Sure, take that stricter immigration control. But if people assume upfront that immigrants are intrinsically the source of problems and it takes stricter and stricter controls to filter them down to only those that bring value, this strengthening of filtering will never end.
Remember that one does not _either_ bring value or cause problems. I expect a typical human being to bring some value and cause some problems at the same time. And you can never measure which one is bigger.
I never said that all immigrants are intrinsically a source of problems, and saying that any filtering inevitably leads to never-endingly stronger filters is a slippery slope fallacy.
You absolutely can measure the likely degree of problems an immigrant would bring. To an absurd, extreme, example: you have 1 spot open for immigration. Do you offer it to a semiconductor EE with a clean criminal record in his early 30s, or a 68 year old alcoholic high school dropout with multiple violent criminal convictions?
It's relatively easy to design a system that prioritizes skilled, contributory immigration: academic background, professional career, salary, age, ability to speak the host country's language, skills of relevance, health/fitness, etc.
Sure, the EE from my example can snap and commit a crime, or lose his job and get addicted to drugs; but at a population level, it's inarguable that some groups will cost a country and others will benefit a country.
The "skilled" immigrant is largely a myth. Many countries now have more graduates than ever before with rising graduate unemployment while these "skilled" immigrants just usually end up being another mediocre tech worker. The GDP per capita hasn't been growing since the crash in 2008 for many European countries despite the influx of "skilled" immigrants.
It is mostly propaganda. Said immigrants will likely still never truly socially fit in even with great effort.
It's not as if Japan (or any other country, for that matter) doesn't already have immigration restrictions. Japan uses a points-based merit system for permanent residence [1], not unlike the criteria you suggested. Just to give an example, having a PhD and speaking Japanese at an N1 level (~equivalent to B2 CEFR) is barely sufficient to qualify (unless you're older than 30, in which case it won't be).
The more interesting question to ask is: Why has Japan decided to tighten immigration requirements now? But in my opinion the answer is rather obvious, especially when you consider the current Prime Minister's nationalistic beliefs: It's much easier to blame foreigners for insufficient welfare, ailing infrastructure, etc than to actually improve welfare, infrastructure, etc.
Also, the example of "a 68 year old alcoholic high school dropout with multiple violent criminal convictions" is rather ridiculous. You're arguing a strawman. It's already impossible for such a candidate to immigrate almost anywhere barring some other exceptional circumstances.
This is misleading at best, straight up false at worst.
The points-based system is used to allow you to apply for a PR _on an accelerated timeline_; not apply at all.
Having 70/80 points lets you apply for a PR after being a resident for 1/3 years respectively; you can apply without any points after living here for 10 years.
Fair enough, I should have mentioned that the points-based system is for an accelerated application. The fact was on my mind as I was writing but I see that I forgot to mention it. My bad.
But I will point out that ten years is a major commitment. Surely if someone can hold a job for ten years the default assumption should be that they're contributing to society, not leeching off it.
My example is ridiculous, but it was the easiest way to point out the fallacy that "you can never measure which [immigrants bring value or cause problems]. You clearly can.
And no, that 68 year old alcoholic is free to pass into America under Democrat administrations and tens of thousands have. They technically are illegal, but if you selectively enforce immigration laws and offer things like asylum/refugee status without any checks or balances, the net effect is still the same.
Returning to Japan, as the other commenter pointed out, your PhD example is someone that qualifies for expedited permanent residency, a particular subset of migration that Japan has (correctly) decided to encourage.
Maybe I missed something, but if DATA is given as an array at runtime, is there a way to put it into the type system? And if the result is in type system, is there a way to print it out at runtime without looping through all permutations of the possible characters?
The solution was impressive and fascinating, regardless.
Oh god, I feel sorry for these employees. It’s so disgusting and inhumane to just think about somebody being forced to smile and judged by how good they do that, by a machine!
They already are expected to perform emotional work. Now they'll be measured, but measurement or not that expectation to smile depends on the business culture of your nation. In the US people are expected to smile.
Imagine customers think you're an unhappy waiter. Should they be able to withhold tips because on their romantic evening they're spending time thinking about your personal circumstances? If we say yes then we're basically talking about financial carrot and stick to making people smile.
Employers only care insofar as customers care. The customer is the root reason.
> Now they'll be measured, but measurement or not that expectation to smile depends on the business culture of your nation. In the US people are expected to smile.
You might have missed this. I'm expecting this technology is going to have impact beyond Japan so I specifically mentioned the US. If you want to keep on talking about Japan and not broader impact that's up to you.
> Employers are often disconnected from reality and don’t care about what customers feel. They think they have a great idea and implement it anyway.
Employers are allowed to run their own empiricism. This is no different than people being expected to dress as Donald Duck in Florida, except dressing as Donald Duck is likely much more awful work.
And if you think employers are disconnected then having less data is only going to worsen the situation. That's going to lend to more business superstition.
Being polite often IS emotional work, even for neurotypical people operating within normal environments. The nature of customer service is that you are dealing with the general public and expected to not tell them "sir, you're a raving lunatic" with any particular regularity (despite the fact that a pretty substantial portion of the population are in fact raving lunatics).
Even non-service jobs regularly involve emotional labor just to maintain good relationships with your colleagues, because some emotional labor is involved in almost any collective endeavor of human beings.
I think China more than any other country is just looking to make money. And that’s a good thing. The rest of the world is really fed up with the U.S. and its ideological motivations for messing with other countries. For example, Biden’s recent Karening about “human rights” in Bangladesh: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/bangladesh-shows-the-limits-of-bi....
I think what it meant is that, in the social networks today, you have to behave “consistently” all the time. If you wrote something today and then say the opposite tomorrow, people online would probably attack you for being untrustworthy or something like that, and refuse to accept your points. But in reality, nobody can be consistent all the time. We’re all different from minute to minute, and it’s perfectly natural to change your opinions however often you want.
Even the post isn't using /dev/tcp, but compiled a C file into bash "loadable builtin" (which is something I learned today). It still feels kind of cheating to me tbh.. But cool enough!
The very first time in life that I reported a bug to an OSS project was to Vim, by email to Bram, when I was in high school. Thinking back from now, that was definitely not a good way to report bugs, but Bram was super helpful and responded kindly to this ignorant kid.
I'm actually more shocked knowing that they drop plain text if there is a mime-encoded part (e.g. HTML). Just verified that all mails imported from GMail and all newer mails I received in PM only have the HTML part now, while GMail shows both HTML and plain text parts in message source. Great, now if I want to use a text-only client to read those mails in the future, I won't be able to.
Now I honestly wonder, how did they think this is something okay to mess up? Is there just no usable email hosting service for someone that want their mails not touched and also stored securely? Like, this is not even going to save storage space for PM - I'm paying for my storage.
Office365 does the exact same thing. I think to the majors once email crosses into their systems it becomes an object of their own that is no longer an email as such. They may partially reconstruct it for you as a courtesy...for now.
> how did they think this is something okay to mess up?
I'm speculating but this has the smell of enshittification. Somehow this is saving them money while making the product worse, and they're hoping not enough customers notice to matter.
Remember that one does not _either_ bring value or cause problems. I expect a typical human being to bring some value and cause some problems at the same time. And you can never measure which one is bigger.