jimz

HAHAHAHAHA my goodness. You actually believe that?

Everyone in China is constantly violating laws, the difference is that black letter law is essentially meaningless and the country is run by an administrative state that is controlled by the party.

You can't really get things done without breaking the law. China doesn't properly tabulate, and therefore cannot release, anything like accurate crime data. But the crime rate is certainly higher since it's pretty much impossible to even go online and do just about anything without breaking some law. What is written is so vague and nearly any conduct can fall under it.

The ambiguity doesn't make the country safer, they just have a media hegemony and active censorship. Healthcare is woeful and "cheap" comes with "quotas on patients seen" meaning that doctors frequently have 1-2 minutes to see patients and one can become an MD much earlier than one can in the US. And since the perception is that no food is really 100% safe, it's more acquiescence, and not confidence, that people show.

Hell, you having the option of choosing to opt into vaccines is even an improvement. In China you are stuck with the state prescribed schedule and that's it. Unless you're extremely wealthy, but then again, where is that not an exception?

Eh private prosecutions and third party standing are generally disfavored to such an extent that sure, attention-whoring legislators will propose it, but whether it even passes constitutional muster on the state level is an open question, and open in every state.

I'm sure that it's real nice to have the lack of IPs be a problem that only tangentially affect one's daily experience but try speaking to someone who lives in a jurisdiction that is de facto independent but because of a frozen conflict or some sort of political dispute that predates their birth can neither be assigned a TLD nor be a member of an RIR. There's a giant first mover advantage and the system devised to dish out IPv4 subnets is essentially a cartel. The secondary markets is the rational economic response in the face of a market that is monopolistic, poorly designed, and acts as an absolute gatekeeper to something that's fundamental to life in modern times.

The fact is that just because states and police really wish that 1 IP = 1 person but in reality that's hardly true. Residential and non-residential IPs are not really different. The resource is misallocated and what else does anyone expect? If investigations into actual criminal activity is solely based on IP addresses then it has always been one that is done incompetently. Sorry that the heuristic most convenient to the state isn't actually that great for what the state appropriated it to do. Whose fault is that? IP Geolocation is a massive backdoor whose purported efficacy has been used for geofencing warrants that basically make a mockery out of probable cause. It is also used for no good reason to help authoritarian nations and in the name of jingoism ends up inconveniencing people at the very least. My father spends 3-5 months out of the year in China and while there, he can't access his mortgage company and can't call them, can't renew his vehicle registration, can't check his gmail, and can't even purchase, but can nevertheless run, Turbotax. He's American, and there are hundreds of thousands of Americans overseas that find themselves in this awkward spot because of overreliance on one bad heuristic. So I have to pay his mortgage until he returns, every year for months, and also essentially while imitating him take care of a bunch of quotidian things that he can certainly do himself but since it's hard to teach a 65 year old man how to hop the GFW reliably, I have to go through this rigamarole. Imagine if I didn't have some cash set aside, or that I haven't paid for my own dwelling already. It certainly doesn't stop state actors from attacking when they want, but it sure makes it easy to pretend like you did something meaningful while in reality all you've done is inconvenienced your own customers. The system is broken, lamenting that fact isn't a good look.

The marketplace, in fact, is hardly a mess. It has competition, it has decentralized regulatory features, do you prefer all such deals go through say LET's massive thread on it instead? https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/160162/aio-ip-related-ipv4...

Except even as the press release states right off the bat, Fentanyl is efficacious, cost-efficient, and can be made widely available in areas like the global south without extensive pharmaceutical production infrastructure in place. The overdose crisis is in fact not really something that came out of the drug itself, just as the prevalence of Oxycodone before the enforced policy change shifted the usage patterns into a far more dangerous direction in heroin and tar and then, adulterated versions with fentanyl. People who are prescribed fentanyl for pain are not dying in droves. If you've had surgery, you may have been given fentanyl. If you're reading this, you, like most people, survived it just fine.

The crisis is one created by policy and cannot be eliminated on the pharmaceutical end. This isn't a case of methanol being sold as ethanol or SSRIs having less than ideal efficacy rates while causing widespread sexual dysfunction at a rate much higher than originally thought, or Zolpidem leading to over a hundred observational notes published in medical journals describing dangerous activity performed even on small doses followed by anterograde amnesia that certainly is a real thing that is also potentially dangerous, but incredibly difficult to study. Those effects are happening when the medication is taken as prescribed Do people take those without prescriptions? Of course, but one assumes the risk, and also, anyone ever seen a Zoloft pill mill?

Fentanyl had been diverted in small quantities onto black market supply chains for as long as it has been available. You can absolutely get an Actiq Pop in 2006 if you really wanted it, and the thing is a lollipop for crying out loud. It didn't cause widespread overdoses, it didn't even cause any significant black market demand. It was at best a curiosity. It's hard to quantify a subjective experience, but generally it was regarded as "not fun" anecdotally. Heroin is fun. Hydromorphone is even more fun but the best ROA leaves you with a 5-10 minute high at best and takes about that much time to prep. Oxycodone was fun but since the DEA made sure that it was as difficult to obtain as possible all of a sudden and what was available was spiked with enough APAP so that your liver might give out before you overdosed, well, what does cutting off the supply but leaving the demand in place do? The crisis as we know it today was inevitable in some form. It's created by policy, which is not set by scientists, and in fact when hydrocodone/APAP was rescheduled for Schedule II a specific reply to patient access concerns was "we don't take that into account", according to the DEA. Thanks for the candor, sadly we've gotten very little of it in the years since.

