Or, more likely, they both just change in ways you never expected. How precisely they change depends on the job, but I don't foresee businesses putting people into jobs they're unqualified for any more than they already do. It just doesn't make business sense, and any who do that will feel the consequences of it one way or another. If the economy worked the way you seem to think it does, we wouldn't have a functional economy right now.

Actually that youtube video I linked addresses this. I did put it there for a reason.

Have you never considered simply not taking out the loan and attending lower cost schools instead? This is exactly what I did 12 years ago, when you guys were screaming about exactly this even back then. When I talk about this to younger coworkers, it turns out many of them also did exactly that very recently as well. I also happen to work for a world class company well known for being at the top of its game (and it also doesn't care at all about what college you attended.) It turns out that the cost of your tuition doesn't correlate well with your success after school, rather the strongest indicator for that is the quality of you as a student.

Anecdotally, it seems that if you're the kind of person who needs to take out a loan that big, then you're unlikely to be the kind of person who would do well with the degree that you're spending it on. For the life of me, I can't even fathom how somebody would take out loans on anything without actually knowing whether they'd have the means to pay it off. Though I tend to be a saver rather than a debtor, always have been since I turned 18, got my first credit card, and started working part-time minimum-wage jobs. The only loan I've ever taken out was a mortgage -- I only buy cars that I've been able to pay cash for, and I only spend credit card money that I already have the cash to back.

Almost as if measuring alternatives and their consequences before taking an action has benefits.

If they're training to be doomsayers, then they've got it exactly right. Everybody I've run into since graduating who had that attitude...still has that attitude, and they never really made it anywhere. It turns out there's very little economic demand for doomsayers, and nobody wants to work with, let alone hire, a chronic complainer.

None of what you're saying contradicts what I just said. The fact is, cities are bad for your health. Period. You can be overall unhealthy but still live longer solely due to the fact that emergency services are minutes away instead of hours.

I don't believe either of these will happen. I think it's more likely to lower the barrier to entry. This was, in fact, exactly why the Luddites did what they did. In my case, AI has been a useful learning tool for fields I have no expertise in, or adjacent ones I've never touched. Sometimes it's just an incredibly powerful search engine, and sometimes it leads by example. It's because of AI that I have started to do frontend work -- without it I'd have needed to take a course, and even then it would have taken a very long time before I became productive. Now I've got this easy onramp that is showing me how to work with the DOM, which was something I previously never even attempted.

Historically, this is exactly what technology tends to do, and the result ends up being a higher labor demand, not a lower one.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=zR...

Each time a "job killing" technology comes around, you guys say "well this time is different!" And that is the one thing that will probably never change.

As for why you're not hirable, I have no idea, but what I can tell you with certainty is that it's unrelated to AI.

And yet it's doing the same thing in other states where there is no prop 13. Be glad you're not in Canada, where housing affordability, or the lack thereof, is roughly three times as bad as California's is. Usually what you guys (as in, progressives) attribute to boomers is really due to your own expectations exceeding theirs, and you live under the false assumption that what you have today is worse. To wit, you expect much larger houses than what they had, you want to put even fewer people into these larger houses while the population is even greater than theirs was, and you have a government mandating that new houses are made of more expensive building materials and technology than previous generations used.

This isn't really that new, but the standards are. In ancient Rome, these people would have contributed to the homeless population that moved into the city where it was easier to obtain food relative to the work required to grow it, hence despite how large California's homeless per capita is compared to the rest of the country, it's tiny compared to the 30% per capita homeless that Rome had.

Here in the People's Republic of California, some cities explicitly don't use it, but the single-party politburo at the top adores it.

For now.

Even to this day, it's best to avoid breathing the air in Los Angeles. Especially near freeways. And it's getting worse. The air is a bit cleaner down here in the south bay, but the whole LA metro area is pretty toxic overall, and will deduct a few years off of your natural lifespan.

It's not just air pollution either -- cities have always been unhealthy to live in. It's actually only recently that cities have been growth centers, which is largely thanks to sanitation and flame resistant construction. But despite these, they're still measurably worse to live in, and this is just one data point. Air pollution itself isn't new either; even ancient Rome had some restrictions on burning for this very reason.

I had a feeling you'd go down this route, so I kept it brief and carefully worded, because there are actually a lot of nuances beyond even what you're bringing up here. But this will sufficiently address what you brought up:

First, we have to clarify what is meant by "search": They can send you through an x-ray machine and go through your belongings to check for contraband -- that kind of "search" is always allowed. However, they can't go through your papers or "personal effects", which is what your phone counts as, without a warrant.

To detain you for any amount of time at all, they first need reasonable suspicion. That can be, for example, the fact that you're on a watch list for something else you did a long time ago, or maybe you were behaving in an unusual way. But they can only detain you long enough to address whatever that reasonable suspicion is, i.e. long enough to question you, or long enough to obtain an actual search warrant. Without that search warrant, they can't impound your property indefinitely. However, if they do get a warrant, then yes, they can hold it indefinitely until one of two things happens: You contest that warrant and win, or you voluntarily unlock it and any related proceedings go to completion.

And even within all of this, there are even more stipulations and qualifiers, enough so that somebody could practically write a book about it. That's why, in a situation like this, it's always best to ask for a lawyer.

I'm not making any assumption about that, furthermore, it doesn't matter what the administration wants. This isn't Europe. We're not a top-down system. In order for anything to have the effect of law, the legislative, executive, and judicial all have to agree on it. If a cop doesn't bother to give you a ticket for doing 3mph over the speed limit, then the effect of law is that you're free to do that despite what the sign says. If the cop does give you a ticket, you contest it, and the judge dismisses it (which they can, and they do quite often for something like this) then the effect of law is still that you're free to do that despite what the sign says.

When cops overstep their authority, the judicial can have something to say about that. Right now they have a doctrine of qualified immunity, which there is no law for, it's just an administrative rule that the judiciary created for themselves with the intent being that cops aren't lawyers and cannot and do not have the time to understand every case law precedent out there. The legislature could codify this and add limits to it, but because they don't, the effect of law is that it exists however the judiciary says it does.

Having said that, cops will always have the capacity to overstep their authority, and inevitably will at some point in every country and every jurisdiction on the planet. But here, you do have a remedy: Contest it with the judiciary. Here's a fun fact that most people don't realize: If you can prove that a government entity is commonly overstepping its authority to the point that it is making it the effect of law despite other laws (including the constitution) don't permit it, you can sue that government entity and win damages under civil rights laws.

I've always found that if you want to see what's really happening in Ukraine without actually visiting it, twitter is basically the only clearnet place that has it. Here's why: Everywhere else censors it. Even the guys on youtube who hate twitter because Elon still post to twitter anyways, because that's where their sources always end up. Another kicker is that if it weren't for Elon, twitter would be no better than youtube in this regard: Chasing sponsors, chasing views, all at the expense of the raw, unedited truth of what's actually happening out there.

This is just a fact. Whether you like it or not is notwithstanding.

They can't detain you merely for refusing a search, nor can they impound your property indefinitely.

If everybody was sacked for making a bad prediction, nobody would ever have a job.

You have pretty low standards if you think apple has a good gpu.

If you're a citizen or permanent resident, you can't be denied entry. Full stop. You can be detained for a short time, they can make you miss your flights, they can maybe impound your possessions, etc. But you can't be denied entry.