Contrary to you pulling out the race card, there is an underlying problem with TFA's points. Primarily, that a Country can only be successful when taking care of itself FIRST. I realize that this takes some deep thought to comprehend, you are not going to get it if you continue to look at things as you proposed as a racial issue. It's not a racial issue, it's an economic issue.

Look long and hard at the US, and what happens when a country dumps out all of it's local income generation for "cheaper products". We are still told that this is the way it should be, but it's bullshit. That economic model only benefits the top .01% who already has way more wealth than they could ever spend. For the rest of society, we are shafted by the deal. Read Milton Friedman, perhaps you will understand.. if you can get over your simple belief that it's only bias that stops importing workers at any rate. Carol Quigley is another great read to understand how this is economic, not racial. Racial issues are what rich people use to keep us bickering with each other, arguing over who has the larger pile of sand.... while they polish their gold. (not all of it obviously, there are pure bigots but those people are easy to deal with in the grand scheme of things)

Today's economic model does not match what gave us tremendous growth and achievements. Henry Fords model was pure capitalism. Pay the worker well, they will buy the products. Not just the cars, but the furniture so that the furniture makers can afford cars too, and the guys in the restaurant, etc... Middle class income _IS_ the mobile income in society. Middle class people don't hoard, they spend what they make. When you take away the middle class income, the economy and growth all stagnates. This is the problem with the last 40 years of economic policy, the middle class has vanished and the top .01% have grown exponentially in wealth. That is factual, you can research the statistics. The US today is ranked 4th in the world for economic disparity (yes, we are worse than nearly every other country in the world). We are at the same level today as we were in 1928, but it looks better since we are printing out more and more fiat money as loans.

Importing workers does not make better programmers. Innovation and education makes better programmers, interest in societies development makes better programmers, and more importantly opportunity makes better programmers. If we don't have a positive economic outlook (which I will argue most people 30 and under have) then it does not matter who you bring in. Society needs to change, and the money has to get out of a few select hands and back into average people's hands. That is how we will see improvement, not by simply importing a few people at reduced wages further depressing wages for US workers.

Personally, I don't have anything against "globalization" if it's done where everyone prospers. That has not been happening with any of the Globalization that has occurred. The majority has suffered under the current policies, so I'm against the current economic policies that continue to pool wealth into few hands.

Is raise awareness and keep things in the independent press. Nobody from the Government has gone to jail for any of these abuses, and this should infuriate people. Our TV based media is not harping on this, they harp on everything but holding the Government accountable for their actions. If you really want to make change you have to get people awake to the severity of the problems, normal media channels work for the same team as our Government.

Instead of calling the device a smartphone equipped with a 50 MP camera, they can market it as a 50 MP camera which is 4G/5G/6G enabled, plus it can make phone calls too

The only way Kodak can really make a difference in the already crowded smartphone market is to equip the Kodak branded smartphone with its own 50 Megapixel CCD sensor

If Kodak can do that then it has a fighting chance

If Kodak can't, hey, it won't be that much difference from yet-another-reference-design smartphone, aka, the " white-box "

I am from China, although I am an American now, I do run businesses and some of them are in China

When I read the " ... for a maximum of £200 to £300 a month" I know that TFA is a big bullshit !

The minimum salary for even an unskilled labor in the China's eastern shore is at least £500 a month

While that figure is still minuscule by Western standard, nevertheless that figure is still much more than that " ... a maximum of £200 to £300 a month" bullshit !

There are a lot of evolutionary trade offs, but weaker bones and refined minds are the two things that do not trade off against each others

A refined mind (for example, such as the one in Homo Sapiens Sapiens) consumes 20% - 25% of the total energy intake of the individual

To obtain a more refined mind one does not need to make one's bone "weaker" --- on the other hand, supercharging the intake process, for example, eating meat instead of digesting straws --- can supply the additional "energy consumption" that a refined mind needs

If there is one trade off for weaker bones is that we humans are becoming better swimmers

As our bones become weaker, our bones become lighter, and lighter folks can float/swim more easily in the water

It is thus no surprise that the vast majority of those who have won Olympic swimming gold medal are mostly from the Caucasoid tribe --- for the Caucasoids have (relatively speaking) the lightest bones among all the humans

Before an answer, I will say that a large part of that trust came from being ignorant to the way the world actually works. I was young, delusional, and believed that authorities would never lie. Outside of Nixon and Kissinger of course. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and looking back I don't believe they were as accountable as I wanted to believe.. but there are several differences between today and then in attitude and training of law enforcement.

Back then, police were not held in a higher regard than the public. Respected, sure.. but a cop's actions were measured by their risk to the public. For example, the commando style raids we see today are a very new phenomenon. 30-40 years ago this would not have happened unless someone's life was in eminent danger. Today we have commandos chucking grenades into houses to serve warrants. We have commando style raids for non-violent crimes like drug dealing. Cops shooting family pets because they claim "I was afraid of the dog". Those things simply did not happen back then. Police were expected to respect the public as much as the public respected them.

There are many other differences in training and actions found to be acceptable then and now. A cop shooting someone today can simply use the excuse "I thought I was in danger", even when it's a kid playing army with his buddies. That would have had an officer suspended without pay 40 years ago, and back then there were many more kids out playing army/cops & robbers, etc.... Toy guns were much more common, hell we brought them to school to play at recess.

Lastly hiring practices are much different then and now. Then, there was more worry about public perception of officers. Cops were expected to outsmart the bad guys, not kick their asses. Today agencies want the ass kickers, bad asses, and bullies. "Gangs" are not something new, so that excuse does not work as the justification.

Accountability is a good thing, and something severely lacking today. We have enough independent footage to know that events that happen should not, but since the footage is from "independent" sources they are all labelled questionable. A source that can be held with fewer questions, such as the body cameras by cops, would add much to a case like Michael Brown. Even if the camera was not facing Michael Brown at the onset of the encounter, audio could have been used to determine who's story was most accurate.

Thirty/Forty years ago I would have always taken the cops word over an encounter. Today, not so much. What you point out is exactly correct. People behave different when they are being watched, which includes "people" in Law enforcement.