But of course, even on the black market, people overdose in a manner that is to a degree predictable. Long term users with steady supplies - say, everyone who's on a benzodiazepine long term - aren't overdosing regularly (yes, the LD50 of benzodiazepines generally makes overdosing on it alone very difficult if not impossible, but kicking it cold turkey does actually cause deaths from seizures and when mixed with another depressant like alcohol it becomes almost trivial to overdose on it, arguably making it at least in theory a more dangerous drug if one takes the view of the DEA). They are mostly able to obtain legitimate, low cost, and frequently entirely legal versions of, well, name the variety. From Triazolam (3 hour half life) to Midazolam (water soluble) to Etizolam (scheduled into schedule I based on 4 cases in Norway where when mixed with another depressant patients ended up in the ER. All survived and were discharged almost immediately. The reason why the DEA laundered cases in Norway through the FDA to justify at first an emergency scheduling and then turned it into a permanent one? Because they couldn't find any cases that demonstrated the purported danger in the US or Canada.) Overdoses happen when someone takes too much of a substance, but "too much" is difficult to determine when you don't have a reliable supplier in terms of quality and adulteration, but also, because tolerance gets built up so that long term users can use prodigious amounts and be just fine. But how do we make sure that nobody knows where their tolerance is at? Non-medically assisted, pseudoscientific "sobriety help" like AA or its variants that are ordered by the court, and of course, probation, testing, in-patient medicaid fraud mills, you name it. Since none of these actually do anything except use homebrewed aversion therapy or even less efficient, shame, to achieve what is basically not even a real goal but is tied to the criminal justice system, congrats, you have the perfect storm of demand not knowing how much to actually demand for. Fentanyl being the adulterant made this last inevitable easier, but it only hastened what had been happening for quite some time. When heroin supply on streets increased, fentanyl related deaths began decreasing. Wonder why? It's correlative, but observational studies take a lot more data and a lot longer time periods, although it would certainly follow previously observed patterns.

This may be interesting as a scientific venture, but treating it as anything but that is foolhardy and misguided. We know how to control pain. We know how to reduce the harmful externalities that form part of the definition of substance use disorder since we, as in society and lawmakers elected by us, are responsible for those harmful externalities in the first place. Fentanyl is not the problem. Making sure that there's no safe way to reduce potential harm associated with, ultimately, a personal choice favored by some but certainly not all as recreation, killed the hundreds of thousands since Lou Reed sang Heroin and put it onto the Velvet Underground and Nico. Why are we still acting brand new?

Singapore's immigration system is fundamentally different from what the modern American system have morphed into. It is far easier to enter Singapore without a visa when compared to the US, and while the EB-5 investor visa program caused an absurd moral panic in the US and ended up getting limited to such an extent that it basically is no longer a real viable path to gain legal permanent residency in the US, Singapore's government has broad discretion - which it exercises in reality, so it's not something written just for show - to significantly shorten residency requirements (from 10 years down to 12 months in some cases) and allows for highly skilled or investors to gain citizenship, not the convoluted visa-change-of-status-adjustment-of-status-naturalization train that privileges European countries first and foremost while making it extremely difficult for even skilled or even US educated nationals of Mexico, the Philippines, India, and China to gain permanent residency. On the lower-skilled side neither country allows a pathway for migrant laborers to stay regardless, although perversely the American system implicitly encourages not just marriage but consummation as proof of validity which is brought up in interviews for adjustment of status. The immigration system automatically equates marriage with sex and heavily privileges "family-based immigration" to such an extent that it basically incentivizes marital rape via official policy. Singapore doesn't do that, and countries that have marital-based immigration systems don't tend to be this explicit about it.

I don't know how you get "eugenic" out of the Singaporean nationality law, full stop. Income or skill is not genetically bound, after all. The US, in fact, does have explicitly eugenics-based criteria in its naturalization process in that it retains the quota that existed in some form since 1882 but simply added a step in front so that it can claim to have removed to quota from where it was while maintaining a de facto quota system that only affects four nations - one it once colonized, two it has a history of vilifying in overt racist terms. In addition, even though USCIS employees are not doctors and are not trained in diagnosing or determining mental illness and its potential impacts or lack thereof, one is frequently asked at the citizenship interview if one had been diagnosed with a mental illness, and since stating an untruthful answer is grounds for removal and also a minor but extremely easy to prove felony, even erroneous diagnoses or conditions that pose no danger like ADHD may result in rejection of otherwise eligible applications. Since there's no "cure" for many of these conditions it puts the applicant in a sort of limbo, and this is asked after background checks and a ridiculously thorough vetting process that essentially had been going on for 8-10 years had been passed. On that front, I think America has Singapore beat.

You can't actually compare apples to apples immigrants to Europe and immigrants to the United States because the way immigration is conceptualized into legal systems are quite different. For one, the US, in spite of what the president attempts to proclaim, absolutely has a jus soli system of granting citizenship in addition to a partial jus sanguinis system that makes the determination complicated when citizenship is passed paternally and hinges on the year of birth and legitimization/recognition by the father for a variable number of years. This means that not even every person born outside of the US and entered the country later in life is necessarily an immigrant, and also conceptually there's no such thing as "second generation immigrant", since if they are born outside of the country and do not have citizenship when entering the country with intention to stay, they are immigrants. Otherwise, they are not immigrants. While the determination of whether someone is a citizen or not is actually a potentially complicated process that requires a court to adjudicate, it's only really relevant as a defense to orders of removal in the domestic context, as otherwise it's a consular processing matter that is resolved before the person enters the country. Although how one's actual status may be determined in a variety of circumstances and ways, it results in what's effectively binary - you are an immigrant, or you are not. Contrary to popular usage, "illegal" or "undocumented" is not a descriptor that has a set legal meaning and some are in illegal status for very short periods of time due to bureaucratic inefficiencies, and others are effectively relegated to second class citizenship with literally no chance of adjusting their status, period. While these are meaningful distinctions to make when talking about the issue, when it comes to calculating economic impact, because entitlements are broadly speaking not available to those who do not have legal permanent residency at the very least, the binary, thanks to the legal fiction of 'status', creates a bright line that splits bot along "legal" and "illegal" but "immigrant" and "non-immigrant" in reality.

