> The only benefit Canadians get compared to others is the opportunity to work for employers on TN status which is a temporary non-immigrant-intent work visa.
That doesn't strike me as "not at all" when the TN status is 1/ effectively a work visa, whether you like the strings attached or not, and 2/ a foot in the door that lets you move to a more permissive status down the line. A Waterloo or UofT grad can go from applying to a US job to their first day in a few weeks, and the only interaction they'll have with the immigration system will be getting asked for paperwork at the border. Compare that to a British or Japanese new grad, for whom there is essentially very few options unless they have excellent connections or that they display enough extraordinary abilities to be eligible for O-1.
> Everyone else stops coming because they don't want to hear Nazi shit, so, it's a Nazi bar now.
There's plenty of non-Nazi writers enjoying a good amount of success on Substack, though? Or at least, as a casual Substack user, I'm not sure I've been exposed to any Nazi content…? So I'm not sure if this analogy holds up that well in this case.
> Substack is, just as a reminder, a political project made by extremists with a goal of normalizing a radical, hateful agenda by co-opting well-intentioned creators' work in service of cross-promoting attacks on the vulnerable. You don't have to take my word for it; Substack's CEO explicitly said they won't ban someone who is explicitly spouting hate, and when confronted with the rampant white supremacist propaganda that they are profiting from on their site, they took down... four of the Nazis. Four.
I understand that content moderation online is a nuanced topic, but… my impression of the Substack stance was that it boiled down to "one of our main values is free speech, and while we understand the desire for content moderation, we're going to lean towards letting people use our platform even if we disagree with what they're writing". Characterizing this as a "radical, hateful agenda" seems like… a stretch? Maybe I'm missing something here.
I mean yeah, that's one way to spin it. But it's interesting to observe the dynamics in the work force and how that benefits some smaller companies that were having a hard time hiring before.
China bans platforms because they give access to information that embarrasses those in power. The US, here, is planning to ban a platform because it's a propaganda vector, and because its popularity has gotten to a point where we - as a society - at a serious risk of propaganda campaigns. All the information on TikTok is still available elsewhere - but we mitigate the opportunity for the Chinese Communist Party to mold what information is serviced to our constituents, and how that information is shaped.
Has the denial rate for all companies gone down? Or could it be that companies that were getting the most denials have submitted less petitions for H-1B workers?
Sponsoring an employee on an H-1B has become significantly harder in the past few years, especially because of the odds of the lottery decreasing year over year. Another theory could just be that with the increased cost and uncertainty of attempting to sponsor an employee on an H-1B, many companies are resorting to alternatives, clearing the field for companies that have a more genuine need for H-1B workers.
Because Santa Monica's housing element is currently out of compliance, the city will have very limited options to veto or block those projects. The decision to approve or reject those projects will fall to the State of California.
From reading the excerpt of the book Paris Marx quotes [0], Musk's criticism of the California HSR project seems focused on its cost & effectiveness (i.e. that the bullet train would be too slow, especially considering modern tech that's now available).
Another way to frame his comments would be to say that Musk wanted to suggest a better alternative to the HSR project. I'm not sure which framing is the more accurate (not that well versed on trains), but seems valuable to point out ; I'm not convinced by the framing that Musk unveiled Hyperloop because he secretly wanted _no train at all_.
Besides the benefits or drawbacks of the 4-day workweek on its merits, it's worth remembering that behind the headlines such as "$COUNTRY tests $SOCIAL_CHANGE", it's usually some entity in $COUNTRY on a mission rather than an organization that's representative of the opinions of its population. Same thing has been happening with Scandinavian countries too – there's always a rotating cast of Sweden, Finland and Norway making such headlines. Usually, though, it's a smaller organization or a government agency that wouldn't have the power or influence to turn this pilot into transformative social change.
That doesn't strike me as "not at all" when the TN status is 1/ effectively a work visa, whether you like the strings attached or not, and 2/ a foot in the door that lets you move to a more permissive status down the line. A Waterloo or UofT grad can go from applying to a US job to their first day in a few weeks, and the only interaction they'll have with the immigration system will be getting asked for paperwork at the border. Compare that to a British or Japanese new grad, for whom there is essentially very few options unless they have excellent connections or that they display enough extraordinary abilities to be eligible for O-1.