>but I have read that even teenagers are having less sex.
This is a funny way to frame it. A lot of people are trying to stop teenagers from having sex. When I was a teenager the parents sponsored a "post prom" Carnival, I believe with the intent of having kids doing something with their dates after the prom that didn't involve having sex.
Some religious people work every day towards the goal of making sure a female teenager's life will be imperiled if she has a medical problem as a result of sex. And will tell her if she doesn't like it, she shouldn't have had sex.
Who is working in the other direction and trying to get teenagers to have sex?
It may be the case that teenagers are having less sex, however I don’t think we should be too worried about a decrease in birth rates due to unplanned pregnancies.
What matters is planned pregnancies, and to that, housing and childcare absolutely factor into that decision.
> China launched the AIIB in 2013 in order to bolster and facilitate the BRI across Asia. Beijing possesses 30 percent of voting shares in the bank, resulting in effective veto power over any funding decisions that require a supermajority. Yet not only is India, which considers China to be its biggest geopolitical threat, a founding member of the bank, but it also constitutes its largest borrower, relying on AIIB loans for COVID-19 aid and to fund multiple domestic infrastructure projects.
The reason for the backlog is the US is trying to get a diverse set of immigrants to the US. Any one country can’t get more than 5% of permanent visas in a given year.
If it wasn’t for that, 80% of people getting green cards would be Indian and Chinese.
Agreed. I'm Australian and was investigating my options for potentially moving to the US to start a company in the AI space, and there's so much friction that I ended up deciding to just stay here. I can't see how they think these policies are a good idea in the long term (or even short term, for that matter).
Oh well, yeah. That part is true to some extent. But I can only comment on things we have control on. And to some extent a system with some specific rules needs to be used the way it was intended. We can't exactly say, we have a right to do what we like(in this case, cheat) especially when these things work like resources in a common pool. I can absolutely understand if some thing like this happened less than a percent. But the moment you enter double digit percentages of abuse/fraud, you are just hurting every one else. Expecting the other party to just offer an infinite pool of resources to accomodate our doing just adds to the anti-immigrant sentiment that is going around. Please note there are also people from other countries here.
Beyond this. Every system needs to work with a degree of fairness and merit, immigration is same.
On the shorter run, I do see someone putting a fix to these things and making things harder for every one else just to stop this abuse. On the longer I can see there will be increased pressure from economic centers all over the world, because every one is fighting for talent concentration at one place. This will lead to more liberal immigration policies.
And contrary to what our American friends believe it's hard to believe they will be the only country with economic centers attractive to everyone. Paris, London and Berlin have a growing tech scene. Then there's also Singapore and Dubai. Canada is another destination.
Beyond this the Chinese Bay Area(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangdong-Hong_Kong-Macau_Grea...) - Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area. Seems to be especially designed to take on Western Economic Centers. They are building state of the art infrastructure. Roads, Railways, affordable housing and top notch Airports. They'll be fighting for the talent pie, and with their demographics on the decline, attracting top notch foreign talent with be a Chinese government priority too. I don't expect them granting them citizenships. But liberal Dubai style 99 year visas on owning a home are possible. And a lot of the world talent will want to work there.
The way I see America will only eventually succumb to the pressure and might have to open up immigration again.
An addendum: The consultancies (TCS, Infy, Accenture, IBM, Capgemini, Wipro etc.) are also to blame. They've kept salaries stagnant for over 15 years, particularly for fresh college graduates (yes, this is in part due to a glut).
They also offer employment abroad as a carrot to incentivize employees sticking with them for long periods of time in unfavorable conditions(Most co.s have high attrition rates - due to the low salaries). The companies also maintain a bond : you have to pay the company if you quit before completing 'x' years of service per contract. They withhold your experience certificate if you don't; a common requirement of any new company you hop ship to.
Most outsourced tech work is manual dreary labor. I've been on that side for 2 years.
Pretty disingenuous don't you think? We all know trump says a lot of bullshit and contradictory things. He isn't Obama who was really good with his words.
But if all you have is trump saying "good strong leader", then you don't have much. Show actions not words.
Trump abandoned the TPP which would have put actual pressure on China in favor of this visible trade war which is nothing more than a tax on American consumers.
Even Bernie Sanders was against TPP. Do you also think he's in bed with the Chinese government?
Chinese economy is definitely struggling. I don't buy the argument that the trade wars do not work. They hurt both sides. Question is who does it hurt more?
It feels like you haven't thought of it in a game theoretic perspective. In the classical prisoner paradox, the two prisoners gain the most by collaboration. But if one of the prisoner shows no good faith collaboration, it might be necessary for the other prisoner to also stop putting their faith in the uncollaborative one.
Sanders is an ideologue who was against the TPP on anti-business position and nothing to do with its impact on China.
The TPP set up an alliance between all of the players in that region and explicitly left out China in order to give that group negotiation power over China. But nuanced policy debate is dead in America so let's use the tool that fucks us all.
The worst part about the trade deal is the harm on our agricultural sector, but I guess at least they voted for their own demise.
I've never understood techno-optimists on this point.
If Uber has such amazing technology that avoids accidents, they could deploy them as accident-avoidance for regular drivers. They could give normal driving control to the humans, and take over only if there is a potential of accident.
If you argue that these driver assistance technologies already exist, then you better not be comparing your magical AI on supersafe cars with sunny climate on well marked highways to the average driver on the average vehicle under average climate on average roads.
That is a good point, especially when considering that modern cars have semi-autonomous controls which are likely to actually be effective in preventing ‘human’ failures, while still maintaining the UX of a non-autonomous vehicle.
Another point to consider, is that the actual experience of autonomous driving may increase the likelihood for ‘manual intervention’ failures due to the system being able to react correctly most of the time!
this is exactly what tripped me up when I first heard the problem and it took me a long time to understand the explanation because I didn't understand that Monty always opened the door that did not have the car behind it.
But it’s from a game show. Like, an actual show. 1/3 of the time they can’t just stop filming and say "whoops let’s pretend that didn’t happen." That interpretation of the problem makes no sense whatsoever.
But that means that something knows which door was the winning one. Either Monty knew which one it was, or whatever mysterious Agent is sampling from all the possible outcomes knew (because the Agent only sampled the ones where Monty happened to open a non-winning door). Either way, you're given the choice between having the 1 door you initially chose, or both of the other doors.
> Either way, you're given the choice between having the 1 door you initially chose, or both of the other doors.
i initially thought this too, but in both cases you're gonna see 2/3 doors. the thing that makes the difference is when he has the car (2/3 of the time), he has to tell you where it is. so the choice becomes between your unknown door and his 2/3 selectively chosen car door.
I don't think teenagers are thinking about housing and childcare when not pursuing sex.