While thanks to legally enforced discrimination based on the distinct American construction of race and ethnicity there are economic advantages and disadvantages that on the whole affects those considered by the state to be part of said minority group, it's not discrimination that results in immigrants across the board being economically disadvantaged. The immigration policies of the country have in fact so favored educated, white collar migration that there's literally no viable legal way for unskilled or lower-skilled workers to migrate at all, and this has been true legally since the mid 1960s and enforced fully since the early 80s. In absolute numerical terms, the most disadvantaged groups in the country are actually, broadly speaking, the offspring of persons trafficked over via the Atlantic slave trade and those whose ancestors entered when the country officially had open borders (true for all until 1882, and to most Europeans until 1924). I understand that the policy does not resemble the policy of any European country today and so may not be intuitive to those who don't have in depth domain knowledge on the background and legal landscape, which includes most Americans. I know this because I have an Area Studies degree and have practiced immigration law and so while I can't tell you how to obtain a divorce, form a trust, or legally dodge taxes, this happens to be a niche that I worked full time in, and Cato's studies follow how the administrative agencies in charge of immigration and the demographics of migration in this country have decided to demarcate the population. Some of the legal language is copied verbatim from the 1880s but since congress refuses to implement meaningful fixes beyond addressing nonexistent problems since the Clinton administration, one has to work with the data that exists, not the data that we wish existed.

It also is quite obvious to anyone who actually knows how the system works. Everyone is required to pay income taxes federally and many on the state level as well, but immigrants do not receive most entitlements. Even those present legally are not entitled to the full slate of public entitlements that form the bulk of the deficit that grows year after year. Without social security numbers, they can nevertheless obtain taxpayer IDs (ITIN) that follow the same format, but do not generally have withholdings and do not benefit from tax credits except those that benefit their US citizen children, which of course are meant for, and really only sufficient, for their children. Most immigration benefits are funded by the applicants and are not cheap and with no guarantee that they will receive the benefits. It's accurate to say that many not only are many immigrants stuck in an eternal situation of taxation without representation, but in fact they are paying to fund their own persecution, coerced by the state of course. The ponzi-like structure of social security is kept afloat in part thanks to immigrants paying into it but unable to benefit from it later. While most who talk about taxation as theft are really speaking metaphorically, for immigrants who receive no benefits but are forced to pay for everyone else's and have no say in the matter at all, it's far more literal, and kafkaesque.

Your proposed methodology may very well be valid for Europe, but in America it would be essentially impossible to conduct a study on the entire population to begin with, and studies that uses heuristics show the opposite than what your assumptions indicate. Cato is a policy think tank and while its publications may be of interest to the general public, the focus is on promoting policies in the classical liberal tradition and meant for members of congress, federal and state government decision makers, and others who can influence policy. It's not their job to explain immigration law to people on twitter, and frankly, those people don't care about what the law actually is anyway. They ask questions clearly without understanding the context that the paper actually explains, and nobody is obligated to chew the meal they cooked for you as well, you know.

Well, OP wrote "he is" but then wrote "you are" in pinyin for one, and that's a bit hard to reconcile.

Hey, just wanted to let you know that your honeypot data for PHP-based attacks ended up factoring in charges being dropped in two criminal cases where prosecution attempted to run with a harebrained and ludicrous theory that basically centered around some... mythical idea of how these attacks happen and how specific they can be. The criminal justice system is where lurid fantasies of how tech works end up putting people in prison for sometimes years and budget concerns meant that attorneys filled parking meters every 4 hours and we had two full time investigators in an office of 40, most with a 80-120 caseload (rolling basis). Sometimes the data one puts online can really make an impact that my guess is that it was entirely unexpected and for two people in their 20s with young kids (separate cases, in fact, although not too far apart), it really reclaimed a good chunk of their lives. Thank you for that, and I hope others would do the same, because one never knows when it'll come in handy. So many products sold to LE are basically snake oil and without data and facts, the threat is incredibly coercive. Any leverage for defense helps balancing the playing field and frankly, nobody deserves to be taken to trial based on utter BS that has merit merely because it matches the equally unfounded anxieties of people, however unsubstantiated.Thanks again!

Casinos have a ton of leverage in some states. Here in Nevada MGM and Caesar's and Wynn, thanks to their expansion, are effectively treated as too big to fail and given huge amount of deference in how they operate by the gaming commission. But there are also incredibly problematic protectionist regulations that I and several other residents who didn't really know each other tried to get rid of through the admin law process, primarily allowing remote signups which would also allow out of state entities to set up shop without literally having a physical casino. Having to physically go to a casino and sign up in person was onerous and clearly pointless, and then impossible during the pandemic, and became a really silly charade. What was supposed to start as public meetings right before the pandemic got dragged out, meetings would get rescheduled at the last minute, and casinos made entirely spurious rationales like "there aren't enough local datacenters" (Google Cloud's Henderson datacenter is surely sufficient for in state traffic?), that they would want taxpayer money for potential loss of revenue (capitalism dude, what are you afraid of?) Meetings would get scheduled in Carson City and that's literally six hours away by car. Agenda items would suddenly be altered. It was a hot mess. We managed to get iGaming in theory legalized but they straight up never even pretended to start working on regulations for it, and now with the 90% loss deduction limit by the IRS on the OBBB books basically have 12.5% house edge on any line to start if it's properly priced. My model can beat 2.5% but 12.5% is insane. If the feds are going to ban pros constructively, well, I can't out lobby a casino. And the pro betting constituency isn't big enough to pander to, frankly. If there's action, it can't actually happen on shore. I realize that "people who can beat the books due to specialist knowledge and can bankroll drawdowns to the extent that returns long term profit" is also publicly not sympathetic and generally people either think we're touts (if it makes me money touting absolutely won't help me, in fact the fewer people I have to interact with the better) or something. Wagering by hand sucks, but no model is perfect, just some are more useful than others, and someone in accounting may be able to figure out that ban or bankrupt is not a sustainable strategy to run books. But with the feds involved to put that imprimatur of authority in writing, I guess I'm never getting my limits lifted. Good luck finding stable liquidity elsewhere.

Re-entry after having been removed can be a felony. But with ICE favoring expedited removal, these cases aren't ending up in Article III courts and in turn, without going through the judicial process ICE basically have made it next to impossible for this law to actually get triggered. There are a lot of laws on the books that end up unenforceable because the government is that meme of the kid sticking a stick into the front wheel of the bicycle he's riding. This is one of them.

