There's also the L1B Company transfer, if you work for a company with offices in the US and they would be able to transfer you after a year. Bit of a gamble to find a company that would be willing to do this though, and you gotta work for probably years to find out.

H-1B, if you're not already in the US has a 100k fee attached to it. Though AFAIK that was a proclamation that expires at some point, but probably won't. So it's really not an option for 99% of people.

I'm not a lawyer, so definitely verify what i say, but i'm pretty sure these are also valid options.

Transport is massively profitable for the economy but not for the transport companies themselves, they simply can't capture enough of the value generated to turn a profit. If they try then the level of travel disproportionately goes down to make them lose even more money. It's why most/all of a public transport needs to publicly funded in some way and saving a penny or two per ticket on WiFi will cost far more to the economy than it saves.

There is one notable exception. Japan's train system is profitable depending on how you look at it. The trains themselves are a "loss leader" in that they actually lose money per train ticket, but the company that runs the trains also owns the terminals (lots of retail space) and the commercial real estate around them, which is where the money is made. They are in effect a commercial real-estate holding company that's doing transport on the side to beef up their portfolio.

They were probably on a treaty visa, Like E2 (which i have, it's not just for business owners/investors, employees can get this too) or T2 (The NAFTA equivalent). These visas allow you to live and work in the US for a very long time (extendable indefinitely for 2 years a pop in my case), but they have no dual-intent attached to them. They are a dead-end and if you want to stay in the US you need to start from square one with an H1B/Marriage or convince your employer to start a standalone green card sponsorship, which costs like $50k and 2+ years of processing, where the only benefit to the employer is that you can now get a different job.

It's actually kind of a problem, there's a lot of people on these visas who've lived and worked here for 20+ years with no viable route to permanent residency.

One of the main things that allows global trade to happen as freely as it does, is countries cooperating so that copyright can be legally enforced across them. The resulting court cases are likely to be less actionable if you have no presence there, but you can be sued in that country for breach of copyright and have a judgement placed upon you. It's bilateral, a Brit may wonder the same thing about the US or any other country and the answer would be the same.

The danger of the covid virus was concentrated in specific demographics such that a lot of people didn't directly see how dangerous it was. This created a disconnect between what was being reported vs what people saw with their own eyes, creating the perfect environment for conspiracy theories to run rampant. For example, I don't know anyone that died or had a bad time with it, nor does anyone else in my family/close circle. But that's because I don't really know any old or medically vulnerable people, but with our aging populations in the western world this group is actually huge. We had people dropping like flies in certain sub-groups while in others nothing much happened and only where the groups intersected was it visible how bad it really was (healthcare workers, people with old grandparents not taking it seriously). It also doesn't help that older demographics almost always have something else wrong with them and Covid a lot of the time was one contributing factor that pushed them over the edge, this really fueled the conspiracy theorists narrative of falsely attributing causes of death to "inflate" numbers.

I also think the media took a wrong turn in it's messaging and told too many noble lies. It was really important that the young and healthy also thought that this might be real threat to them personally so they'd actually take it seriously and stop spreading it. But young people would lookup the statistics for their own risk and would see fatality/complication rates of sub 1%, and also note that those affected were primarily the morbidly obese and immuno-compromised. I recall seeing a lot of articles indicating that there was a surge of young people in ER and articles showing obituaries of young people in order to hammer home the message that it was a real danger to them too. The problem is the official statistics didn't back that message up to the degree that it needed to, so you had this big disconnect that was exploited heavily by conspiracy theorists. IMO this was likely a misguided effort directed towards reducing spread, because it was determined that quarantining to save other people wasn't a strong enough incentive to curb risky behavior (which is depressing), but backfired heavily and likely caused more harm than good.

If a more serious virus came around that had fatality rates in the double digits, I don't think conspiracy theories would be able to form. Because very quickly people would see people they know in their lives dying/becoming extremely sick. There's no uncertainly/disconnect to exploit in that scenario like there was with covid.

Why it's structured this way, I've no idea. I don't think supplying the hardware should be the distinguishing factor that allows them to wall-in the device. It's one thing to force them to support and integrate devices/software into their product, which is probably not fair on the company, but it's another thing to actively get in the way. It's a thin line with a lot of grey area, but the way it's setup currently probably isn't right.

On one hand you've got a generation that is being held back by these loans. The very people that are supposed to be starting businesses/building up capital/starting families and whom are the foundation of the future economy. When you view it through the lens of being an economic stimulus, it's actually a pretty good one and will likely be a net-positive in the long term.

