decebalus1

Not really. For example UAE is on the list as a top destination for expats. However, laborers from poor countries would probably have a different view on things in terms of career advancement or cultural integration. They're not permanent. I mean if your 'owner' holds your passport hostage you're more permanent than temporary. They're not really 'expats' in the context of the 'study'.

Did they also ask the laborers from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc.. how it's going in Dubai? Or they're not expats enough? More like.. migrant workers.

Technically (as far as I know) 'expat' was (supposed to be) used for people who were temporarily relocated to a different country. Even for a longer period. Think someone who's got a longer consulting contract and the big corporation is sending them abroad for a year. So someone who doesn't have the intention to immigrate. Including blue collar workers, regardless of social class.

But nowadays, it's usually high income immigrant westerners who don't want to be considered 'immigrants' because that's for <whisper> poor people.

After I've dealt with the US immigration processes years ago, I just call everyone who lives in a different country an 'alien'. Fuck this doublespeak.

This article actually features the company which published the 'study': https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20170119-who-should-be-... See if you can ignore the neocolonial tone and figure out expat vs immigrant vs migrant.

UAE? Really? Is this some sort of satire? Because I'm honestly laughing.

How do you feel about the writing style? I was barely able to finish it. I can't say I agree with most of the speculative non-fiction he wrote in that book (which is also a rehash of the ideas in the previous book, Disunited Nations) but the writing style with all the clichés and the expressions trying to make it funny were absolutely horrible.

I remember this from Programming Pearls and I was going to post about it after reading the comments. Great stuff.

> There hasn't been a substantive change to how representatives are selected in our country in about a century

And the country and the demographics of the country stayed the same? It's probably easy to figure out what's wrong with this..

> most of these issues are split almost perfectly 50-50

between the representatives, not between the people. Couple that with gerrymandering, vestiges of election laws back from the times when the red coats were still a threat and corporate money, it's no surprise that the people are disenfranchised when it comes to these issues.

I would go and say this is all intentional, btw. The government is doing a great job at promoting the interests of the entities they're actually representing.

You're splitting hairs about the colloquial usage of the word 'administration' in the American context. I meant 'governing body' in general, including the executive, the legislative and the judicial. I understand it's usually meant to represent only the executive.

> I would argue anyone looking to any administration for solutions versus the legislators doesn't understand how the US government works.

You latest 2 comments are prime examples of fallacies. You've started with the `Fallacy of relative privation` about what the 'real' problems are, ending with some sort of 'Ad hominem'.

To your point about what the executive can do (although that's not what I meant), the executive has influence. The executive doesn't function in an isolated bubble and can 'drive' a solution to any systemic problem through the branches of the government.

> The lack of healthcare, kids getting shot in schools, homelessness, increased cost of nearly everything, and now forcing women to give birth are issues

.. that will also not be solved by the current administration. Or the following administration for that matter. It's not like the stupid app store has been deprioritized in order for congress to deeply lean into the stringent problems affecting America.

Obligatory 'How do delete all your data from Glassdoor' link https://help.glassdoor.com/s/privacyrequest?language=en_US

I think a lot of the commenters on this thread who are skeptical or dismissive don't really understand what a 'civil war' actually is or would be in a country the size of the United States. I believe this stems from the assumption of an improbable repeat of the American Civil War of the 1860s, which I agree with.

But a 'civil war' doesn't necessarily happen all at once, with a frontline, with conscription, etc.. It can happen slower, in separate places, with small skirmishes or only with 'occupying' a state legislature. It can also be fought with different weapons, for example electronic warfare and disinformation. With the latter in mind, some think it already started. You don't need North vs South or Left vs Right for a civil war. You need a group of 'rebels' vs the government and to some extent we kinda have this, considering that some of the 'rebels' are already part of the government and actively trying to topple it.

If you look at things from a different angle, for example the rise in extremist violence, the well organized (and well armed) far right groups, the various instances of local government refusing to enforce federal regulations, the repeated increasing 'states rights' arguments thrown around during high level political discussion (by elected officials) and elephant-in-the-room sized January 6 and the widespread loss of trust in government due to disenfranchisement, the infiltration of the far right fringes in law enforcement/military and even elected officials, the repeated secession bills proposed by idiots in eastern WA or Texas just for the purpose of getting people riled up, increasing income inequality, it's easy to see how things are going in the absolute wrong direction. Couple all of that with loss of income and you're gonna have a really bad time keeping the plebs in check. It's all 'Bread and circuses' until the bread supply chain is disrupted or the money to buy it becomes worthless.

But I'm optimistic because the people who actually run the country still want to make money and making money during something like a civil war is way harder. So something large scale will definitely not happen. I think we'll have a better chance to die in the 'water war' or just a heatwave than in any 'civil war' on US soil.

> I can’t think of a single case where you’d want to remove the invoices of a customer you delete. Ever.

CCPA will require you to delete the invoices. And I would love for all platforms to support deleting everything, including invoices, considering some things are illegal in other places and if there's proof of you buying said illegal thing, you can get in serious trouble (think gay dating apps in the UAE).

But I don't really agree with the author on his take about soft deletions.

Obligatory 'How do delete all your data from Glassdoor' link https://help.glassdoor.com/s/privacyrequest?language=en_US

> we're awfully sentimental about our own meat bags

As much as I've enjoyed my meat bag and worked towards making it better through different means like diet or weightlifting, the older I get and the more ailments appear, the more I think about being able to live long enough to acquire my new and improved robot body, Chappie [0] style!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappie_(film)

Ugh..