(Also, the purposeful-availment test for personal jurisdiction in copyright cases is built on top of a set of facts that is established by geolocating Cloudflare IPs, and in turn, what was once a vague but at least potentially applicable law now has been turned into something that if merits of a contested case actually gets reached, basically no foreign defendant would be under the court's jurisdiction, because of how CDNs work. Since there's no visa for "responding to lawsuits" and in fact, it doesn't even look like proper service was conducted, meaning that the law is made ultimately on top of default judgments to foreign John Does. I have no idea whether this is a result of incompetence or short-term thinking, but that's where we are. The moment the law is applied correctly it becomes self-nullifying thanks to the facts. Same idea here.)

No because a) "illegal immigrant" is not a term with a meaningful legal definition in the first place and b) Although sss.gov says undocumented immigrants need to register under their FAQ, their chart of acceptable documentation effectively excludes the exact population. https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Documentation...

But since those who entered without inspection have almost no way to show when they actually entered, full stop, and ICE doesn't actually have a comprehensive and reliable way of tracking the population that wouldn't run afoul of the Constitution, it's basically a violation that is effectively performative. The people this targets are not eligible for any benefits whatsoever on the federal level for themselves anyway (but still have to pay taxes) and cannot naturalize so there's no carrot and no viable stick. It's a rump piece of legislation.

The concept of "illegal immigrant" is not a legal term and so it doesn't actually have any substantive meaning. One can accrue unlawful presence, one can be present with illegal status (when you do something your visa doesn't allow), but both of those are curable to varying degrees, the former subject to tolling (and also, doesn't count until one turns 18), the latter almost always because of the underfunded and overcomplicated bureaucratic morass that USCIS operates under.

But the common language of 'illegal immigrants" is exceedingly vague because it contradicts how the law its drawn up. One is not considered an immigrant legally until one has some sort of status that allows them to adjust their status to permanent residency. Before 1970 this was basically almost everybody. Today it's virtually nobody when they first enter the country. To be an immigrant is by definition to be legally present. The moral panic is actually based on a conflation between two distinct categories of people: those who entered the country without inspection (EWI) and those who are out of status and have yet to cure their status issue. Inspection doesn't literally mean what it means in the dictionary, by the way, it's a legal fiction. A wave-through is considered inspection even though one doesn't get their passport stamped. Parole can in some cases be considered the predicate that leads to inspection (advance parole establishes the inspection element that turns someone with no status into someone eligible for a green card) or it doesn't in other cases, although in those cases one is not legally considered to have been admitted into the country. Confused yet? Don't worry, DHS lawyers get confused over this as well, and even federal judges are frequently confused. Texas v. US was mooted but if it wasn't mooted, the petition actually reversed the terms of art which makes the petition gibberish if it reaches the merit stage.

Either way, whether someone is out of status or have status is not something that can be determined outside of a court and frequently, both administrative appeals and adjudication in actual Article III courts. ICE agents are not lawyers, they're not even technically cops, and they sure as hell can't tell the minutiae of immigration law where every word you think you know the definition of, you actually likely don't. One collateral attack that was commonly seen was that the person was actually a US citizen who never knew they were since depending on when you were born the criteria through which you acquire citizenship even while born overseas can differ dramatically. And by that I mean in the 1970s the criteria went under several changes that requires a whole new inquiry that requires some serious genealogical research to determine. This is a huge pain in the ass even if you know about the law, and ICE agents aren't lawyers and certainly aren't legal historians, but either way as a matter of statutory interpretation and application ICE agents making the determination would go far beyond what they're legally allowed to do. You and me and everyone else who aren't speaking for the government can use shorthands, but ICE agents can't while they're on the job. Who's "illegal" as a matter of law is not something ICE can actually decide, but they operate under presumptions that can't be rebutted since once they ship you out of the country, that's it. You can't get a visa to respond to a lawsuit. It used to be something that one can get parole for, but not anymore. Most no-shows in immigration court happen because of unavailability or because of lack of proper notice given. DHS OIG audits turn up this kind of problem all the time. I can believe that Trump and Miller having no clue about any of this, but the lawyers working for DHS? If they don't know, they're not competent for the position.

Interestingly native born Americans actually don't have a definitive and mandatorily accepted way to prove their citizenship. ICE routinely without evidence treat real documents as fake. You are not required to even have a state ID or driver's license, and neither is dispositive of status, and neither is a social security card. God forbid you were born at home with a midwife since many don't have birth certificates that conform to the more standardized forms of today. Most Americans don't have a passport. If you naturalize, at least the same agency will give you a certificate of citizenship that attest to your status. A green card likewise attests to your legal permanent residency status. But DHS doesn't issue such documents to native-born citizens, and routinely rejects documents issued by other agencies. ICE deports US citizens every year and we only have a limited set of data on how many. If you manage to make it back, you can't even sue ICE. You'd have to sue the municipality that held you for ICE based on what amounts to a hunch, which is not evidence. Voluntarily cooperating with ICE almost inevitably will lead to lawsuits, settlements, and once in a while, the bankruptcy of the city. Thanks to indemnity clauses, local cops are the last to get hit.

And all that is really unnecessary. The country was founded with open borders and while we had a lot of problems, immigration was not viewed as a problem serious enough for the federal government to specifically intervene in in the harshest and most racist way possible for 100 years. If you want both the economic benefits of immigration and also want immigrants to truly be seasonal workers voluntarily, get rid of the system and that will happen. Militarizing the border forced people into choosing which side they want to be on. I'm old enough to remember driving from Vermont to Montreal to hang out with my cousin at McGill for weekend brunches and smoked meats with just a driver's license - not even one issued in Vermont, but California - and the border checkpoint in New Hampshire - the only one in the state - being unstaffed most of the time. The southern border was like that until the 70s. Most Americans and Europeans don't have to contend with visas since visa waiver programs cover the so-called "First world nations" and some well-to-do ex-colonies and so the problem is an abstraction to them. In reality, it's a reality based on abstractions. Either way, since "illegal immigrants" are not a thing as a legally meaningful descriptor, there's no actual answer. Feel free to read this pretty good summation of the specific problems that involve the constitution though, it essentially covers up to Kerry v. Din (2015). https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=19...

