In the US at least, many pension funds are not sophisticated, they're small, underfunded, and getting taken for a ride by expensive advisors who promise fantastical returns that will help dig them out of their funding ratio hole. Many would be better off using an S&P 500 index fund for their equity component instead of getting wined and dined into an illiquid, opaque private equity investment.
Telling that among OECD countries, the US is an outlier in having a much lower average funding ratio, and this despite the fantastic performance of the US stock market over the last 15 years.
I find that Chinese manufacturing offers the complete range of quality for every price point. At reasonable prices, the quality meets or exceeds that of other countries. But if you want something cheap and cheaply made, you can find that as well. And at the extreme, you still have counterfeit parts and products.
Probably true, but Trello just had a major multi-day outage that prevented commenting on or moving cards, so I would be hard pressed to recommended it to anyone at this point.
A few years ago I wrote a workforce scheduling program designed to be used by non-programmers. I worked in a restricted environment so couldn't install anything. The whole thing ran on SWIPL's web offering.
Users simply had to change the basic "facts" (who was available on what days, how many people were needed), and the program solved for the various constraints and offered solutions.
It was maybe about 300 lines of Prolog, no complex dependencies. It replaced a pile of Python scripts that required a lot of state, didn't really work, and could only run on a few specific computers.
For regular users, it was relatively easy to understand and change the facts. SWIPL for web also offers a nice "notebook" interface that lets you mix data, code, and markdown / output blocks so the documentation was inline.
> Vibe-coding makes you feel like you have infinite implementation budget. You don't. You have infinite LINE budget (the AI will generate as much code as you want). But you have the same finite complexity budget as always.
This is a special case of a general fundamental point I'm struggling with.
Let's assume AI has reduced the marginal cost of code to zero. So our supply of code is now infinite.
Meanwhile, other critical factors continue to be finite: time in a day, attention, interest, goodwill, paying customers, money, energy.
So how do you choose what to build?
Like a genie, the tools give us the power to ask for whatever we want. And like a genie, it turns out we often don't really know what we want.
I get irritated by Zoom saying I need to update right when I open the app and want to join a call. Or even worse, sometimes I'll have had the app open (checking video and sound) and it won't notify about a required update until I actually go to join a call.
Never understood why they don't propose the update when the call has ended.
The irony is that real FSI language courses generally produce graduates who can read the newspaper and deliver a press release but cannot order food in a restaurant or explain to the delivery driver how to reach their apartment.
I never met an FSI graduate who felt their language training was great. I met many who felt it wasn't, and many who had to effectively relearn the language when they arrived in country.
The post mentions the deficiencies of TCP for mobile devices over unreliable links, but I've had nothing but trouble with Wireguard when connecting from phones via mobile data.
I suspect it's due to my mobile operator doing traffic shaping / QoS that deprioritizes UDP VPN.
In contrast, connecting to OpenVPN over TCP was a huge improvement. Not at all what I expected.
Many people only think of picture rail as what you find in old Victorian homes, but modern picture rail can be much less obtrusive and lightweight. I have a lot of framed art as well. When I finally bought a house I installed STAS minirail throughout. The "wires" are transparent Perlon filament, and anything you hang can instantly be adjusted vertically and horizontally.
This is way better than arguing with partner about the proper height, making a destructive hole, then having to cover/patch when opinions or artwork change. My walls are not drywall, so that was a big factor, but the freedom to arrange/rearrange is a major benefit.
Can confirm you can still replace the ISP provided router from SFR with your own, even if you're on IPv4 CGNAT in France. You do still need to configure the DHCP client ID.
My connection has been very reliable since ditching the SFR box. My own router plugs into the separate ONT.
It is the traveler's responsibility to know what activities are permissible given their visa, and to only engage in those activities. That's no different from everyone's general responsibility to abide by the law.
A US visa is simply permission to present yourself at a port of entry for admission, at which time you may questioned further by border control, and in rare cases denied entry.
Most B visas are valid for multiple entries over 10 years. The fact that you wrote a letter and brought it to your original visa interview (which may have been years ago, and likely wasn't even looked at by the officer, who in a busy consulate has less than 2 minutes to complete your interview) does not mean the US government has affirmatively granted you permisison to do everything on that letter.
I don't find the claims made by an immigration lawyer representing the workers to be particularly persuasive, just like I don't find the claims made by the local union rep about what they "believe" the workers were doing to be persuasive.
People and companies can and do write whatever they want in letters submitted with visa applications. That has no bearing 1) on what you are actually allowed to do given a certain visa type, and 2) what the worker actually ends up doing.
In other words, the visa applications may very well have been valid and approved on that basis, but the applicants might have been engaging in other activities that were not permissible. This is quite common - people will say "I want to go to Disneyworld" when they actually intend to overstay their visa, or "I want to visit family" when they actually intend to work as a nanny or cook for a few months, then return home.
I'm not saying this raid was conducted properly or that all the arrests were justified, but I do think the reporting on it has been almost negligent. In contrast, here is an old article written by an immigration lawyer discussing the complexities of the B-1 business visa: https://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2016/05/the-b-1-visa-trap-for-th...
"If the contract of sale specifically requires the seller to provide these services or training,
and you possess specialized knowledge essential to the seller's contractual obligation to perform the services or training it may be permissible for you to perform these services. In addition, the machinery or equipment must have been manufactured at a location outside of the United States and you may not receive compensation from a U.S. source."
Given how vague the reporting has been, we don't know basic facts like what the workers were doing, what the agents saw, what types of visas they were on, etc.
This PBS article quotes a local labor union leader who claims "unions that are part of her council believe Korean workers have been pouring cement, erecting steel, performing carpentry and fitting pipes." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/attorney-says-detained-k...