My personal experience. I come back from a trip in Romania. Arrive at Seatac, open the Uber app, it costs $100 for a trip to my house. Wait for my luggage to arrive, I open the app again, it's $120. I go outside the terminal and I find a town car service which was $60 for the same trip.

Rewind 1 day, In Bucharest, I arrive at the hotel via taxi and tell the driver that I need to go to the airport at 4 in the morning. He's like 'great, I just started my shift. Here's my phone number, call me when you wake up, I'll be at the hotel within 15 minutes'. And he was.

I don't understand the ideas in this article. Or the writing itself, which is horrible.

> Firefox was a legend. It’s of course, still underused by millions and millions of people, but not the way it was before. It was without a doubt one of the most dominant software before.

What the fuck does that even mean? Is it underused but not as underused as before? Was it the dominant software before? Before what, exactly?

> For example, the mobile version of chrome integrates well with Android and is the default browser in android because both Android and Chrome was owned by Google.

> Since google chrome just started giving good competition, and also making itself and default for Android, the marketing and popularity of Chrome flew through the sky.

Is competition given? Do browsers give competition? Also, is this good competition, really? I remember a certain software giant who got into some legal trouble over similar mechanics. But I'm happy that the popularity of Chrome didn't flew through the dirt or through water. Flying through water is not as good as it was 'before'

> a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police.

A boundary relative to what? An immovable object or a cop who can walk? I mean walk towards someone who's at 8 feet and tell them to stop filming?

and you just finished mine

'Psychopathic' is a generous take, as it would assume some level of truth. The take is just wrong and mindlessly repeats the contrarian bullshit we've been hearing for the past two years. I'm very disappointed to be reading it on hackernews actually.

Your comment reminded me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMQTg4Y0YT0

Is it possible that these people already had asymptomatic gallstones and whatever was in this food triggered a gallbladder attack?

You're spot on about bile not flowing. I'm very interested in the final verdict on this. I'm also not an expert, just someone who parted with their gallbladder a while back and became a major consumer of information on gallbladder pathology.

Cholecystectomies can also be performed in cases of cholecystitis (inflammation of the gallbladder) which can of course be caused by gallstones but also by infections of the bile tract, reduced blood flow to the gallbladder and other nasty things like tumors. Not sure how exactly this product caused the inflammation though..

Radicalized how? And where's the humor exactly?

It's no secret and it's a shared belief (shockingly, even among non-'radicalized' people, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_reform_the_United_S...) that the electoral college is undemocratic, obsolete (quite stupid by today's standard), vulnerable to interference (like we saw in 2020 and we'll definitely see in 2024) and it led to the current SCOTUS anomaly. For a nation that prides itself with 'innovation', to never end up reforming its electoral process and amend the constitution is just mind boggling to me. The electoral college was supposed to protect the country against people like Trump. We all know how well that worked out for everyone. And we'll find out again in 2024, as fringe groups inside the republican party are quietly setting up their people in key places.

If your counterargument in favor of the electoral college is that 'the constitution says so', there are a lot of constitutional amendments which prove that it's possible 'it can no longer say so'.

> Speaking of naive realism, what evidence? I'm not even asking what evidence was provided, but what could be provided at all.

The onus is on the accuser to come up with evidence. Until then, the countless observers, the sheer number of people involved in coordinating their local election infrastructure, the voting machines audit trails, the numerous recounts, the actual cases of fraud which pointed to republican voters, all are evidence that the election was not 'stolen'.

But it doesn't matter when you're dealing with 'crony beliefs'. Unless Jesus Christ himself appears, walks on water, does the whole water/wine thing again, calls Trump a moron and tells everyone the holy spirit handled the election, it's not going to change anyone's mind. And even then, the mental gymnastics of the rightwing propaganda machine will figure out a way to spin this.

If you want examples of actual stolen election, look no further than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore. Actually, I would say that any election in which a president does not win by popular vote is by definition stolen, even if the voting process is 100% ironclad.

I think you have a fundamental flaw in understanding what 'stolen' means.

Examples of stealing:

- https://www.bbc.com/news/61790625

- https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-troops-locked-out-of...

- https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/26/russian-soldiers-s...

Freezing/confiscating assets have been done under the judicial system. I understand that within a barbarian hoard there is also a judicial system or a system of values which state that anything goes during a war, but if that's the case, then why doesn't that apply to the 'west'? Putler said this was a war with the 'west', right?

Which would be correct, considering that ownership implies full and complete right of dominion over said entity, which you simply don't have. You could be locked out of your account with no means of getting back access, you can delete your data but have no guarantees that the data has been deleted, Google may create 'derivative works' on your data (see the terms of use) without your permission or will provide data about your account to authorities, etc.. That is not ownership, that's renting.

It means pseudo-scientific bullshit

The child is not a child nor a person. Not even the Catholic church considers a fetus a person, nor the government (as you can't get a tax deduction for your fetus). I used to be fairly religious and godfathered a couple of kids. Neither of them were baptized in the womb though. Or maybe I had the 'wrong' religion?

If you think the fetus is a person, then don't get an abortion. It's super easy. And if your fetus is killing you, then feel free to die for your beliefs.