It seems like you already understand what dual intent means- it's both a temporary working visa and a path to a Green Card. Yes, the government issues I-140s to H1-Bs, which are another step on the path to a GC. The government has an entire series of steps laid out for H1-B visa holders to follow to get a Green Card. I think just Googling 'H1-B dual intent' is going to give you more info than I could realistically fit in a comment here
> it's both a temporary working visa and a path to a Green Card.
It's not though. It's a DoS policy wrt of issuing non-immigrant visas.
>Yes, the government issues I-140s to H1-Bs
So? The government issues I-140s to non-H1Bs too. Not having any US visa and never having set foot in the US is "a path to Green Card" if H1B is one too.
>I think just Googling 'H1-B dual intent''
I was hoping you'd do that and find for yourself how wrong you are.
This might not be a fruitful discussion because I get the impression you're a bit ideologically dug in on this. I would like to think my subject matter expertise is reasonably high given that this intersects with my IRL job. But yes:
"Congress enacted INA § 214(b) in 1990, explicitly excluding H-1B visas (under INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)) from the presumption that nonimmigrant applicants are intending immigrants. Unlike most nonimmigrant categories requiring proof of no immigrant intent, H-1B omits any foreign residence requirement in its definition, enabling holders to pursue permanent residency without jeopardizing status" https://global.temple.edu/isss/faculty-staff-and-researchers...
"The Immigration Act of 1990 created the modern H-1B program as a "bridge" to green cards, allowing immediate work while navigating permanent residency processes that included labor tests. Senate Judiciary Committee reports emphasized streamlined H-1B procedures without recruitment delays to avoid productivity losses, with senators like Arlen Specter and Slade Gorton highlighting needs for quick access to skilled talent. This dual-intent design responded to prior issues, like the Schwartz case, where immigrant intent prosecutions prompted the 1990 carve-out" https://www.cato.org/blog/why-congress-rejected-h-1b-recruit...
I am just factually dug on this. You are correct that H1B applicants can intend to immigrate. It's what "dual intent" means. It does not mean the H1B is an immigrant visa or a "path to a Green Card" like you claimed originally. The CATO is not a government and them saying it's a "bridge" is not different than redditors saying so. This is why I asked you for a government statement. There is not one, because it's illegal to immigrate without an immigrant visa, which H1B is not.
"The key move was Congress’s amendment to INA §214(b), the provision that says every visa applicant is presumed to be an intending immigrant unless they prove otherwise. In 1990, Congress inserted an exception for H(i) and L nonimmigrants — i.e., it carved them out of that presumption. The current codification notes still show that this came from Pub. L. 101-649 §205(b)(1)" https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009...
Congress also added INA §214(h). In the 1990 Act, that new subsection said, in substance, that being the beneficiary of a preference petition under §204, or otherwise seeking permanent residence, does not count as evidence that the person intends to abandon a foreign residence for H(i)/L purposes. That is the clearest statutory confirmation of dual intent.
"Congress originally intended H-1B to permit temporary work status while also allowing pursuit of permanent residence. The House Judiciary Committee report reinforces that reading. It had a section titled “Dual Intent” and explained that this problem was especially burdensome for H and L beneficiaries, and that the bill treated the filing of an immigrant petition as not, by itself, proof that the person meant to abandon a foreign residence" (attached link is the legislative history) https://niwaplibrary.wcl.american.edu/wp-content/uploads/HR-...
You asked and LLM but don't seem to be able to understand the reply. Again, you proclaimed that dual intent means something else initially.
>"H-1B is “coming temporarily,” while permanent residence is handled through the employment-based immigrant categories in §203(b) and adjustment under §245(a)"
Exactly! Do you even read what you pasted from the prompt?
At least even money that an appellate court throws this verdict out entirely. Reminder that the US is the only developed country that uses juries for civil trials- everywhere else, complex issues of business litigation are generally left to a panel of judges. It's not that hard to rile up a bunch of randomly impaneled jurors against Big Bad Corporation. The US is kind of infamous for its very large, very unpredictable civil verdicts. There's an incredibly long history of juries racking up shockingly large verdicts against companies, only for an appellate court to throw the whole case out as unreasonable. Not even close to the final word in the American judicial system.
