I used to follow the balloon projects that hams would launch. A mylar balloon with a tiny 50 milliwatt transmitter and GPS, solar powered on the 10Mhz band tracked thousands of miles away.
It’s important to clarify that H-1B is a non-immigrant visa — you don’t get to stay if you lose your job. That matters because the debate isn’t about immigration itself but about how the program functions. H-1B was meant to supplement shortages in highly skilled roles. Over time, though, it’s reshaped whole categories of employment. Anecdotally, I see very few young U.S. devs compared to many late-career ones finishing out their working lives. If we dare to use the term “national interest,” the real issue is whether a temporary labor program has morphed into something that permanently alters the market.
It’s a non immigrant visa but also a pathway to citizenship.
And this is not just an abstract thing. There are, for example, very specific tax implications of this.
The dual intent nature of the H1B visa means the U.S. government requires H1B holders to pay Social Security and Medicare, precisely because the dual intent nature implies that they will be able to utilize those entitlements in the future.
You’re right — H-1B is dual intent. But my main point still stands: conflating H-1Bs with “immigrants hollowing out the middle class” is misleading. H-1B was designed to address shortfalls in skilled labor by granting temporary work authorization to foreign workers. On paper, it’s a fine idea.
In practice, the program has been abused, by body shops for instance, that we ended up with a new word: insourcing. That’s the real issue, and not immigration per se, but the way a temporary labor program reshaped whole categories of employment. And while politicians sometimes talk about fixing it, I wouldn’t expect much. If anything, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the “dual intent” aspect pared back in the future under the current guy.
It's false because "dual intent" applies explicitly only to non-immigrant visas and the term is referencing the applicants intent. There are no pathways from a non-immigrant visa to citizenship in the US.
Simpler production format! No case, reels, moving parts, stretched/torn tape.
If you never saw a smashed cassette on the side of the road with a reel of magnetic ribbon tangled in the weeds and bushes then you wouldn't understand.
I'm probably not thinking this through, so go easy, but why wouldn't tracked panels also produce a normalized power curve? My assumption behind the question is that they follow the same track as Sol every day, which doesn't vary at least year-to-year.
No i am viewing from there graphs of power over the day not over the year.
Untracked panel production has a sharp peak at noon and that rises and falls pretty sharply before and after that. Maxing/stable between 10am - 2pm
Single Axis flattened that curve up very heavily so you were producing at or close peak production for much longer. 8am - 4 pm
The double axis seemed to just get slightly high magintude in power compared to the single axis which is good but definitely marginal.
The question would be is if you have an array of fixed panels can you fixed them in a way that flattens out the peak production but provides a more level and less peeking production for the grid as a whole. This is really important because its much harder to turn off/disconnect solar than other forms of power. The grid has to be sure it doesn't overcharge or undercharge the grid. If you do either you'll deviate from the target 60Hz (US) you can damage a switching and transformer infrastructure.
A less peeky supply is more predictable generally speaking and gives you more time to react to changes in the grid. The per cost question would benefit from answer this because it might make sense to install more panels in a fixed position that is not maximally optimal at an individual level but is maximal for the overall grid health. That investiment in deployment is worth it to make now because you'll never want to change it afterwards.
The TT creator, John Aravosis, said recently on his show that it took TT 3 days to figure out he is gay and he said he never interacted with it in any way that would convey that. On the other hand, it kept giving me animal snuff that utterly revulsed me, despite my reporting it, thumbs downing.
I deleted my account about a year ago. Although I loved a lot of content and was awed by the work of many creators, I got this weird anxiety when I had been scrolling for, say, an hour. It was like my brain was giving me a warning sign, though my consciousness did not perceive it. I came to a personal decision, unscientifically, and without any jingoism or conspiracies, that short-form scrolling is bad for my health.
A couple of weeks ago I signed up for Loops (the fediverse version of TT) and I scrolled a few videos. I had such a strong negative feeling that I closed it and uninstalled. I am so happy YouTube Shorts is so shit, because I watch one or two that catch my eye, then go back to the longer videos.
Afaict TT only cares about dwell time and maybe if you comment or something. These dislike buttons do nothing. In fact, since they increase dwell time using them makes it more likely for such content to reappear in your feed than if you simply scrolled.
When Zuck said on Jan 7th, 2025, that he wants to work with President Trump to oppose states threatening free speech, he wasn't talking about China. It was 100% the EU and its regulations. The quid pro quo starts to emerge.
When I was just starting my career around the late 1980s, I wrote a program on the Psion for a chain store in the UK that had 21 stores. Basically a person would walk the aisles and enter the stock codes and quantities. When they were done they would plug the device into a serial device. I wrote this other program in MS Basic (DOS) that dialed up all these Psions and downloaded the orders into an IBM S/38 Order and Inventory management system. I thought I was the dog's. I loved those devices.
It is poorly written, with some atrocious dialog. I watched it all because the story intrigued me, but all I kept thinking was, "The last season of GoT was shit for THIS?"
I always tell my gun-hoarding, go-box toting, bug-out planning prepper friends the same thing. You don't have enough guns and ammo to stop the masses coming for your canned pork'n'beans.
Is that true? I mean, I figure worst case, small rural midwest communities that band together and shoot trespassers on site will be the best off.
I guess an army of thousands could take it over but my hope is that me and my gun toting farming community won't put up with invaders and invaders won't want to take their chances
On the other hand, on a country level, countries generally do have enough guns and ammo to greatly limit any chaos coming over their border; uncontrolled immigration happens not because countries can't control it but because they effectively choose not to.
I wonder how long that strategy will work. Eventually society will reach a new "equilibrium" but how many less defended societies will succumb to the starving hordes before that happens.
I quote "equilibrium" because social structures never stop changing. What I mean is a relatively stable situation where most of the world is not invading the rest of the world. Our present situation is that the larger portion of the population is not invading the rest, though the present trend seems to be in the wrong direction.