No, everyone does. Even ICE wouldn't argue that somehow the 5th and 6th and 14th Amendment only applies to citizens because that reading doesn't give them unlimited power to deny due process, but rather, it would place non-citizens out of their jurisdiction entirely. Although that would also conflict with the plain wording of the constitution itself and also, the drafters of the 14th Amendment have testified that their intent was to cover all people. Their argument had always been that as an administrative agency even though what they do is virtually indistinguishable from the exercise of judicial powers under Article III, they do not serve Article III courts and therefore, detention and removal are not "punishment", but an administrative matter. Otherwise, we'd have a public defender system at the very least for immigration cases, because Gideon v. Wainwright would apply under cases and controversies arising out of Article III powers and the exercise thereof. Instead, by explicitly not basing their actions on Article III powers, they've contended that the protections in the constitution doesn't kick in. This is not a winning argument but enough of their rationale have managed to stand. The 4th Amendment actually still applies except without a lawyer one can hardly seek redress, especially when ICE can remove you beyond the court's jurisdiction at will. ICE obviously wants its cake and eat it too, but since that doesn't tend to fly in court, even the Court during the first Trump admin, the only way they can thread the needle in any way that is even remotely persuasive would necessitate that they'd have jurisdiction over all who are present, since Article II powers delegated by Article I also requires the Constitution to establish personal jurisdiction over everyone in the country.

B-visa rejection rate for Turkey in FY24, as per the US State Department, was 19.78%, btw. https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Im...

Well, during the first days of the Pandemic I discovered that theathletic was using the same hardcoded API key for EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT on their app. Granted, sports news when there were no sports and the near absence of interactive elements made it pretty meaningless, except you could impersonate any user to leave comments. So, bizarrely, sometimes you can reverse engineer right into other people's accounts, I just am not quite sure how the devs (I think, looking at the comments in the code, that they were Czech) managed to get the gig, considering how much the site was able to gather talent and create great content in spite of the paywall, and was sold to the NY Times for quite a bit of cash ($550 million). A $550 million app should not be using a hardcoded key in production.

The Times is really not a great tech company in any sense. If I were a bit less lazy/busy I'd get more into their audio app, but frankly their reporting has gone downhill. I guess they're running the referral mill strategy now with all the ads they put into the app where there were none. Maybe they can hire some better programmers, or better reporters, for that matter.

There was also the "white Australia policy" though. And China is the perfect scapegoat, like NK, since they seldom make public statements, and when they do, the west tend to treat it as across the board false.

But the top Area Studies scholars are not working for the government. I hang out in quite a few Chinese telegram chats (mostly sysadmins and just bullshitting - the term translates well literally but carries a slightly different connotation in that it's not falsity per se but bragging/exaggeration OR falsity, depending on context). There's a pretty general sense of neo-imperialistic motives on the part of the west and it's hard to blame them considering that for a nation that wasn't annexed it effectively had very little to no say in the administration of various parts of its territories for 160 years. Whether out of arrogance or because there's a huge blind spot (or both), this has led to missing out on numerous opportunities in effectively gain leverage on the CCP in significant ways, like getting rid of the quota system for H1-B visas so those who were on F-1s and graduate can actually stay and work in the US, or give general asylum to the protestors against the Chinese takeover of HK, a cohort that is educated, have relevant skills, speaks English, and compared to the rest of China, are relatively wealthy. The official fear of a brain drain have been around since the 1880s - the Chinese Exclusion Act was the preferred policy of both the US and Chinese governments, one that helped nobody and legitimized racism parallel to Jim Crow. One would think that we'd be over that by now.

There's some chatter that there's a soft-coup since Xi haven't been leading the nightly 30 minutes of propaganda, probably for the first time since the 1980s the news, broadcast nationally, didn't lead off with some inane report of leadership meeting dignitaries. The truth is anybody's guess but an actual military coup is unlikely to occur after the Lin Biao incident. The fact that America doesn't even seem to be aware of this is telling, and in North Korea's case, even more amplified.

Also, a nation-state cannot by definite launder any money since money laundering is only a thing because the state wants its cut. But here, by their theory, all of the money is going to the nation-state so... what laundering are they talking about? Theft, perhaps. Expropriation? Sure. But laundering? That makes no sense unless you internalize that America or whoever is actually the world's policeman. Good luck with maintaining credibility with that outlook.

Is a burrito a sandwich?

(Yes in New York and Indiana, no in Massachusetts, and the law is silent elsewhere. Personally I believe that because the torta exists, the burrito may have some characteristics of a sandwich but should be considered a wrap)

180 and blue and I suspect that language also plays a part (I was brought up in an environment where the word turquoise starts with green, but now live in a turquoise-producing state where the finished product look far blue-r.)

You say support, I say coercion. There is no federalism in China. It's all mandated, even if the language used is ambiguous enough to be interpreted as voluntary, policy in China is never discretionary when orders come down from above.

(Technically there's no federal government, period. There's just the bureaucracy and the party. The party's leadership determines policy, the bureaucracy carries it out. Local decisionmaking exists when micromanagement reaches its limits, and ultimately it is a system of gap-filling. Or, in a sense, it's a system that the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution anticipated and therefore needed to be addressed, 200 years early)

And the IP does not belong to the American government, why are taxpayers forced to subsidize such an expensive and potentially dangerous endeavor anyway? Not to mention that IP theft hs two metaphors in it - property, and theft, as the equating of intellectual property - a statutory creation - and real property - which exists unless you don't believe in your lying eyes - is ultimately the bad faith muddling of legal fiction and reality. America would absolutely know the difference, as one of the most prolific thieves of real property in recent memory (see: why and how the state of Georgia exists in the first place, or 'manifest destiny', or 'civil asset forfeiture'). Since there is no private property in anything close to the way the west conceptualizes it in China, nor anything resembling rule of law, what even gives America the right, beyond realpolitik, to even assert not just equivocation but effective extraterritoriality considering that American courts have a presumption against extraterritoriality as part of its doctrines.

