passport for example.
Voting is not a particularly useful feature of American citizenship unless you live in a swing state and believe your vote to be important in deciding the fate of our country.
And most jobs that require citizenship like in government pay extremely poorly and have ridiculous arbitrary barriers to entry, namely a security clearance.
I don't have an answer for you, just wanted to pile on with my own experience and questions in the same vein.
I find that a background noise app really helps me stay calm/lowers stress and anxiety, and I get a huge productivity boost out of it. Something about being at peace hearing natural sounds really does feel like it's deeply engrained in me, and I assume other people also. I wonder: (1) if there's a difference between the effects people generally get from various noise types (lofi, natural sounds, white noise etc), (2) whether something relevant about the individual correlates with preference among these, and (3) what is universal among these that makes background noise so commonly helpful.
(I use Noice for free nature/background sounds, off f-droid. I highly recommend it)
Tried noice, uninstalled since it would stay open in the background, even though i closed it. Display used 36%, Noice used 11% of power! Was open for 36 minutes, ran 1:3X:XX.
Human rights are a subset of politics. (It's fashionable to label as “nonpolitical” any matter of politics that the speaker thinks is important, as if “politics” as a label only applied to trivialities, but that's not what it means and, more relevantly, not why HN often prefers to avoid things that are in that domain but not particularly intellectual novelties.)
No. Absolutely not. Politics often impinges on human rights, yes. But human rights are not a subset of politics, and absolutely should not be couched in political terms. Issues that are rightly called political are those over which reasonable people may disagree. This highlights that "politics" doesn't only apply to trivialities --myriad real political issues come to mind. My point here is that to argue that this particular issue is political would be beyond the pale, as support of the alleged actions is not a humanly just or reasonable position: one could certainly make it into a political issue, if one were heartless enough, but such evil isn't worth discussion. This is not a political issue. Deciding that it is one would be despicable.
Politics is that which fills the space when violence and scarcity do not dominate psychic considerations.
Political discussions can only occur in a context where there are human rights, where human beings in authoritative positions adhere to laws and rules related to their jobs.
Public talk that defends the systemic, ungoverned practice of violence is not political, it's propaganda (and worse).
Corporate laws are a subset of politics.
Labor practices are a subset of politics.
Internet governance is a subset of politics.
Systemd vs others is a subset of politics.
Compensation packages are a subset of politics.
Stock ownership is a subset of politics.
Available food is a subset of politics.
Water purity is a subset of politics.
Air quality is a subset of politics.
Power generation is a subset of politics.
Not political at all? Do we really think the USA is running something close to a Experimental Concentration Camp? Exactly what are they experimenting on, what don't we know about hysterectomies?
Or do we think the USA is making women infertile as a form of population control? Seriously?
I suspect it follows your politics which is why it's "not political". We aren't conflating anything.
Why do you think that people are being sterilized in a camp at the border at which people are not allowed the right for a trial, did not commit any crimes, and are not allowed to leave? Seriously, I'm hoping there is an explanation that is less horrific.
The US has been systematically sterilizing indigenous populations up until the 70s. Why do you think we did that? If we're willing to get sordid, there are definitely reasons to do so; maiming people at the border sends a strong message to would-be asylum seekers, for one. For another, there are people in ICE with strong white supremacist tendencies. We have camps right now where people are not allowed a fair trial, and are not allowed to leave. This is very, very, very fucked.
And no, they don't get any compensation for anything. They don't have a US bank account. They are detainees in a weird legal limbo, without any legal status in the US. Why not read the document in the article?
In any case, if you have a better explanation, I'm all ears. But it really doesn't compute here.
I think a better explanation is that this is a doctor who specializes in hysterectomies and who recommends hysterectomies whenever that isn't outright malpractice, because it's a routine procedure and it pays relatively well.
This isn't uncommon practice. Hysterectomies often aren't strictly necessary, just like tonsillectomies, back surgeries or hip replacements.
There is no evidence for this really being "masses" of women, or that any of these procedures were entirely unjustified, or that any of this is happening systematically.