Edit to include: I mean this is coming the same day as the Supreme Court throwing out the piracy case against Cox Communications 9-0. Remember that this case originated with $1 billion dollar jury verdict against them! Was reversed by an appeals court 5 years later and completely invalidated today. Juries should not handle complex civil litigation, I'm sorry
Also at least partially explained by being priced in. The trial was known about and given the conditions described in GP it's not surprising that the verdict went this way.
Yeah there are so many reasons this could be reversed on appeal. Whether the judge correctly held questions of section 230, and the First Amendment, is not obvious.
The shotgun approach (suing FB, TikTok, Snapchat, and Google simultaneously) makes this sound as ridiculous as the punchline "woman sues McDonalds for coffee being too hot" (distinct from that actual case, which was less ridiculous than the headline).
Suing Facebook for systematically behaving badly is one thing, if you can prove it and prove it harmed you.
Suing _everybody_ is one random person getting rich for… being mad at the world she was born into?
> the punchline "woman sues McDonalds for coffee being too hot" (distinct from that actual case, which was less ridiculous than the headline).
Whenever the McDonald's coffee case comes up, I always see caveats about how the actual case was a lot less sensational than the "woman sues McDonald's for coffee being too hot" headline implies.
I strongly disagree. I'm very familiar with the details of the actual case, and the Wikipedia article gives a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... . Yes, the plaintiff received horrific third degree burns when she spilled the coffee on herself, but lots of products can cause horrible harm if used incorrectly - people cut fingers off all the time with kitchen knives, for example.
I find the headline "Woman sues McDonald's for their coffee being too hot" a completely accurate description of what happened, with no hyperbole and no "ridiculousness" at all.
You neglected to mention:
- It was company policy to keep coffee excessively hot (180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, vs 140 or so for coffee brewed at home). This was to make customers drink it more slowly and request fewer refills
- Other customers had suffered similar burns, and McDonald's knew about it and did not change the policy
McDonald's, then, was willfully and inevitably causing injury to random customers in order to save themselves a few cents in coffee.
In light of those facts, I think a $2M verdict was too low, and the executives who decided to continue keeping the coffee that hot should have been criminally charged with reckless endangerment.
> 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, vs 140 or so for coffee brewed at home
Did you just make up that 140 number? To add to the other sibling comment, SCA (https://sca.coffee/) requires that water contacts the grounds at a temp of 195-205 F and that the coffee be at a temp of 175-185 up to 30 mins after brewing in order to certify home brewers:
> The SCA ensures that the brewer's carafe is appropriately sized for its designated machine and can maintain the coffee's warmth. Specifically, the brew must stay within the range of 176 °-185°F (80°-85°C) for at least 30 minutes post-brew. While retaining this warmth, the machine must never actively reheat the brew, ensuring the coffee's nuanced flavors remain intact. (from https://us.moccamaster.com/blogs/blog/certified-by-the-sca-m...)
Then you say
> Other customers had suffered similar burns, and McDonald's knew about it and did not change the policy
Again, lots of people cut their fingers off, accidentally, with knives. I don't think this means knife makers were "willfully and inevitably causing injury to random customers" because their product was too sharp.
Have other people never made coffee? Boiled soup? Been in a kitchen at all?
It wasn't just that the plaintiff spilled coffee on herself, it's that she spilled it while she was in her car and didn't immediately try to get it off (not blaming her, she was elderly). So yeah, I'm not surprised that spilling a very hot liquid on yourself and then sitting in it for an extended period causes severe burns.
Maybe if most people would agree the corporation is big and bad and should have penalties, it’s more democratic to go with that decision that the decision nine unelected philosopher kings come up with.
>There's an incredibly long history of juries racking up shockingly large verdicts against companies, only for an appellate court to throw the whole case out as unreasonable.
You might be blaming the wrong people. Looking at a lot of those "shockingly large verdicts", in that they would have bankrupted the company and forced it to be dissolved and reformed as perhaps a less objectionable version of itself: cool, shoulda done that. Sad we didn't.
Are we conflating matters of merit with matters of judgment, here?
The proto-Internet. GPS. Nuclear energy. MRIs. Fracking. The Human Genome Project. Fiber optics. Optical data storage. Jet engines. Heck, the entire space industry. Lithium ion batteries. Radar. Night vision technology. Modern lower limb prosthetics. Just off the top of my head
Jet engines - Frank Whipple (England) and Franz Ohain (Germany) invented them. In both cases the governments were not interested in them until flying jet aircraft were demonstrated. Lockheed was ordered by the government to abandon their jet engine project and focus on piston engines instead (which resulted in the US having to get started on jet aircraft by buying British machines).