This is not to endorse the CCP in any of its actions, but it is really not the business of the American government to impose its definitions and legislations upon the world in such a cavalier fashion. The jingoistic stench is the free prize, and it creates an artificial unifying point for the CCP to rally its citizens, who all go through indoctrination in nationalism but certainly by no means all buy into it, to focus on something that, probably thanks to the lack of cultural and historical competence amongst government officials in general, reinforces the primary raison d'etre of the CCP in the first place. After all, it's effectively the last country to take Westphalian Sovereignty at face value, however insincere it might be. I would categorize American policy as neo-imperialist, but are Americans even bothered by the idea that they are the evil empire? Are we the baddies?

Forgot to answer your actual question: Delta does directly handle its ramp operations at ATL, as well as at BOS, CVG, DTW, MSP, MIA, and SEA. But in the US there are state and federal labor laws to consider and where possible, they, like the other major airlines, offload a lot of staffing generally to Unifi or similar specialist staffing agents. Unifi used to be part of Delta until spun off and sold around 2018 if I remember correctly. Beforer then they were called Delta Global Staffing and primarily handled temp hiring. Now it is 49% owned by Delta but covers hiring for United and Alaska and a few others where possible, and provides the training and certs and all that as well, temp or full time, where possible, including some ramp positions at ATL. SLC, LAX, LGA, JFK are all Delta hubs and positions for ramp agents are entirely absent on Delta's career's page, but on Unifi there are pages and pages that cover almost everywhere in North America where Delta flies. Compare Unifi's open careers page: https://unifi.avature.net/careers to Delta's: https://delta.avature.net/en_US/careers and it should be pretty obvious as to the difference.

This is a bit of generally not very useful osint info but a subdomain search on HR platforms can reveal at least to some degree the labor situation at a lot of entities. avature has over 4000 subdomains in their dns records on securitytrails alone. Not all are for staging or VPN access or SMTP. Some are no longer active, but most do resolve. That's medium potatoes at best compared to the 10k+ at bamboohr. Although if you are doing OSINT you're probably not going for a job at a lot of these staffing agencies anyway. Ever since I was asked to leave a Cutco presentation in 2011 I haven't applied for a job since and I've been poached multiple times and am basically retired at 37. But this is a neat trick and I like dataset gathering for its own sake, and it definitely gives off an interesting view of the economy that may or may not reflect how any one feels about how things are going.

(If I need a job, I prefer fangraphs or baseballprospectus anyway, but they aren't hiring anyone who filed tax returns as professional gambler, sadly)

I know that it at least differs between the US and Europe. I've known ramp agents in a few countries and in the US the contracts in the end are handled by the airlines and training/regulation is governed by the FAA. The couple of European ramp agents are ultimately contracted to the airport (or really, the entity that operates the airport). This is a small sample, but there definitely exists more than one model of how ground staff is managed that is the norm. To further complicate things, the company that pays you may be a subsidiary of the airline you work for or sometimes a different airline or group of airlines, operating under a different name.

I'll give you an illustrative example that hopefully demonstrate how convoluted things can get. Swissport is one of the largest ground services providers in the world. It was first split off from Swissair as its in-house ground service department and became an entity under the holding company SAirGroup in the mid 90s, after plans to merge several of the flag carriers of smaller European countries fell apart when Swiss citizens voted not to join the EEA and therefore, denying Swissair of access to both 5th freedom rights in the EEA and potential cabotage rights. A few years later shortly after 9/11 the airline collapsed as did the holding group which resulted in Swissport being sold off to private equity (Swiss International took over operations on the airline side, sort of, by virtue of a Swiss government bailout and the acquisition of Crossair, the regional arm of Swissair that was divested earlier, by the creditor banks, but in a ton of debt and had to recoup as much as possible. Swissport continued operating after it was sold off and maintained relationships with, well, eventually just about every major airline through mergers and acquisitions, Crossair became Swiss International and was taken over by Lufthansa in 2005. Swissport has maintained relationships with Swiss through Lufthansa but only provides full service to Swiss at ZRH and cargo service at Basel (which Swiss pulled out of in 2015 on the commercial side, and also, is actually located in France, at least airside). It also handles regional operations for Lufthansa out of Munich. ZRH is the main Swiss hub and also a Lufthansa hub, but the fact that Swissport provides full ground service there is almost happenstance since Swiss serves over 100 other destinations and Swissport over 200, many of which overlap, but they do not directly serve the airline elsewhere except cargo operations to Basel. But there is another major airport in Switzerland, and Swissport operates there, but Swiss and Lufthansa Group uses dnata as their handling agent, a subsidiary of Emirates. dnata has no presence in Basel and is a minority operator in ZRH, where Swissport handles something like 80%+ of all ground operations. If you fly Swiss to just about anywhere else in the world, you'll see Swissport, but they aren't likely, save for some prior arrangement where airlines with limited presence may agree to contract through another airline, to essentially provide service in a separate agreement, but these are more ad hoc and subject to change and affects relatively few flights in comparison.

Lufthansa had its own ground services arm that it sold off - LSG Sky Chefs. Gategroup, which owns Gate Gourmet, was the Swissair catering service until being spun off in the same mid 90s expansion that ended up in the collapse. Swissair is no longer an active brand, but it is still valuable to an extent, so it is licensed out, although I have no idea where - like how Pan Am got licensed out to a freight rail carrier, it's likely stamped somewhere random and unrelated to Switzerland or air traffic, but brings in revenue so, why not?

I rarely fly now and when I do, it's domestic US and by charter. That's a whole other crazy mess but somehow, less messy than the scheduled airline industry and far less problematic than the duopoly both having supply chain issues, as both Airbus and Boeing currently does. That's on the news, if you haven't been paying attention, and it's not going away for a bit, by the looks of it. Air travel, meanwhile, remains safer than driving.