On the other hand. While everyone is focused on the people who already paid theirs or who didn't get student loans to begin with, no one including this author ever properly addresses the impact on future students. As far as i can tell all future students are still going to have these huge loans (likely bigger) and this is a one time payout for current loan holders only. Those students are going to look back to now, see we got a one-time 10k payment courtesy of the taxpayer (which will be them) and rightly demand the same treatment. If they don't get it, they will view us as being just the same as the boomers were, cradle robbers that take advantage of the system and then take away the ladder once they are done.

We've essentially set in stone one of 3 paths. One, we periodically do these bailouts, probably blowing up tuition prices further so the students don't really benefit and the only winners are the loan companies+universities. Two, we commit to heavily reforming the system and fully paying for higher education. Or 3, we never do the bailout again and have future students not only pay for their own loans but service the debt we created just for ours as well. While i'd like for us to go with option 2, i don't think this is the likely path, it's too difficult and controversial to be done in the current political climate. The likely path, is that we're going to end up being just as morally bankrupt and selfish as the boomers collectively were.

They mentioned they put the ram in 2 years ago and they've had this issue for 2 months. I suspect maybe it started when their OS's started using their TPM's but it's possible their board has just broken randomly. Likely on a hardware level.

I do see value in diagnosing the issue and making a post about mitigation's. I love people who do this so others with the issue can find it and get their boards refunded/RMA'd before their warranties expire. But once the tpm/ftpm was identified as being the issue and it was hardware/firmware related, they need to get a new board, not more mitigations (hopefully by getting a refund/RMA so the board manufacturer doesn't get a pass on this). I don't see how someone working in the tech space (we are VERY privileged salary wise) would tolerate having obviously faulty electronics.

While i would be okay with doing this as i'm vaccinated and in a low risk category and don't live with high risk people, if that wasn't the case (most people) I wouldn't under any circumstances pull my mask down unless the communication was life or death. I would have a choice between inflicting a horrible death on myself/others or making your life unfairly difficult. And as unfair as that is to you, choosing the second doesn't make someone an asshole when you consider the options available.

The only solution I can think of would be everyone wearing clear masks/shields, but since they aren't widely available and are more expensive, I don't think it's reasonable to expect most people to do it.

I think your anger (justified as it may be) is being misdirected here and your response doesn't really relate to the comment you're replying to.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58255865

The BBC was just about to release a long-researched exposé about all the moderation issues they have and how child porn and abuse were going unchecked on their platform. This was a supposed to be a huge deal that could destroy them if the media at large rallied around that story like they did with Pornhub. By making this announcement before it came out they stole the narrative and switched the focus away from that problem and towards the issue of what are all the sex workers going to do when they suddenly lose their income and also just how crazy the announcement was in of itself.

They did it with perfect timing and drummed up such a fuss with such a wild and seemingly out of nowhere change that when that article actually dropped, it was merely background noise and not the primary focus of media coverage. The media likes to hyper-focus on issues for a short period of time (with a few exceptions, trump/covid/amazon being a few) and then quickly move on regardless of whether the issue/story has finished or resolved itself in anyway. Which is what will likely happen here, OnlyFans will likely make it through this mostly unscathed and with a ton of publicity.

It bothers me that they have the power to shut businesses based on what appears to be their own subjective moral code. If a website is shutdown for any reason it should be due them breaking some law, not the payment processors feelings.

Regulation should passed to stop this from happening. While a lot of people may agree with their actions so far, it shouldn't be their decision to do this.

Another thing to know is that the US imposes worldwide reporting requirements on banking institutions for their US citizen customers. This problem is far less severe than it initially was, but depending where you go some banks/institutions may deny or restrict your access to financial products because they don't want to deal with the reporting requirements attached to you. Again, it's probably fine anywhere in Europe (nowadays anyway), but elsewhere in the world it may be extremely difficult to do something as simple as get a simple checking account.

I suspect what the poster meant to write was that most divorces are initiated by women. Which is a different statistic but still somewhat relevant. It's actually true, it's around 69% that are initiated by women. Here's the study i quickly found for it which seems credible https://www.asanet.org/press-center/press-releases/women-mor...

Interestingly it explicitly states that there's no large difference for non-marital relationships. So the poster is incorrect about breakups in general.

Speaking anecdotally from my own experience, there is a pervasive fear of marriage and raising children amongst men. Most believe that if you get divorced you'll be left destroyed financially and denied access to your children regardless of the circumstances and that getting divorced is extremely likely. Whether that's actually true or not, I don't actually know, but it's still widely believed and influencing men's behavior/plans all the same. I suspect that's a big factor in the frequency of men who don't seem to care about having their shit together. From my own observation of divorces within my extended family and those of my close friends, it does seem to be true to me. Many divorces I've been privy to, seem to almost always end with the man living a much lower standard of living by himself with restricted access to children, while the mother lives in the family home with a higher standard of living that the ex-husband pays for. Totally anecdotal of course, but it certainly makes me extremely cautious when considering marriage and it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of young men don't even consider it.

