Yeah I'm not sure the alternative would be better. You will always have calls that don't fit neatly into the "crime" "fire" or "injury" buckets. Of the three of those whose time I would want to take up dealing with something in the margins it makes complete sense for it to be a police officer, if for no other reason than there are a lot more of them than there are paramedics or [professional] firefighters in most areas. Downstream of that the potential negatives of having 1-2 paramedics dealing with nonsense and unavailable for other calls seem much higher than the negatives of having 1-2 cops unavailable for some period of time.
So why do cell phone providers provide that information when you call 911 in Marion County? The 911 dispatcher literally showed me on her computer how the map displays the GPS coordinates of the cell phone, and live updates, and keeps updating even after the call has ended (for 3 minutes maybe? IDR).
GDPR is a great example of EU authorities pretending that an EU law applies to companies without an EU presence.
Also, if you get the US to sign an agreement saying they will do X if someone in the US violates a German law, that's exactly what would happen. It doesn't happen because the US doesn't typically sign those agreements unless there's a comparable US law.
I don't mean this flippantly, but it's usually whoever you're writing the check to. My first home had the mortgage sold within a week, and someone else started taking the money out of my account.
Some originators will hold on to servicing of your debt wherever it goes (within certain boundaries, e.x. if you go into a delinquency or reconciled delinquency state).
Those originators use it as a selling point, because many people have gotten bit by servicer flips one way or another.
Oh okay, in that case mine were never sold. As in the sibling reply, my assumption is that the "retail" side of the mortgage (who you make your payments to) is fully detached from who ends up owning the mortgage backed securities that your debt is being financed by.
This is shifting the goal posts. You said this will continue to happen as long as Republicans have no counterbalance in courts[0], congress[1], or the whitehouse [2; sic] - which kind of implies (actually not kind of, it directly implies) that if only there were some more Democrats around this wouldn't happen. So "both parties do this" is absolutely a valid criticism of your point and one you probably have to address.
[0] Most things are decided long before SCOTUS involvement, and most courts are liberal-leaning.
[1] Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes
[2] The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?
If anything i'm asking for the conversation to stay 'on-goal'.
If I take for granted that the waterline surveillance increases under previous administrations (and i do, i implicitly conceded it) then the only meaningful discussion is then on its magnitude.
So you tell me, are Republicans going further with this program than before? And furthermore, are Republican courts and Republican congresses going to curtail it at any point?
I already know my answers to this, but if i'm going to be criticized I think it should be against the meaningful alternative facing us where Republicans retain control of these branches.
> Most things are decided long before SCOTUS involvement, and most courts are liberal-leaning.
Doesn't matter if the damage is already done. Raise dead doesn't exist in the real world. And the courts don't decide things. The executive has proven it will just ignore the courts.
> Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes
First, this it 100% not true, and secondly, if you ignore congress, it doesn't matter. And once again, the damage is already done by the time congress gets around to it.
> The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?
Expect? None. Hope for? Basic respect to the rule of law to start. But with pdf in the white house, all bets are off.
this isn't Europe, so if you make that claim, you have to define "liberal"
> Republicans are far short of a supermajority in the Senate so nothing passes Congress without Democratic votes
in fact that's not how it works! read up on reconciliation and how ICE got funded
> [2] The White House is always singularly partisan by definition, what Democratic counterbalance you expect to see in a Republican White House, or vice versa?
both sides that fucker, good and hard, better things aren't possible woo!
Surveillance expanded under Obama and Biden. It would have expanded under Clinton or Harris. It will expand under the next Democratic President and it will expand under the next Republican one.
Maybe the Republicans are worse, I don't particularly give a shit. They're both horrible and anti-American on this issue and nothing will change without systemic changes.
Let's be clear here that this is explicitly not just surveillance. This is surveillance in service of abducting people without due process. We can debate surveillance in the abstract, but this specifically is a feeder program to a system that has illegally deported US citizens without any due process. (Which would have, at step 1, indicated that US citizens cannot be deported.)
This is surveillance as part of a department that explicitly says it is not bound by US law or the Constitution.
All of that makes this program materially different than any other US domestic surveillance program or proposal of which I am aware.
"Maybe the Republicans are worse" when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program and push it on the national stage, the word maybe becomes relevant. Until then, it is clear to everyone with a functional set of eyes what is happening; maybe schedule your check-up.
> when the democrats have a plan to create a 100M domestic surveillance program
Did you miss the Snowden reporting? How much do you think those programs cost? Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works.