Not exactly salvage, but more like buying in volume from government entities trying to liquidate either actual surplus or fairly new but legally required retired machines. The feds go through the GSA, state and local do their own thing for the most part. It's not unusual to see agencies attempt to sell multiple palettes of computers or just about anything you can imagine for next to nothing. Example: https://www.gsaauctions.gov/auctions/preview/288722

I personally disliked dealing with federal agencies, but entities as local as a school district can easily have a palette of relatively new machines, sans hard drive, and are far more flexible in payment and how you choose to get it to you. For a brief period I used to rent a truck and do weekly runs from Brooklyn mostly to Maryland and Virginia and Pennsylvania and get back to my one bedroom with 90-120 computers. At the palette level prices can get down to the $10-$20 each machine level (probably higher now due to inflation), hard drives aren't really that expensive either. The biggest headache was shipping but the process is likely far more streamlined today. Of course, it probably would've been even cheaper if I didn't operate out of a tiny 1 BR in Brooklyn and can actually own a vehicle and have reliable parking It's not exactly my tax dollars at work, but effectively it is a sort of subsidized sale at the taxpayer's expense, Intel isn't really selling anything for pennies on the dollar, but pretty much every municipality and county government will, at least at some point.

The irony is that before I realized it was so easy I would just open source the code - not on Github, mind you, since the likes of Akamai would DMCA pretty quickly, but playing a little bit of jurisdictional arbitrage I put it on Gitee - the Chinese copycat of Github. I don't have a background in any of this, but companies like the brag and it's not hard to put two and two together. It also was a practical way to enable me to place wagers on sports automatically - which was more or less my actual day job - and was pretty good for learning programming quickly in your late 20s.

Instead almost immediately I got inundated by sneaker botters in China and in English from somewhere that doesn't use it as a native language, judging from the idiosyncratic use. I kept the code up for a bit but took it down not because of any legal threats (good luck with DMCA-ing a platform endorsed by the CCP, even though I have no love for the party, I also find the American attitude that places intellectual property over real property in practice - from my experience as a defense attorney - to be just as screwed up in terms of priorities, just a matter of degrees. What made me take it down was the fact that I did not want to work in a customer service job or really for anyone, and judging by the requests, it was mostly consisted of "you do the work but we'll split the profits", which I can't believe anyone would fall for.

But since the internet is forever, some parts of code that specifically worked to emulate Cyberfed-Akamai from 0.8 to 2.3 are probably still floating around. My bad. I don't wear shoes normally - flip flops or nothing after having to wear a suit to work for a decade - and have no idea beyond what happens in NBA2K. Although cybersecurity firms making products that someone who learned how to program in their mid 20s and put online within 3 years and had it work should be pretty ashamed of how much they charge, considering that I haven't even taken a math course since 11th grade and had too much of an ADHD problem to watch videos or even read more than blog posts or documentation. Everything I learned, I learned by copying from Github and similar services until it worked. There must be a lot of snake oil being sold out there, maybe most of it, since the insidiousness of the whole thing is that selling bunk solutions seldom gets you in trouble anyway, while actual crime - rape, murder, robbery and the like - are largely lagging because the police simply prefer to complain about culture war bs instead of actually, you know, do their jobs. Who knew Judith Butler was THIS spot on.

Garbage in garbage out. Lawyers can't make up shit since most don't have a plan B if they're in immigration - it's not the highest paying, extremely specialized, and pretty much requires you to be multilingual. Only some of the skillset translate and much of it requires you to move to DC. Consular processing is less bout the lawyer but really entirely down to how the counselor official feels and if they slept poorly the night before you can get a sudden spike in rejections for no other reason than rejection is easier than approval. But if you really have a bad case, no amount of makeup can cover that gigantic sore in your paperwork, Thiel or no Thiel.

Because those who didn't get it... don't talk about it. Also, as of the latest policy manual at https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-m-chapter-... you can basically paper-mill your authorship into fulfilling a criteria, but that would just indicate that regs, when promulgated according to procedure, takes time. It doesn't insulate you from future adverse effects like removal or theoretically indefinite detention or criminal charges.

USCIS is more than happy to gloss over your application if you're coming from Europe. Or Canada. Or places like Singapore. Otherwise, well, they once asked to provide proof that the Archdiocese of San Antonio actually exists, even though it has existed for longer than America had immigration laws and can be found on Google. And no, I couldn't reply with a lmgtfy link, even though I really desperately wanted to. Since they have so much discretion and an institutional culture of suspicion that is so obviously racist that they literally kept some of the very outdated wording from the 1880s-1920s in the statutes and regs today, if they pick on you, a tax audit can feel like a walk in the park. Working in a public interest firm I was passed a file containing a 28 year old case that has yet to be resolved, leaving the client, who has been living in Queens all this time, without legal status even though he had entered the country legally as an infant and child of a US citizen, because a fire destroyed one set of his entry records and USPS sent the other copy to the wrong address, with no backup. And at the time of his birth his mother was legally speaking a US citizen but have yet to receive paperwork as she was serving in the army in Berlin, the only official record of his birth plus his current status plus the uncertainty of his entry into the country and all the shenanigans resulted in him getting removed, and having smuggle himself back in. Removed to Mexico that is, even though his mother is from Belize. I worked the case for 3 years and had to pass it off to the next guy. This is not unique, and entirely neither the fault of his mom or himself, but thems the breaks.

Do not use "hack" because DHS chooses to take these words literally or figuratively as they see fit and have full discretion to do so. It's also administrative so you aren't entitled to free counsel. O-1 can be used for extraordinarily talented scientists and engineers who HAVE ALREADY innovated. Having a Github doesn't count. We're talking Shohei Ohtani level broadly speaking. If you built Github from scratch, you MIGHT have a case. It is dual intent, but whether you are able to actually obtain a green card entirely depends on your nation of origin. It's easy for everyone unless you're from China, India, the Phillipines, and Mexico, in which case, you may die of old age before it's your turn.

