Just anecdotal but as someone in the Pacific Northwest with a large Mormon population I have seen this occur in government and doctors offices, slowly everyone replaced by Mormons. My current office the practitioner I work with is the only non-mormon left and he's not happy about it. Mormons look out for each other, which ends up in this situation. It's nothing more nefarious than that but still off putting to those outside the church as it very much seems like a 'Mormon Mafia'.
Side note, out of prison Mormons were the only religion that actively supported ex-cons and would set you up with a place to stay and a job if you didn't have one. I seriously thought about converting just for the stability (and still might). The Catholic church had monks come to prison but I couldn't even get a visit with a priest/monk at my previous church once outside to just talk about coming back to society, my fears, and re-adjustment. Or a single parishioner to talk with. But they did offer tele-counseling (if I had insurance).
It is not ridiculous. It is also the will of a democratic people. Maybe you aren't compatible with the American system as you seem to want some sort of classist system (let in more of the 'GOOD' people where you define who is 'GOOD'). We had that system before this one, and 'GOOD' was defined as western European. We decided we didn't like that system and decided that everyone should have a chance.
Because you chose to apply to a system that limits the total percentage of recipients taken by nationals of any one country? The USA is pretty public with this information along with publishing applications numbers so if it's a process you are interested in understanding or that could impact you personally you had a lot of information to inform you how it all works and what your odds/wait would be?
Then make VISAs an auction if the goal is maximum value extraction, not some weird arbitrary 'allow all X class (in your case master degree graduates) because they are of 'more value' for 'XYZ reason'. But that isn't the goal nor the will of the American people who have codified a system of ensure the chance for immigration is spread across the world. We are a nation of immigrants most of whom came with nothing. Our goal is giving that opportunity to others who need it. Plenty of countries offer 'golden visas'. If that is how one wishes to immigrate, one can move to one of them today.
Because American's have chosen to have immigration opportunities spread among different countries and specifically written that into our system? Because I don't want a system that promotes elites that 'have the funds to pay tuition'? None of my grandparents could have afforded that high bar. If you have the funds, you don't NEED to immigrate as much as others do.
Because that is not how American immigration has traditionally worked. Many of us are from families that did not have the means to put someone through graduate school, they arrived as Irish orphans or with $8 in their pockets. The graduate student doesn't need the citizenship, the person with $8 in their pocket does. Imagine a world where the graduate student who is already guaranteed to be pretty successful AND the immigrant who came with $8 dollars have good lives. That's what America is about to me. That is why we limit immigration number by country (so more people have an opportunity) and promote familial immigration, not immigration of elites. If you want that system there are plenty of countries with golden visas, one right next door to the USA.
I can commission a painting and give exacting details of what I want, but that does not make me the artist that created the painting (especially in the legal definition required to claim copyright ownership).
There are laws and rules for copyright, and when you claim copyright, you make a legal claim to the government that those rules apply to yourself and the piece in question. TDIL: When I make legal statements to the government, such as that copyright applies to a work I am submitting, those statements must be true.
If I commission an artist and give them exacting directions, they are still the artist and copyright owner of the work. They can then assign it to me, but I am not the artist simply because I commissioned the work and gave input.
I spent a couple of months trying to find podcasts, but they all seem to consume way to much time for value provided. Can you recommend any high value podcasts that don't just ramble about this weeks business press releases? I don't even care what fields, I used to love just the general consumption of what is going on in the world that the (now) dead internet used to provide.
As an inmate you don't have standing in 1983 cases (your only attack against qualified immunity) unless you can demonstrate actual harm. How can I do that? I don't own anything, my prison slave labour job isn't going to fire me and I don't get docked daily lost wages (off my $5 a month flat pay), so how do I prove actual damages?
As someone who went through the system you are wrong. Sure that might be a few cases ruled in your favor, but in the actual implementation of the rules as applied to those in the system you are incorrect. You are like the insurance company pointing to two cases where they approved treatment saying 'look, we don't deny treatment'.
There was a case where it was ruled totally fine to feed inmates rotten food AS LONG AS if they asked they were then given human grade food. Here's the thing, asking comes with huge consequences (such as being put in a cell with notoriously aggressive Bob, then having your cell 'shaken down' for contraband every day and letting Bob know the cell is being targeted because you cause trouble). You should be able to go after a person knowingly serving food not fit for human consumption, but you can't, because precedent of this case now says it's OK (as long as you server human grade food on request which how can I prove they don't) so qualified immunity is to all Food Service Administrators from this precedent.