The craziness i'm pointing out is the apparent sale/purchase of NFT tokens for lackluster pieces of digital art at insane amounts. You aren't really investing in the technology in this case, you're investing in that piece of art. It confers no proven legal privileges, meaningful ownership or protection from being copied. It just gives you the ability to prove to someone that at a specific point in time you made a token for that bitstring or bought it from someone who did. Would these pieces fetch the similar prices on the art market right now where you can actually buy real proven legal rights/ownership of the piece? I highly doubt it.

With the short squeeze speculation on stocks, the crypto run+crash and NFT's. The market is a very confusing place nowadays. You'd have to be bonkers to invest in these things on paper, but yet, lot's of people are making bank from it every day (and vice versa).

NFT is probably the most confusing of the bunch. I understand the technology and what it actually is, but I see little to no value in it. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of these NFT sales are just people buying from themselves to inflate perceived value or just money laundering. That said, it actually looks like this false hype has turned into real hype somehow and people are actually making money from this. NFT's are probably the closest thing we'll see to Tulip mania for long time, at least cryptocurrency has some (largely unrealized) utility and potential to become something widely used in the future.

In order to make lot's of money nowadays, you shouldn't ask yourself "What is actually going to make a profit and/or provide utility in the future?" but rather "What are all the stupid people going to pile in on next so i can get in and out before it crashes?".

Every state pension system in Europe is a ponzi scheme nearing the the end of it's lifecycle. Almost all the money going in, is immediately distributed to current retirees and the fund levels are rapidly heading towards 0. Most estimates I've seen indicate that within a decade or 2 (without considerable rises in taxes) social security benefits will be around half what they are now in most of the developed world. The young are being royally screwed and paying into a system that offers them nothing.

The US's social security system has the exact same problem, but the key difference being that a decent percentage of Americans actually have 401k's (~50% i believe) that they've been funding for a long time. Pension plans/401k'like schemes in Europe are far less common and if they do exist they haven't been around anywhere near as long.

What will ultimately happen IMO is that everywhere in the developed world will just start means testing social security. Screwing everyone who saved up anything. We won't have a choice though, as it's the only way to not cripple the economy with exorbitant taxes and avoid large amounts of old frail people living on the street. The problem with Europe is they won't have enough people to screw over this way, and will end up with crippling taxes anyway that will cause more damage overall.

Tbf though, it's quite possible at this point that there are so few women's pants with pockets that even those who do see it as a deal-breaker are unable to express their preference with their wallets. I also suspect those that don't value pockets would change their minds the moment they actually got pants with real pockets too.

I don't think this is going to change until enough women band together and start boycotting brands with tiny/absent pockets and start championing brands that do offer proper pockets. This kind of strategy does work btw, possibly a little too well. It certainly worked in make-up industry where up until recently they basically didn't offer shades for non-white people and now overnight all of them are viciously competing on who offers the most shades (in some cases hundreds). This issue may not have the same importance and power as racial equality does, but it's proof enough that if you kick up enough stink the market will respond. I wouldn't be surprised if women's pockets dwarfed mens if this ever happened.

* Solar is the only form of renewable energy where this is a potential problem and there are already solutions that actually exist. Solar farms can also be vertical (look up 3D solar farms) or even on water (look up floating solar farms), which avoids this supposed land problem altogether.

* Even if we use traditional "2D" solar farms on land, space is not all equal and most of it isn't arable. With vertical farming, all that previously non-arable land is now usable for farming indirectly via solar panels. We still get desired effect of increasing our capacity to grow food in the face of shrinking available arable land, which is the whole point.

While I think this is an early technology that will be pretty niche for a long time, i'm glad it's being developed and has potential applications today. It's my view that vertical closed system farming and fusion power (for desalinization in particular) becoming practical on an industrial scale is vital for our survival as a species in the coming centuries. If the predictions on topsoil erosion and climate change are even partially correct we're going to need this technology figured out.

The university is irresponsibly forcing the students to come on campus to study (a health risk) so they have to pay rent and is desperately trying to restrict their movement/freedoms to decrease the likelihood/speed at which the government shuts the whole thing down and sends everyone home.

The students certainly aren't getting what they paid for. Far from it. There's been a material change in the "product" they are getting and they should be released from the contract from it on those grounds.

If the university can't survive without the rental income and the government wants to save it, then they can do that, but it's not the students responsibility to willingly be defrauded to ensure the financial stability of an institution they have no stake in.