Except "struggle" is entirely subjective. In fact, outside of a few things that causes physical dependence (which vary in length except they all, eventually at least, end), the concept of addiction as used by the government does not necessarily match up to how those in the particular field of research would. Government makes laws and laws prefer bright line rules. Something like "did you, without authorization, use the credit card given to you by your company to make purchases unrelated to your work", for example, have concrete, definable, and answerable elements that are universal and more or less binary, provided that the statute has a definition section that makes sense. But "so addictive" or "designed to be so engaging and as a result people are by and large struggling to exercise personal accountability and it is causing adverse health outcomes" is pretty much the antithesis of that. The government would need to define "addictive", "designed" would need to have an intent element (one designs the software, sure, but you're asking for not what the software itself does but one step further - what its impact is on the population at large). How does the government prove that intent, especially since criminal law tends to define intent as intent to act which combined with the act itself, creates the crime. What counts as "so engaging" or even "engaging"? Does it require active engagement? Plenty of platforms do not require any active engagement to partake in the conventional sense, unless reading is engagement. How many people counts as "by large" (I assume that's what you mean, feel free to correct)? How would the government show that the product and any struggle is causatively linked and not merely correlative? How does one define struggle to exercise personal accountability? Where did the duty of exercising personal accountability even come from as to establish liability and would that criminalize those who are disabled or injured as to being unable to exercise such responsibility writ large? And what counts for adverse health outcomes? All these need to be worked out in legislation and likely argued over in court. Every single element needs to be worked on as to not to be overly inclusive or exclusive. And since it's the government, the consequences for violation is without question enormous, and therefore, anything that can be misconstrued can result in the ruin of a company or persons in a variety of ways, but do you really want to have the government determine who is an edge case that doesn't count? Because the government have done that based on assumptions of potential harm and it has caused what today would be considered horrific abuses of human rights and very little positives beyond enriching those whose income derives from the enforcement of the government's scheme.

Laws are lagging indicators but they also last a long time. the CFAA was passed before the advent of the WWW and it took until 2021 to even set a basic check on the part of the Supreme Court that effective set the ground rule that to access what amounts to a computer linked to some network beyond authorization, an authorization scheme needs to exist in the first place. Before that, one can easily be charged and even sent to prison or be assessed massive fines when there's no meaningful distinction between what is authorized and unauthorized space. These were not problems in the early to mid 80s but when problems did arise, it still took a quarter century to resolve. To have one future-proof goldilocks solution is already next to impossible, but you're asking for five or six stringed together in order to have a sensible law that is well tailored enough so that it is effective without being oppressive. Not to mention that unless the behavior is generally abandoned by users, it creates black markets that are simply illegible to the state. The government then effectively loses control over what it purports to control to those with means, leaving only those without subject to the full force of the legislation.

That of course all predicates on the premise that there can be commonly agreed and sensible ways to define all those, and it is in the best interest of the government to do so and passes Constitutional muster not just on speech grounds but a host of other potential issues, like, is this a purely civil matter or a purely criminal matter or both? The federal government can treat this explicitly, or kick it off to an agency as part of its mandate, but which one? Do we need a new one? Are there checks and balances that would provide some sort of agility that keeps up with the times? What if new research comes out that shows the lack of a link, but by legislating it, you've effectively frozen the relevant conclusion in time. Enforcement creates constituencies who do not care about science or potential upsides. The DEA is on the record in the federal register that patient access to legitimate medication is secondary and effectively an afterthought to enforcement of supply, because the agency's mandate presupposes that substances need controls and are presumed harmful and that enforcement, with the teeth provided for by the DOJ, will trump any study the FDA or our academic institutions can ever show. By the time that particular moral panic was given a name, the US government had been attempting repeatedly to use prohibition as a way of imposing a specific set of social mores that at first was a pretext to target specific racial minorities and when that became socially unacceptable (legally it was unacceptable under the 14th Amendment anyway, but they effectively smuggled the laws in through the Treasury Department and protectionist regimes by taxing the goods into oblivion, and avoiding the tax obviously is also a violation of the law).

In that sense, the government operates very much like a machine, whereas given a concrete goal to achieve and it can likely achieve it, but the manner by which it achieves it may create additional problems and convoluted interpretations that ripples through history in ways unimaginable. The loudest voices in the room, or those with existing financial resources or interests, can use the rent-seeking system known as lobbying to shape the laws to begin with. And where does the fines end up? Certainly in most cases they are not given back to the community, but end up enriching the enforcement agencies. Go to a police auction and see how much they're raising from the sale of "proceeds of crime", except not all of it are crimes that are proven in court, and much of it are crimes without specific victims and so, it becomes a regime of appropriation of private property to enrich a few in the public sector.

There's usually an annoying gap between concept and reality. In isolation you want a policy that can solve problems in a targeted and fair way. In reality it almost never happens.

It's funny that the dynamic seems to be entirely reversed in criminal or collaterally-related-to-criminal matters since I could have told you by the time I graduated (and had been practicing on a limited license for a year) which attorney is more competent at what specific aspect of defense related work, and when I jumped to federal CJA work and then removals which is administrative entirely, it also took very little time to suss out the quality of not only other attorneys working on the defense side but the prosecutors and their proclivities, strengths, and weaknesses. In fact I think I'd be a pretty bad attorney in my field if I didn't pick up these things pretty quickly, and the question of recommendations only happen when there may be a conflict anyway, usually because it's pretty normal for a case to have more than one defendant. The biggest case I worked on had 68 and everybody ended up pleading but even with that, I feel like just seeing how different attorneys tackled the same basic case but from a slightly different angle gave a decent amount of insight, including how quickly they are able to get a plea worked out and how they approached collateral issues that always comes out of massive fishing expeditions. I mean, it's a service industry gig with a fancy title in the end and since law school didn't teach anything about lawyering - even legal writing didn't actually cover any client management and actual courtroom procedure, although the 2 weeks we spent on what was essentially a doxxing exercise was really helpful combined with some programming skills - it feels inevitable that through exposure on a daily basis one would get a feel pretty quick of others in your field.

And there's always reputations and word of mouth but I find that to actually be more or less on point when it comes to particular niches, like if you need someone who spoke a particular language or dialect, or someone who understood how to cross examine about technology and not have the jury fall asleep on you, or someone who can handle a child witness and someone who can't. It's not that different in the civil context, is it? There was even a prosecutor who was widely known to be susceptible to running himself into Batson challenges and sure enough the first trial I had against him he managed to dismiss every minority in the pool leaving me and the client the only two in the room which was glaring since the jurors began noticing that something was before we even got there. It was moot since we got a mistrial but if the opposing side is known to be generous with free issues to preserve for appeal you'd be on the lookout, wouldn't you? Or am I still overestimating how often civil attorneys end up in front of a jury broadly?