>I honestly don't know what to say to someone who thinks the USA is systematically sterilising people.
You should consider that it's possible, rather than accusing that person of essentially being insane. If they were claiming that the US population was being sterilized by something the federal government puts in the water, then sure. But surgical sterilization in these conditions does not require an Illuminati level of conspiracy, and it's over simplistic and dismissive to imply that it does.
That's just a starting point, as it contains both historical info through to the last few years. It gives plenty of references to investigate further though, in case that's of interest.
Hang on. You made out that you don't believe the US has done forced sterilisations. But then respond that it's something you learned about in high school?
eg you've literally learned this stuff has happened in the US before, but you can't believe there are people around doing it now?
we have a limited set of evidence and hysterectomies are one recent example. we just might know facts about other hospitals at this point. do you honestly expect the government to be an stellar example of transparency when it comes to forced sterilization??
you seem to think there are other explanations. care to share?
> Not political at all? Do we really think the USA is running something close to a Experimental Concentration Camp? Exactly what are they experimenting on, what don't we know about hysterectomies?
I think is 1) this story is probably true, 2) it is not the result of any kind of explicit national policy. My guess is the real problem here is malpractice by the gynecologist coupled with a criminal lack of competent oversight by the prison officials. My understanding is prisons scrape the bottom of the barrel of the medical profession (i.e. hiring doctors with bad records that no one else wants), and the actual complaint focuses on one doctor:
> According to Wooten, ICDC consistently used a particular gynecologist – outside the facility – who almost always opted to remove all or part of the uterus of his female detainee patients.
> “Everybody he sees has a hysterectomy—just about everybody,” Wooten said, adding that, “everybody’s uterus cannot be that bad.”
> “We’ve questioned among ourselves like goodness he’s taking everybody’s stuff out…That’s his specialty, he’s the uterus collector. I know that’s ugly…is he collecting these things or something…Everybody he sees, he’s taking all their uteruses out or he’s taken their tubes out. What in the world.”
IMHO, people who are saying (at this point) that this is the result of a systematic policy are jumping to conclusions. If that's true, it'll probably take a least a few weeks for the investigations to confirm it.
The data from this tool is fascinating! When you run the Acceleration Spectrum experiment there's a history view that makes a 120hz vibration extremely trivial to see.
Unless you're being sarcastic (apologies if so, and no mean to offend if not), I take the opposite conclusion though, which seems borne out by reality. Public messaging and for social cohesion in service of the greater good is the hardest problem affecting any large-scale coordinated response, especially with propaganda, doublethink, and flat-out unwillingness to learn being so common. I gather that the article the previous commenter mentioned was removed so that such propagandists couldn't willingly misinterpret it to pass on to their sycophants.
The answer: yes, they could've. I had a professor who previously had been part of a US gov group that had been tasked with preparing for an attack on the electrical grid, all the way back in the tail end of the cold war. His impression of the security of the US grid was that it was completely unsecured. He told me that they had no chance of solving the problem then, and that he expects the same is still the case. His worst fear is a large EMP attack, not locally cutting powerlines, but the danger still stands
Putting aside EMP attacks (a real risk, but harder to mitigate against), the big issue right now on a day to day level is that energy suppliers are under pressure from regulators to reduce prices to consumers (in most countries which run regulated private sector energy distribution).
This means redundancy is written down by MBAs as excess capacity. It means assets are stretched to far nearer their safe limits than was ever envisaged previously. This ironically reduces their safe working life (in many cases), but this problem is cast along the road - in markets where providers re-tender regularly to continue to operate, that means it's a problem for the next franchise holder.
The incentives just aren't there to encourage creation of new redundancy. Existing redundancy won't be removed (as that would cost more!), but the long term outcome of this kind of "regulated private provider" system seems to be systemic under-investment in capital assets, with a view to deferring the problem until another time.
