throwaway_1928

Another commenter made this observation, but his comment was deleted by HN moderators.

I sure hope Elon Musk takes over Twitter so we will not need HN to have an open conversation.

Please note that Patanjali [1] was a sage in ancient India and the author of the Yoga Sutras [2], among other works.

And I find your comment on 'theft of the commons' insightful.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patanjali [2] https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm

No, plagiarism is important in every circle, not just academic circles.

If you copy your colleague's work at your FAANG job and claim it as your own, you will be in trouble.

If a contemporary politician claims he has come up with this novel idea where decisions can be made with "majority vote", he will be mocked out of the room.

And so on.

You cite an NYT article "How Yoga Can Wreck Your Body". That is like citing an article "How You Can Hurt Yourself With A Kitchen Knife" to argue how the culinary arts are dangerous gobbledygook.

Yes, these practices can hurt you if you don't do them properly.

And there is nothing wrong with performing or following original research, as long as you credit the work upon which you build.

I am not even certain who invented Linux (whatever "invented" means). Maybe it was Bezos all along.

/s

Here is one resource to learn the original practice:

in Hindi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rsaiwudWOI

same instructor, with English voiceover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCmB8Tnvmw

You're missing the point.

Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist.

And to expect a sagacious progenitor of a millennia-old practice like Pranayama to have considered modern-day legal protections is absurd.

Tummo is closer to 'Kundalini' [1] than it is to Pranayama. Pranayama can be practiced safely with a little intro, but the others I believe require serious guidance.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini

It absolutely matters.

If Jeff Bezos says he has invented a new operating system and upon a little digging it is discovered that he just tweaked and renamed Linux, then he should and will be called out, and it will hurt his reputation.

The problem is not with using knowledge to your benefit, that is why it is there. The problem is with plagiarism, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.

This has happened with Pranayama before, when it was appropriated and rebranded as 'cardiac coherence breathing' [1] and 'diaphragmatic breathing' [2].

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/health/india-pranayama-yoga-c... [2] https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/learning-diaphragm...

fantastic talk, thank you.

This "there are options" bit does not help most of the million people stuck waiting 100+ years for the same immigration that their equally qualified colleagues complete in 18 months.

The false equivalence of a 100+ year wait with some vague "Indian politics and bureaucracy" is not relevant. "Romanian politics and bureaucracy" and "Cuban politics and bureaucracy" may be worse than "Indian politics and bureaucracy", but that is not at discussion here. What matters is that Romanian and Cuban H1Bs have an 18 month green card wait time.

And the author clearly considers this unfair process more than "annoying". To him, it is perhaps closer to humiliating and debilitating, which is partly why he has chosen to put up with it no longer.

Let us say this young author has a master's degree from MIT and has worked a few years on an H1B at Tesla. But he does not have a PhD and does not publish research. And he is a very good engineer but does not care for management work. And he does not have a couple of million lying around to splurge on an EB5 visa. So his visa category will be 'EB2' and his wait time for a green card will be more than 100 years.

Now let us say he has an engineer friend who was born in Bolivia, received a bachelor's from Arizona State University, and works on an H1B at Office Depot. A perfectly adequate employee with a perfectly good background. His visa category will most likely be 'EB3' and his wait time for a green card will be 18 months.

The 'better visa options' you mention are in practice applicable only for a small minority of workers (certain PhDs, the very wealthy, expat managers etc).

The vast majority like this author find themselves strangely waiting 100+ years for a green card while their colleagues with very similar backgrounds from virtually any other country receive it in a year or two.

+1. I think they are just trying to mirror the tech oligarchy we see elsewhere. A handful of rings to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.

I agree with you that administrations can do pretty much whatever they want, but I think you are missing the point:

1. if H1Bs are not to lead to green cards per your interpretation of existing laws, then no H1Bs should lead to green cards, regardless of country of origin

2. if H1Bs do lead to green cards as we know they do in practice, as per my 'dual intent' understanding, or as per your 'wink wink' description, then they should lead to green cards regardless of country of origin

But the inconsistency in providing green cards to Tunisian H1Bs in 18 months while providing green cards to Indian H1Bs in 100 years is where the problem arises, and that is why the young author with a bright future is headed to India instead of applying his intelligence and abilities in the US.

The US and EU governments have a much deeper understanding of India's strategic position than your comment gives them credit for.

This is a simplistic assessment of India's strategic situation.

INA 214(h) may be interpreted as follows:

"In addition, INA 214(h) provides that an H-1B nonimmigrant may have "dual intent," i.e., the fact that an H-1B nonimmigrant has sought permanent residence in the United States or will be seeking such status in the future does not preclude him or her from obtaining or maintaining H-1B nonimmigrant status. The applicant may legitimately come to the United States as a nonimmigrant under the H-1B classification and depart voluntarily at the end of his or her authorized period of stay, and, at the same time, lawfully seek to become a permanent resident of the United States without jeopardizing H-1B nonimmigrant status. Consequently, your evaluation of an applicant’s eligibility for an H-1B visa must not focus on the issue of immigrant intent." [1]

[1] https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM040210.html

Yes, it could be one of many scenarios including the one you mention. It could also be that the child of the US citizen was born in Mexico perhaps during a vacation or prolonged stay.

For that child to become a US citizen would take at least 20 years and perhaps much longer to the point it would not be feasible, like in the case of the author.

"In addition, INA 214(h) provides that an H-1B nonimmigrant may have "dual intent," i.e., the fact that an H-1B nonimmigrant has sought permanent residence in the United States or will be seeking such status in the future does not preclude him or her from obtaining or maintaining H-1B nonimmigrant status. The applicant may legitimately come to the United States as a nonimmigrant under the H-1B classification and depart voluntarily at the end of his or her authorized period of stay, and, at the same time, lawfully seek to become a permanent resident of the United States without jeopardizing H-1B nonimmigrant status. Consequently, your evaluation of an applicant’s eligibility for an H-1B visa must not focus on the issue of immigrant intent." [1]

[1] https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM040210.html

> Americans want H1Bs to be temporary workers who go back home, not immigrate permanently. That’s why the statute has “temporary” plastered all over it

This is false. The H1B is a 'dual intent visa', which means it "allows foreigners to be temporarily present in the U.S. with lawful status and immigrant intent".

> Unless they’re eligible for a real immigrant visa (in America, the main one is the family reunification visa)

This is false. An H1B ("temporary worker") from, say, Iraq or Serbia has no wait times for a green card. In contrast, a child ("family reunification") of a Mexican US Citizen must wait at least 20 years for a green card.

> Sure you’re saying H1B restricts but does it really?

Given the author's impressive credentials and ambitious tone, he would be a fool to choose to wait 195 years [1] for a green card.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2021/03/01/immig...

do you mean byjus?

One may also observe that India is primarily Hindu, while Tibet is primarily Buddhist, which is an offshoot of Hinduism. Present day China is communist atheist, which has a lot less in common with Buddhism than Hinduism does.

China is already planning the "world's riskiest mega dam" in Tibet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEYuRFJ12iw.

It plans to use water supply as a weapon against India.

Mearsheimer is deeply informed, objective and honest. Dangerous traits to have when your opinions don't mirror those of any given establishment.

Agree with you on Boyle and Bagel being good and Jikh being bad. Strongly disagree with you on Meet Kevin. He's on my bad list. Just my opinion.

Professor John Mearsheimer explained this 7 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4