No, I am just literate enough to understand that the executive office was not solely responsible for the 'Snowden reporting' and that it is responsible for the proposal in the article above. The democrats did not create or propose a 100M domestic surveillance program but go off king
"
Whenever you hear someone’s political analysis contain “The Republicans…” “The Democrats…” you can be sure they have no grasp on how DC works.
"
I'm not giving political analysis, retard. But you are clearly so smart and clever. Tell us all about the 'Snowden reporting' that president Obama personally proposed and executed. Not sure why he is reporting on himself but mister user seven numbers is sure to be a source of truth
Funding dragnet surveillance vs funding dragnet surveillance is the comparison. Not precisely sure what your bizarre example means but it’s nevertheless clearly a non-sequitur.
It's possible this is a distinction without a difference, but Disney and Netflix provide a service and the data they are selling is integral* to providing that service, meaning they're going to have that data regardless. If you're okay with anyone selling any of your data, it probably makes sense for Netflix to sell data about what you watch on Netflix.
Samsung or Sony sell a physical product that does not need internet connectivity, or microphones, or telemetry, or any of that. They jam that stuff in there to increase profits and make it economically infeasible to sell what I think 80% of people on HN would buy if given the opportunity - a large flatscreen TV with no built-in connectivity whatsoever. So anything I can do to make me less profitable to them, I will do.
This is obviously the line where we disagree, and thats fine. You are arguing that you are happy to give your data to a company if its integral to the service they provide. My opinion is that if you are giving your data to one billion dollar company that is building an ad profile and selling it to 3rd parties, then why have scruples about giving it to another? The ad companies are getting your data one way or another, cherry picking a single device on your home network to ringfence against that seems crazy in my opinion.
I also dislike that my data is being transacted willy-nilly by content providers, it's a very different ballpark when TVs have hidden microphones recording my house, screen capturing if I'm showing personal photos on the screen, and sending that data to the manufacturer. That's a much worse privacy invasion.
This is the problem. You've read the headlines but havent examined the evidence. Go watch the Gamers Nexus documentary on it, and bring yourself up to speed on exactly what tracking the TVs are doing.
If you watch Top Gear, do you think it's fine for your data to go to Raytheon? Alcoa? Goldman Sachs? Saudi Aramco?
Netflix has to know what you're watching in order to show it to you. Sony doesn't have to know what you're watching to render HDMI output. All companies are not created equal in every single transaction.
What do you think happens when you lose your ability to provide for shelter or healthcare for yourself? Go talk to people that are now homeless because they lost their jobs.
Lay offs are a potential death sentence, there is a very real reason why suicides increases track nearly 1-to-1 with unemployment rates.
That's the dice roll you have in this country as a worker.
I'm not tracking how you think getting of this particular visa program "weakens labor" when what it will actually do is strengthen labor by decreasing labor supply and increasing individual bargaining power of workers.
I mean that, you're either saying he wasn't democratically elected, or that this move doesn't help domestic labor. The first is objectively false, and the second is covered in the most basic college economics courses.
Immigrants spend money and grow the market for goods produced by native-born Americans.
All these things are good for domestic labor. There is no reason to believe immigration is bad for American workers. Not everything is zero-sum, and that's basic economics.
This is all true and it's referring to immigration generally. This is a specific type of immigration so let's talk about that specific type and not every other type.
This is immigration to staff augmentation body shops that are doing $150k/yr programming jobs with the company taking 25% off the top. It's not "immigrants starting businesses," it's not "the economy overall" it's targeting immigration suppressing the wages of a specific sector.
Maybe. I haven't seen that proven. I can easily imagine that making the US technology sector function more efficiently leads to higher employment. The fact that the US is home to all of the big tech companies is a boon to American employees, and this form of immigration is a boon to the big tech companies.
> Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the narrow majority that limits on independent spending from corporations and other outside groups equate to limiting their speech and thus violate the First Amendment.
So basically corporate donation is corporate opinion is protected under the First Amendment
Yeah I'm familiar with Citizens United but you already said "corporate donation." So what is a "corporate opinion" as a thing distinct from a donation?
No, it's because if I said "outlaw donation" it could mean I was arguing just for the financial side of the "opinion", leaving companies free to invest in ads or propaganda as an indirect form of expressing opinion
In the best case we could hope this will lead to increased wages to American citizens, but realistically I think the most likely impact is it pisses a lot of people off, causes a lot of headaches for a lot of people, and has no real impact for most.
Edit: Would love to hear a coherent argument as to why my comment is off topic and deserving of downvotes but I'm sure that won't happen.