Another big challenge is that often the regulators for energy companies are "market" regulators, and therefore staffed by expert economists, rather than expert engineers. This further perpetuates the myth you can maintain and run critical national infrastructure with an economics degree and a calculator, and means the regulator tends to focus solely on economics, while assuming any issues with technology are fixed through economic incentives. Often they aren't, as the cost of a systemic black swan event is multiplied out by its likelihood, and the end result is to take no action while enjoying the profits today.
At least the above is based on my experience in trying to get energy market regulators to understand security and the issues of their regulator approach.
That’s weird that his concern is an EMP attack. Pretty much every serious nuclear scholar I’ve read find an EMP attack laughable. It’s a great thing to stir up fear among a domestic audience, but as an actual military tactic, it’s stupid. First, there’s never been an operational test anywhere, second, you have to fire a nuclear weapon, which is the very act that triggers a full scale nuclear response because of launch-on-warning. And finally, there’s just better uses for a nuclear weapon, like you know, air bursting in a city.
An EMP attack from an enemy nation is unlikely but a solar flare could happen at any time. In 1859 the world experienced an enormous geomagnetic storm when a coronal mass ejection hit Earth's magnetosphere. If the same solar flare happened today most of the world's power grid could be wiped out minus government and military hardened assets.
Non nuclear EMP weapons have existed for years, and that's only the stuff they're talking about publicly. There may be other techniques, say distortion of the Earth's magnetic field to send charged particles toward a target, that we don't know about.
The non-nuclear EMP weapons are very weak and have only minor localized effects. They aren't capable of taking out the power grid for a whole city or something.
And please no one waste our time by claiming that the military has some secret magic EMP technology. The laws of physics impose severe constraints on what can be achieved with conventional explosives in a weapon small enough to put in an airplane or truck.
You only need to take out a few key points to take out the grid. Large scale EMPs are not needed. Knowing which key points to take out is the domain of nation states, but it is absolutely possible.
> there’s just better uses for a nuclear weapon, like you know, air bursting in a city.
If your choice is completely annihilating one city, or destroying even just 10% of computers (including industrial control systems) in 50% of the country, which do you think causes more damage?
Destroying even a small fraction of individual computers makes most larger systems inoperable.
Without industrial control systems, power plants can't operate. Without power, cities become unsurvivable for a majority of the population within days, industrial output becomes effectively zero, and immediate issues like starvation and resulting unrest become a much bigger priority than fighting a war. Most importantly, recovery efforts will be extremely slow without power. How do you call the supplier, or other places that might have spares, when there is no phone network, no cell phones, no Internet? How do you call the experts that could diagnose which of the hundreds or thousands of control components need swapping? How do they get the fuel for their vehicle to get to you? And food and water to survive until you put everything into place? And safety so they don't get murdered by the looters?
> which is the very act that triggers a full scale nuclear response because of launch-on-warning.
AFAIK the US doesn't practice launch-on-warning. Even if it did, a peaceful low earth orbit satellite launch is hard to distinguish from a not-so-peaceful low earth orbit nuke launch (unlike a conventional ICBM that's supposed to come back down). It would likely still result in nuclear retaliation, but if e.g. a dictator was already being invaded by the US, they don't necessarily have much to lose.
You are very misinformed about how satellite launches are publicized, and about the US launch on warning policy. Even if you are too young to remember the Cold War, a simple google search will confirm this.
Again, the threat of an EMP attack is absurd, perpetuated by fundamentally not serious people.
> You are very misinformed about how satellite launches are publicized
Then tell me, where is the difference between North Korea saying "we will be launching this peaceful satellite of peace" and launching a spy satellite, and North Korea saying the same and launching a nuke satellite? Same orbit, same weight, contents kept secret to the best of their ability (and possibly swapped last minute in secret), same orbital timer to trigger it, only difference is whether it takes pictures or goes boom.
Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said.
This just says that a nuclear EMP attack would start nuclear war (or rather, nuclear retaliation if the EMP nuke was the only one the attacking country had/could deliver).
Re your QAnon comment at the end -- I'm not sure if you saw, but it seems that (as of today) people are defending Q on HN as well :( Is disinformation against HN policies @dang, and if not, shouldn't it be?
