> No, it's broken because we've allowed millions of foreigners to come in and raise said healthcare and housing costs.
The idea that deporting every undocumented person will reduce the bloat and profit extraction in our health care system is making me giggle.
And do you really think checking every person is a strategy that scales? Why not just indiscriminately jail the people who hire them and thereby create a strong incentive to come?
Maybe those workers actually belong here more than you'd like to admit, but the powers that be enjoy keeping their status uncertain to use as a piñata they can beat whenever they need political candy.
For Phoenix[0] it shows $44 for 1 adult 1 child, but $42 for 2 adults 1 child with 1 adult working. Is this because of a child tax credit or something?
No, it's because their model puts dollar values on the labor contributed by non-working adults w/r/t raising children. So in that case, it could be that 1adult1child is slightly higher because of the need to pay for childcare, while the food/insurance/clothing etc of the additional adult in 2adult1child is offset by the fact that the non-working adult will conduct childcare and thus that expense goes away.
But then why is the number higher for 2adult1child (1 working) when compared to 2adult1child(both working). wouldn't child raising costs get added back in once both are working?
> In households with two working adults, all hourly values reflect what one working adult requires to earn to meet their families’ basic needs, assuming the other adult also earns the same.
From the page itself, first paragraph. Double the value under 2 adult (both working) to get the estimated household income.
How would you avoid the same problem that discord ran into that made them require ID verification? I doubt they're doing this for fun. Incorporate in the Bahamas?
the largest block of discord users are from the US which hasn't got id verification laws regarding age for social media. The 2nd largest is brazil, which does, and the 3rd is India, which doesn't.
So they are forcing users from countries that haven't passed these laws to abide by them. They don't have to do this, they could just require brazilians use face-id.
This is the stupidest nitpick, but it's not really Pavlovian conditioning (as mentioned in the last paragraph) but rather operant conditioning. Pavlovian, or classical conditioning is the triggering of a biological response after a neutral stimulus (ring a bell before feeding each time and the dog will salivate when it hears the bell even if there's no food anywhere nearby).
Operant conditioning is where the agent learns that an action produces an outcome and learns to perform (or not perform) certain actions to get the desired outcome.
Whether stupidest nitpick or not, thank you for posting this. I learned Pavlovian conditioning better from your comment. This is the kind of comment I come to HN for. Appreciate it.
it might not be anything, but the neighbor simply yielding to every little rule in the head of another neighbor.
we haven't established that the neighbor knows whether or not someone is screwing with him.
when my building had a person like that, who played these games all day for decades, some either just ignored all of it, while others simply moved out when they could.
> Ranking posts/comments by the exponential of inverse IPAddress-post-frequency
Doesn't this just incentivize posting a bunch of comments from your residential proxy IP addresses to launder them? This smells like a poor strategy that's likely to lead to more spam than not. Also, everyone has to start somewhere so your legit IP addresses are also going to seem spammy at first.
Hmm consider an established social network which sees lots of bad actor activity, these folks will likely be sharing IP's on these residential network severly damaging their reputation.
You should only see one user-id per MAC / IP. If you see multiple then its a sign of a bad actor.
Before you're established using something like a captcha prevents most spam, except for state actors, and they wont be focused on the site until its larger.
People cannot live without money. A huge swath of illegal immigrants work for money. Wouldn't it make sense to target the individuals who are _hiring_ them rather than the actual laborers themselves? This logic seems to work perfectly fine when cracking down on drug use, but seems completely ignored when it comes to immigration. (Yes, I'm aware ICE cracks down on some employers, but it's obvious this isn't their primary strategy.)
Seriously, think about it. If _you_ were tasked with cracking down on the immigration situation, what would you do in good faith? Send masked goons to check every single individual's papers and rough up people who can't show them? Or just send men in suits to every labor operation and ask for their I-9s, at 100x less cost? It's absolutely mind-boggling to me that people even assume a shred of good faith from the current administration here. This is terrorism, not law enforcement.
Like that law that says it's illegal to HIRE workers that cannot show work authorization? IIRC that carries pretty steep penalties. And if enforced, will have a huge chilling effect on the whole illegal immigration thing. But, as sibling commenters have pointed out, it's not about enforcing laws but punishing outgroups. This is only not obvious to the willfully ignorant.