I hope it causes some people to return to Europe and do some good work over here.
I'm never sure how to feel about this kind of thing. On one hand, it's kind of interesting to see the self-destruction, and having qualified people return to Europe can only be a good thing for Europe. OTOH, it's scary to see, and I'm unsure whether I prefer a world where China gains much more power.
This ruling is not targeted towards Europeans. I doubt this will significantly affect European workers in the US. The reality is there aren't that many European immigrants in the US and not many at all on H1-Bs. The vast majority of immigrants are from the Americas (with over 22% from Mexico), India and China. European migrants as of ~2023 total around 10% and have been slowly decreasing over the past few years. Bear in mind a lot of people are still here from the post-WW2 period when immigration was much more liberal.
Anecdotally from the people I've met, the majority of Europeans are here for academia on F/J/O, entertainment, are spouses of US citizens or get temporary transfer visas like the L1. Those who go to the US because of high salaries can afford to figure out employment based green cards and they don't have multiple year waiting periods. Otherwise it's a huge pain to get permanent residency or even a normal work visa compared to the EU, but qualified Europeans generally don't have much trouble.
While true, the question should be: is each European nation/the EU collectively doing those restrictions sensibly, or poorly?
If done in a similar fashion as the US has chosen, i.e. due to incoherent populism, it would limit the number of competent e.g. Americas, Canadians, South Africans etc. from joining the European workforce.
If done in a sensible fashion, it would only exclude the would-be migrants from those (or other) countries who have shown a wanton disregard for democracy and other constitutionally required values.
A nitpick here, but "visa" gets tossed around a lot. A visa is a document which allows you to request permission to enter a country for some purpose. To work in a country you need a work and/or residency permit. Even in the US, there are situations where you can work with a an expired visa, provided your other immigration documents are current. But if you leave, you need a new one. Similarly UK citizens can still work in some European countries without a visa, because there is no requirement for them to enter with one (but the officer at the border might still refuse entry).
Again, depends on the country. Switzerland (which I appreciate is not in the EU) does not require visas for many "friendly" 3rd countries even if the person is coming to work.
I think there are plenty of qualified and hard-working people in China, I'm not sure this change would increase the number of people there the same way it might in places like Europe or India.
For about 5-6 decades all the qualified and hard-working people in China came to the U.S, because they could enjoy more freedom, fewer arbitrary government dictates, and better economic opportunities. This brain drain was a huge factor in U.S. global dominance.
That conveyor has now reversed, because all of the drivers have reversed as well. China will be fine; it's the U.S. I'm concerned about.
So the US underinvested in the native workforce and now the chinese have gone back there's a big gap that a native workforce would have filled if they hadn't been temporarily replaced by chinese? Seems terrible short sighted.
Yes. The mechanism is that American kids stopped learning useful things like STEM skills. I remember when I went to college in the early 00s, every single person in my physics class was either an immigrant, child of an immigrant, or Jewish. Now we have a shortage in engineering skills that has to be filled by H1Bs, and a population that all gets service jobs and consumes disproportionately because of an overvalued reserve currency. If that currency ever stops being overvalued, we're fucked.
Stopped learning. Physics classes at my college were about 12 students. CS and math would be about 20-30ish, History and English and Psychology classes were about 40-60, PoliSci could be upwards of 100. I don't think any science or math course there ever filled up. There was zero barrier to anyone wanting to take a physics course or be a physics major, other than the work being really hard.
The U.S. will always dominate because they consume everything and make really nothing. The second people in U.S. stop consuming everyone else pays the price.
The U.S. is 4% of the world population. Back when the world population was 2B people and the developed world population was about 400M and the U.S. was 130M of that and the only market whose capital stock hadn't been totally destroyed by WW2, we were crucial to the world economy. But now the world population is 8B, the developed world population is 6B, and the U.S. is 330M of that. In terms of raw size of consumer markets, the world can ignore the U.S. The tricky part is the dependence on U.S. software and financial companies for significant parts of the global information infrastructure, but there's already a strong movement to that.
>I hope it causes some people to return to Europe and do some good work over here.
No need for them to return. They've been replaced with the tens of millions of doctors, lawyers, and engineers the left imported from MENA countries over the past two decades.
Fewer people means less qualified applicants for the same jobs, which means wages go up. Maybe companies like Microsoft have enough dead weight that they will just absorb the losses in growth but most companies don't have that luxury and this is hitting staff aug body shops so it will hit mid market and small employers as well unless it gets overturned.
reply