It's the 'standard term used' so makes sense that it is used. The discussion here is does it make sense? I know that until I studied Persian history it very much alienated my thinking from that part of the world, and made me think of them as other. I was also taught the ignorance of christian thought of that period (referring to mainly the actions of Germanic groups) versus the superior enlightened 'Islamic Golden Age' that happened to leave out that many of those enlightened scholars were Christian and that their thinking was perfectly compatible with Christianity. It seems artificially divide and NOT do a pretty poor job accurately reflecting the people/scholars/scientific movement it is used to describe.
So a useless word that could be replaced by stating the geographic name of the 'certain parts of the world' referred to. Seems like an artificial name the muddies/pollutes the topic rather than enlightens. The Spanish inquisition started in 1478, Spain threw off the muslim invaders in 1492. Should we call it the Islamic Spanish Inquisition, since Islamic is such an interchangeable term?
The entire Internet at the 'fantastic' time of Reddit was very much tilted towards the elite class that could 1. Afford an expensive computer or phone (or have access from University) 2. Afford Internet (and for an added bump of exclusivity add mobile Internet) (or have access from University) 3. Have the time/inclination to put lots of energy into CREATING Internet content (via either a hobby site, or composing well thought out posts). What you are complaining about is the quality of a restaurant that has gone from an exclusive new spot you discovered to a Chili's franchise. (Phil's Fish Market?).
What everyone on Hacker News seems to long for is an Internet limited to 'that class' of people. They complain about billionaires and advertising, but maybe they should take a broader look at what they are really longing for.
This isn't true. I was in prison at the time and trusted that Fox wasn't totally lying and believed the election was stolen. There were almost huge riots between political persuasions and the BOP locked down all facilities (which were already under COVID lockdown, so double double lockdown). If it is all you are exposed to it very dangerously shapes what you believe independent of the narrative you want to hear. You assume they can't just blatantly lie.
We already have this. I was in prison federal prison with some of these guys. What you want is maybe less prosecutorial discretion but mandatory sentences/etc have been ruled unconstitutional in federal law so it would be a tricky prospect when it comes to removing individualized assessments. It's easy to grab a pitchfork after reading an article but their might be realities we don't see that prosecutors (who do this for a living and really really like having scalps to hang) did.
On a previous thread someone posted a interesting idea. Every time a company conducts criminal actions, the feds assume X percentage of undilutable ownership. This punishes the company and stakeholders (or stockholders) as it dilutes their equity and if too much illegality occurs the company changes hands (and probably gets spun out as a new public company with the proceeds going back to the public and the original investors/etc still get an acceptable punishment).
The internet then was an elite group of people that had 1. Disposable income for computers (or access at University) 2. Disposable income for Internet (or access at University) 3. The ability to put together the skills to create the things you listed. The more I reflect on the changes the more classist I realize this statement/argument is (not making a moral judgement just highlighting the reality).
Great. Then I want them encouraging corporations. I don't want my power company limited to the risks that their CEO can absorb (so projects under what? 20% of the CEOs disposable wealth that the CEO will willing to risk on the total of all projects?). I want a power company that can risk creating large solar farms and absorb the lawsuits that the CEO on their own would not be willing to take on if they were bearer of so much responsibility just couldn't risk it. You are pushing for a world of all large projects being limited to those done by billionaires just like the world of peasants that existed prior to the creation of the concept of corporations. You are pushing a much worse and limited world for the little people where they can't pool their resources and do ANYTHING larger than any one individual can assume the ENTIRE risk of.
Rephrasing your statement, (current) Syrian nationals chose to go into a field (out of how many?) that they knew was greatly restricted without a change to their (current) nationality, and are then restricted. Nothing to due with punishing refugees/immigrants.
No, the concept of having corporations is 100% about this since their creation. If you look into the history of corporations it's kind of the point. Not more 'you and your family will be completely ruined and destroyed' but instead 'you can lose your business' sparked a revolutionary change in business the enabled the modern world and allowed people to undertake huge products that no sane person would take a risk on if they assumed responsibility for.
Dude you are posting to the site who's community does everything they can to keep Z-Library going. They don't care at all about creating a civil knowledge creation empowered society. They care about their self entitlements and how their short term desire can be filled with the lowest friction consequences be damned. As an ex-addict I feel quite at home with this crowd. I too exploited whatever I could to get what I wanted and justified to myself why it was ok.