Human genome - J. Venter was the first to sequence the human genome, privately funded.
the entire space industry - Liquid fuel rockets were pioneered by Goddard, through private funding.
Radar - originated from late 19th-century experiments on radio wave reflection, pioneered by Heinrich Hertz in 1886. While Christian Hülsmeyer patented a "telemobiloscope" for ship detection in 1904
The proto-Internet - Pioneered by Samuel Morse, see "The Victorian Internet" by Tom Standage. Privately funded.
Whittle (Whipple is a painter) "invented" the jet engine while serving in the RAF, so technically not privately funded at the point of invention. There was private funding used later to create prototype engines.
Quite a stretch to say the Atomic Bomb was privately funded!!!
The original Whittle engine was developed with private funds.
From "The Development Of Jet And Turbine Aero Engines" by Gunston:
pg 123: of which £200 came from an old lady who ran a corner shop near Whittle's parents in Coventry
pg 123: But a direct request to Air Ministry for a research contract in October 1936 brought flat rejection,
pg 124: Whittle could see that the only possible way to proceed was to take the gigantic gamble of running a complete engine.
pg 125: Indeed, there was little money for anything. While the RAF backed Whittle in every way they could - for example, by not requiring him to take the usual examination for promotion to Squadron Leader - the Air Ministry contributed nothing to Power Jets until May 1938, and Whittle had to watch every penny. He nearly cracked under the strain, which in fact was to get worse for seven years, not because of the Problems in developing the engine, but from the suspicion and enmity with which he was regarded by officials and manufacturers, and by the outrageous behaviour of the Company picked by the Air Ministry to produce his engine.
Until recently, no private company wanted to go to the Moon.
And it is particularly ironic to select that since the government’s attempt to return is the most expensive, slowest, least tested launch system possible, and still needs help to get to the Moon.
How about if your neighborhood wanted to keep out people of a certain ethnicity instead? Is that a democratic outcome that we need to respect?
The definition of democracy is that we hold regular elections for political office. It does not mean that every single decision in society is up for a vote at the local level. 51% of my neighbors cannot decide that they'd like expropriate my house or checking account. The point of YIMBYism is that these kinds of decisions have negative externalities and a larger group of voters- at the state or national level- are removing that decision-making power from a smaller group at the local level. This is a democratically legitimate outcome!
> How about if your neighborhood wanted to keep out people of a certain ethnicity instead? Is that a democratic outcome that we need to respect?
Come on, you know that's not analogous.
> It does not mean that every single decision in society is up for a vote at the local level.
It also doesn't mean "any policy the voters want, as long as long as it's the one I want."
Nowadays, when people bring up examples like you did above, it's usually part of an attempt to shut down democratic decision making, by making false comparisons.
Not who you responded to, but I thought it was completely fair. We were a nation filled with Sundown Towns[0,1] very recently. Some probably still exist but are more discrete about it to avoid unwanted attention from those of us who would (loudly) call bullshit on the practice.
> Nowadays, when people bring up examples like you did above, it's usually part of an attempt to shut down democratic decision making, by making false comparisons.
I think you're trying to shutdown someone who has a different opinion from yours by delegitimizing their position. It's not reading the way you thought it would.
Maybe not analogous, but closely related: Many of those suburbs were built for people who wanted to segregate themselves from minorities, and took steps to keep them out.
> when people bring up examples like you did above, it's usually part of an attempt to shut down democratic decision making, by making false comparisons.
You seem to be shutting down the conversation. IME that is what happens overhwhelmingly when attempting to discuss issues of racism - far more than the few times people address the issue seriously. It's as if they think racism doesn't exist.
It's definitely analogous. The suburbs around me are voting to leave the regional transit org. Many people openly state the reason why they want to leave is because it brings "the wrong kind of people" to our neighborhoods.
This kind of voting still happens today. Don't bury your head in the sand.
From an institutional engineering POV (warning- I am a grouchy old former political scientist), it would be interesting to come up with institutional solutions for some of the problems America is facing right now. Specifically I think I'd remove the Attorney General role from the President's authority and give it to Senate, to nominate & confirm exclusively. Let's say 51 votes to confirm and 55 votes to impeach. Even among presidential systems, the US cabinet is unusually presidential-centric. I'm not a big LatAm expert, but I think they typically separate the public prosecutor from the president's nomination capacity.