Obivously the person quoted has an agenda and didn't actually witness those activities - so we just don't know. That being said, if that description is accurate, in general that kind of activity would not be appropriate on a B-1 visa and wouldn't qualify for an L visa.
But again, it depends on the details. Maybe the cement base is some special blend for certain equipment, maybe "erecting steel" involves highly specialized welding techniques, maybe this pipe fitting involves specialized high-pressure ratings outside the norm.
When I was a diplomat, our internal guidance (at least, what I was privy to) was never different from public information, just more detailed.
I'd be suprised if the corporate immigration departments of Hyundai or LG messed up this badly. But I wouldn't at all be surprised if some no-name subcontractor decided to play fast and loose with the visa rules to win a contract with a low bid.
Having working in US immigration, most reporting on immigration issues leaves a lot to be desired.
Because of the poor reporting, it's not possible to say for sure what happened, but it sounds like Hyundai/LG/subcontractors brought in hundreds of South Koreans on B visas and had them engaging in productive work. That's not what B visas are for. B visas are for meetings, sales, and maybe some light training/setup/integration. When the CEO talks about needing specialized, skilled workers, that's a strong suggestion these workers should have been on L visas.
Unfortunately the same article doesn't even mention the L visa, and cites an immigration lawyer who complains about the difficulty of getting H-1B visas. But L visas are not capped like H-1Bs. In India we approved thousands of L visas specifically for skilled workers to assist with bringing plants/equipment online.
In short, the B visa is not a work visa. Most countries worldwide are quite restrictive about the conditions surrounding work visas, and people who violate the conditions of their visa shouldn't be surprised when there are consequences. Having a valid visa but violating its conditions means you are violating immigration law.
Corporate immigration departments can and do cut corners and may have thought they would save money and time by sending foreign workers on B visas (which they might have already had) or on the visa waiver program. L visa holders don't even have to get paid US-level wages, so one take on the visa type is that it is already a way for companies to undercut US labor.
I'm not aware of any other country besides the US that has a blanket policy of requiring at least one interview in almost all cases.
That said, back in the 2000s I had to apply in person at the French embassy for a student visa, in in the 2010s I had to apply in person at a Chilean consulate for a special visa.
Many countries have outsourced the bulk of their processing to contractors like VFS or TLS these days. But also, our experience as Americans is not representative as we generally have fewer visas we need to bother obtaining, and face less scrutiny when doing so.
I'm not sure if the US interview requirement makes it "harder" to get a US visa - it may be that getting a US visa is just harder than getting another country's visa, which might still be true even if we didn't interview people. The big thing that makes getting non-immigrant visas to the US difficult for many people is that, unless shown otherwise, US immigration law assumes you are an immigrant.
99% or more of the visa applicants we interviewed in India were Indian. We interviewed them in India so that we had access to local staff who spoke all major Indian languages, a fraud unit well-versed in authenticating local documents, and connections to local authorities for more complex cases.
Nothing is "easy" when you have a line of hundreds of people who have been waiting months or over a year for their appointment and you have 120 seconds to deal with them in a fair and respectful way (which unfortunately does NOT always happen), while you also have personal job repercussions if you fail to properly vet their application and miss an important national security related detail.
As it turned out, we flagged enough of those cases as a patern for further review that did result in us consulting with our staff in the third country and discovering the issue. Also, visas that are issued can be revoked, or flagged for further scrutiny by CPB if necessary.
Because there is a statutory requirement that applicants who require an interview appear personally before a consular officer. So far, the State Department has interpreted this to mean "standing physically in front of".
Having done tens of thousands of visa interviews, I do think the requirement of a physical appearance before an officer is important. I could quickly review a person's travel history by looking through their passports, questioning them about prior trips. A person's travel patterns and visas to other countries can tell you a lot. I could quickly use a UV light or magnifier on educational documents to see if they were genuine. Several times, I overhead conversations from other applicants and officers that were relevant to my applicant (same employer/group) and I would consult with them. There are many other details you notice when doing this in person thousands of times.
There are also practical matters - if you're trying to do this via video link, how to you authenticate the person on the other end? At the consulate, we fingerprint them and compare them to previously collected biometrics. If you offload this authentication to a contractor site in the US, but I'm in India, is this site open in the middle of the night?
In cases where the applicant qualifies for a waiver of the interview, the State Department actually does (or at least did when I was there) have a substantial program whereby visa applications are largely processed remotely. An applicant would have no hint as to whether or not that happened, though.
If you want a real answer, a big part of it has to do with consular non-reviewability. Basically, there is far less ability for an applicant to make legal challenges to visa decisions made by a US visa officer outside the US.
Another reason is, what happens if you apply for a renewal or different visa type while you're in the US, and your visa is denied? Now we're relying on you to leave the country, whereas if you already had to leave the country to apply and you're denied, you're not still in the US.
There actually was a pilot program for domestic revalidation of H-1Bs. Applicants liked it (no need for a trip outside the US), and those of us working in India liked it (less workload for us). However I doubt this administration will support expansion.
In my experience most renewing H-1Bs planned their visa interviews (or often "dropbox" cases where they didn't even need to come in person) to coincide during a few weeks trip home. They were not generally coming to India, then applying and waiting several months.
The cases that take months are those with some problem - missing some documentation, evidence of petitioner fraud, national security concerns with the applicant, etc. And yes, in those cases people (and sometimes their families) end up getting "stuck" outside the US, kids miss the start of the school year, people can't get back to their apartments and houses and pets. It sucks, but we have vetting for good reasons.
Their point was that this change applies to non-immigrant visas (which in theory are only issued to people who do not intend to immigrate to the US), not immigrant visas.
Telling that among OECD countries, the US is an outlier in having a much lower average funding ratio, and this despite the fantastic performance of the US stock market over the last 15 years.