It appears even NSLs that cannot be disclosed are still counted in the published numbers. IC is Intelligence Community? I would assume google would warn users of phishing attacks by the NSA just as they would warn users of phishing attacks by Iran.
This sniffling condescension toward those in our society who have and continue to lose out to corporate interests who have sold out the American worker is vile. When employment and income prospects of citizens are reduced and dimmed at all levels, be it farm workers or IT gods, because corporations are importing foreigners to replace them (whether directly or indirectly) and the government is either complicit in or utterly passive toward the situation, it is entirely reasonable to be angry and feel betrayed. Early labor organizers would have long ago (hell, as recently as the mid-90s) risen up in arms over this. That organized labor utters not a peep tells us very clearly that such movements are dead.
The sniffling condescension is towards the sentiment, not the people or the general idea of protecting the job market.
Unionizing and making sure visa workers don't get paid less and exploited? Hell yes. Making the process of obtaining visa and immigrating here a living hell for the people that, by all logic, deserve to be and are needed here? "dey turk ur jerbs".
Also, "imported workers" should not be conflated with "people who don't hold a US green card". The latter category includes people who gave 5-7 years to this country while getting a PhD here, for example.
Its not the immigrants you should be mad at, its the corporate interests. Like this article shows, the immigrants have an advantage over citizens precisely because companies get away with paying them less.
The US government has been bought & sold to the highest bidder for a long time now, in many, many areas - repealing net neutrality, healthcare no one can afford, skyrocketing CEO salaries while companies claim raising minimum-wage would bankrupt them, the list just goes on and on. Pharmaceutical companies hide results/push bad drugs and get a slap on the wrist. Google/Apple/Facebook got caught colluding in wage-fixing to keep salaries low and got a slap on the wrist.
Prisons are run for-profit and the few companies that control how prisoners send messages/make calls to the outside charge rates like $20 for a 20-minute call. A money order to send money outside costs $11.95. The prison facilities sometimes share in the revenue made by these companies, which gives them further incentive to gouge prisoners. No doubt the prisons kickback some money to police officers who get them more arrests too.
Like at what point is the government going to fucking step in and protect the people over the companies?
As long as that keeps happening the middle-class will continue to get f*ed. But immigrants are just a convenient scapegoat to blame, and screwing them will not really solve the problem. When you sell crucial nation-level functions to companies, set up a stock market that incentivizes revenue above all else, and the government is asleep at the wheel to correct the worst tendencies of revenue-maximizing, this is what happens.
It's good to have the experience of interacting with someone far more intelligent than yourself who nevertheless believes things you think, with good reason, to be nonsense. It teaches one humility, to question the nature of "knowledge" and how it is attained, and the limits of "intelligence" alone to divine reality and arrive at consensus.
Isn't it one of the great assumptions of our age that everyone is "equal" and ought be proportionally represented in every endeavor? And that inequitable representation is evidence of a moral or actual crime against the under represented? (At least in cases when an official oppressor class is over represented and an official victim class is under represented. And also when participating in the endeavor is desirable.)
Well, everyone is "equal" in value as a human being, but it is incorrect to say that everyone is equal in talent or potential.
Take the Olympics for example. Different body types, genetically predetermined before birth, will give certain people advantages in one sport, but disadvantages in other sports. Tall people have a huge advantage in volleyball, basketball, etc, but not soccer. Kenyans have an advantage at long distance running, but I doubt they are a common sight in the powerlifting arena.
Want to climb Mt Everest? More than likely, a Sherpa would go with you, because they have unique physical qualifications.
There's nothing inherently "better" about all these people, but they do happen to have an inherent advantage when it comes to performing specific tasks.
The argument that all people ought to be proportionally represented in every endeavor ignores the basic fact that people have distinctly different skill sets based on their genetic makeup.
No, of course not, to both questions. All people should be treated equitably under the law, and we decided it’s illegal to discriminate along a very small number of dimensions for the essentials of life: employment and housing. But people are not equal at all. Some people are better tenants or employees than others, and it’s ethical to discriminate along those lines. And, yes, some people are better interviewees, too.
>Arguing that it’s good for them is paternalistic bullshit.
Sitting in a cage or a large room with other inmates with nothing productive to do can itself be considered a form of psychological torture, which is precisely what some proponents of prison industry have argued: https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/1147470
Maybe we should rehabilitate criminals in some fashion that doesn't involve indentured servitude or putting them in cages and reserve the latter only for those who cannot be rehabilitated. Trying to argue that forced labor is more humane is morally bankrupt from the get-go. That it's being made by people with a literal financial incentive to see the system not change only underscores that point.
Private prisons house a tiny fraction of US inmates, an estimated 8% in 2015[0] and the federal numbers are exclusively for the detention of foreigners illegally in the country.
should you construct an argument only by its premise, or should you try to reach the person? I think [s]he assumed that you are not a prison abolitionist and tried to find an argument that might sway you.
There was no prior mention of the person being a prison abolitionist. There was mention of concern about private prisons. I don't know how I am to intuit what a person is truly concerned about vs. what they state they are concerned about.
>allow people to be terrible on social media without taking responsibility for it?
This is a euphemism for banning users and a misrepresentation of the the points I have seen, which is that it is hypocritical to seek government safeguards against ISPs favoring/disfavoring traffic/content depending on the source while clamoring for just that from giant internet media corporations
The man who founded the seedbank was sent to the gulag and sentenced to death for calling out Lysenko as a fraud. The Soviets failed to evacuate the contents of the seedbank, leaving it to be destroyed or raided. I don't understand how allying with such a government can be deemed a natural consequence of seeking to preserve knowledge and culture. The heroes in this story are solely the individual scientists.
It was a necessary evil at the time to stop the Nazis, which were a more immediate threat to the West. Note that immediately after the war, relations with the Soviets cooled significantly.