Of course I would strongly prefer to not be a presidential system at all. But if we're discussing post-Trump constitutional reforms that could plausibly pass, I think removing the Attorney General/DOJ from the president's purview and also placing some checks on the pardon power seem doable
>Of course I would strongly prefer to not be a presidential system at all.
Having grown up in the US and having blinders on, I always thought all those parliamentary systems seemed unstable and sometimes comical. But now I see the value in it. Once a leader has demonstrated he is not up to the task, has grown out-of-touch, or has descended into madness, he can be replaced by his party, and if that didn't happen, a no-confidence vote could trigger an election. No guarantee either of those things would happen, but the option exists. The fixed four-year term idea now seems artificial and inflexible.
I suspect the current US leader and maybe even the previous US leader (maybe in his 4th year) would have suddenly found himself a back-bencher.
Also, the ‘leader’ in a parliamentary system is simply a lot less powerful. The executive is the cabinet, not the PM. The PM usually appoints it, but the ministers don’t get to fall back on ‘just following orders’; they are very much using their own authority. And again there’s always the threat of replacement of PM and re-alignment. Realistically, the threat is more important than the thing itself.
I'm not sure if it's true that the leader is less powerful.
In many countries, it seems that the leader has near total control over candidate selection, and dissent is punished ruthlessly.
In the US, it's easier for a member of Congress to openly dissent against the President's agenda. This was a major thorn in the side for e.g. Joe Biden.
Some Republicans today fear dissenting (though of course, most are enthusiastically on board), but I'm not sure that it would be any different in a place like Canada or the UK.
> Having grown up in the US and having blinders on, I always thought all those parliamentary systems seemed unstable and sometimes comical.
There are so many different variables between countries, and plain luck, that it's tough to extrapolate too much, but this just jumped out a bit for me as a Canadian - the average Canadian PM term has historically been marginally longer than the average American Presidential time in office.
This would give congress much more power over the Executive branch. The justice department is run by the Executive branch. Congress's job is to legislate, not prosecute crimes. A president can be voted out or impeached if they do something bad.
It's not like campaigning and running elections are terribly hard these days. The AG (and other heads of independent executive departments) should be each their own races voted on by the public. (Yes, this obviously requires repudiating this new innovative brain damage called sparkling autocracy theory^W^W^W unitary executive theory.)
We also need Ranked Pairs voting so we end this two party duopoly bullshit. Primaries can remain, but voters should be able to vote in all parties' primaries (rather than having to pick just one).
We also need some sort of recall mechanism, either periodic option to vote no confidence (twice a year when elections/primaries are already held?), or something triggered when signatures/polling get high enough.
Since I'm making my Christmas list, we also need to drastically neuter sovereign and qualified immunity - remove their applicability for any action not explicitly authorized by the legislature (and Constitution). No more general "agents of the government" who unilaterally act with impunity, with only narrow legal ways of recovering damages.
But part of the difficulty that has precipitated our current situation is the absolute gridlock in Congress for the past twenty+ years. That's what pushed more and more power into the executive and executive agencies. I don't know if Ranked Pairs would be enough to fix that with fresh blood, or we need more direct democracy (voters can override their sen/rep vote on a bill?), or what. Maybe triple the number of sen/reps from each district so that voters won't feel they're losing their experienced politicians if they vote out the worst of the three.
I believe that if Trumpism is overthrown (because that's probably what it will take) there will be considerable effort to change the rules and set up strong constraints on the executive branch that cannot just be worked around by blowing past the guardrails. Trump exposed how weak the balance of powers actually is and how much it relies on (somewhat) good actors.
Glad to see future builders focusing on bureaucratic compliance first & foremost. It's a stirring vision. This is a great European VC on Twitter you may want to tag about your project, he invests solely in GDPR-compliant European tech https://x.com/compliantvc
I'm pretty sure you're replying to a comment which itself was supposed to be a parody. The "focusing on bureaucratic compliance first & foremost" seems to be something of a tell.
Why do people persist in repeating this dumb meme? Tyler Cowen, who should really know better, does it too. To be profitable shorting, you have to not only be right about the direction of the market but you have to time it precisely. Shorting is not 'I think the market is going to decline at some point in the future', or else we'd all do it.
You're borrowing to short, and your broker can call your loan at any time for any reason or no reason at all, including 'our risk algos felt nervous this afternoon'. If you try to short a stock or ETF and the market surges in a dead cat bounce before declining, you get completely wiped out even if you're going to be eventually right
no, neither of you are right. to short you just need to buy ATM puts. while technically not the classical short, if you believe it's downhill from there, this will pay.
get ATM into 2028dec and you're good if it crashes.
I going to defend Zoltan here and say the comment they responded to had about the same level of thought. "I read the market is overvalued" is no different than asking about short positions. I've been reading about the market being overvalued for like a decade at this point, meanwhile we've had the longest bull market in history. I feel for all the people who have been sitting cash all this time because they heard somewhere things were overvalued.
The train of thought is
1. The economy is making me nervous.
2. You're right to be nervous.
3. Then what are your short positions, since you're so smart?
It's their private property, they can ban or promote any ideas that they want to. You're free to not use their property if you disagree with that.
If 'silencing people' doesn't work- so online platforms aren't allowed to remove anything? Is there any limit to this philosophy? So you think platforms can't remove:
Holocaust denial?
Clothed underage content? Reddit banned r/jailbait, but you think that's impermissible? How about clothed pictures of toddlers but presented in a sexual context? It would be 'silencing' if a platform wanted to remove that from their private property?
Bomb or weapons-making tutorials?
Dangerous fads that idiotic kids pass around on TikTok, like the blackout game? You're saying it's not permissible for a platform to remove dangerous instructionals specifically targeted at children?
How about spam? Commercial advertising is legally speech in the US. Platforms can't remove the gigantic quantities of spam they suffer from every day?
Where's the limiting principle here? Why don't we just allow companies to set their own rules on their own private property, wouldn't that be a lot simpler?
I used to believe this. But I feel more and more we need to promote a culture of free speech that goes beyond the literal first amendment. We have to tolerate weird and dangerous ideas.
Refuting does not work... You can throw scientific study upon study, doctor upon doctor, ... negatives run deeper then positives.
In the open, it becomes normalized, it draws in more people. Do you rather have some crazies in the corner, or 50% of a population that believes something false, as it became normalized.
The only people benefiting from those dark concepts are those with financial gains. They make money from it, and push the negatives to sell their products and cures. Those that fight against it, do not gain from it and it cost them time/money. That is why is a losing battle.
> It's their private property, they can ban or promote any ideas that they want to. You're free to not use their property if you disagree with that.
1) They are public corporations and are legal creation of the state and benefit from certain protections of the state. They also have privileged access to some public infrastructures that other private companies do not have.
2) By acting on the behest of the government they were agent of the government for free speech and censorship purposes
3) Being monopolies in their respective markets, this means they must respect certain obligations the same way public utilities have.
Re: 1- one certain protection of the state that they benefit from is the US Constitution, which as interpreted so far forbids the government to impair their free speech rights. Making a private actor host content they personally disagree with violates their right of free speech! That's what the 1st Amendment is all about
The 6–3 majority determined that neither the states nor other respondents had standing under Article III, reversing the Fifth Circuit decision.
In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, stating: "To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction."
The Supreme Court did not say that what was done was legal, they only said that the people who were asking for the injunction and bringing the lawsuit could not show how they were being or going to be hurt.
1. By accepting unique protections and benefice of and from the state, they are no longer entirely private.
2. See comments below. It doesn't say what you think it says.
3. Google has a quasi monopoly (it doesn't require having full control) and abused it with YouTube with its search result. While it's true that it's not YT entirely by itself.
How about "If the content isn't illegal, then the government shouldn't pressure private companies to censor/filter/ban ideas/speech"?
And yes, this should apply to everything from criticizing vaccines, denying election results, being woke, being not woke, or making fun of the President on a talk show.
Not saying every platform needs to become like 4chan, but if one wants to be, the feds shouldn't interfere.
What is Youtube a 'near monopoly' in? Online video.....? Do you have any idea how much video there is online that's not on Youtube? They don't meet the legal definition of a monopoly
>the journey to modern democracies involved centuries of concessions by kings to the emerging middle classes
Eh, sort of disagree. The journey to modern democracy started with centuries of concessions by kings, first to other nobles (Magna Carta, etc.) Then, to other local power brokers like large landowners, business elites, etc. None of these parties wanted one single figure to have absolute power over their affairs & finances, mostly because they tended to make terrible decisions (random wars, taxation, and so on). Early proto-parliamentary systems in the UK, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Japan in the 19th century etc. were just a council of local, powerful elites who wanted to check the power of the king. The 'middle class' part came absolutely last
