The problem is that China has subsidized these vehicles to produce them below cost. This is a familiar tactic with Chinese manufacturers they've used in multiple industries to capture market share, bankrupt competitors, dominate markets, and then set prices to whatever they want. China is a communist country that views these companies as extensions of their government, which is outright hostile and militaristic. This is an attempt to ruin the industrial base of all competing countries which could challenge their military domination.

They want us to be greedy and only think "cheap cars! We must have them!" Meanwhile, our own automakers would slowly wither and die. The next time we'd need to mobilize like we did in WW2, we wouldn't have the industrial capacity of Ford or GM to build tanks and jeeps. We and every other country would be at the mercy of the CCP.

The problem is that China has subsidized these vehicles to produce them below cost. This is a familiar tactic with Chinese manufacturers they've used in multiple industries to capture market share, bankrupt competitors, dominate markets, and then set prices to whatever they want. China is a communist country that views these companies as extensions of their government, which is outright hostile and militaristic. This is an attempt to ruin the industrial base of all competing countries which could challenge their military domination.

They want us to be greedy and only think "cheap cars! We must have them!" Meanwhile, our own automakers would slowly wither and die. The next time we'd need to mobilize like we did in WW2, we wouldn't have the industrial capacity of Ford or GM to build tanks and jeeps. We and every other country would be at the mercy of the CCP.

Sorry, no. Other countries don’t possess a monopoly on talent. We don’t hire basketball coaches from China because there’s plenty of fantastic coaches from America that are equally capable of doing the job. In fact, there’s a long line of fantastic American coaches who would love the opportunity to take that position and perform that work. It makes no sense to hire a Chinese coach for an American team when there’s plenty of Americans here who are ready, willing, and able to do that job. Your basketball program isn’t going to die because you think this one coach from China is the absolute best in the world and you can’t get him.

Kirk is a fictional character that never faces the real consequences of his actions.

OpenAI is a real company in the real world in which one company hacking another is considered a felony offense and normal people go to real life jail for breaking those laws.

I wrote that the amount wasn't enough to slow down H1b hiring. That presumes it's also not enough to stop it as well.

The point being that if the administration actually wants the fee to be effective at slowing down H1b hiring, they need to make it much higher.

No, if we're not going to eliminate the program, we should lean into the government money grab. Today, we give away these positions in a lottery. Instead, we should auction them off to the highest bidder. Let the free market run up the price of this limited good. Let companies compete for it.

The $103,265 fee is a slap on the wrist. It's not high enough to actually be effective at slowing down employers from using the program.

This is the attitude that causes people to die. Americans deal with hotter temperatures every summer. Texas gets over 40 C in the summer every day. Install AC and be done with the problem. No one needs to die from overheating!

European windows don't work well for portable ACs. One, they don't usually come with screens which are typical in the US to keep bugs out. Two, they open from a hinge on the side. So, you basically need a way to cover the whole window space if you open it at all.

Last time I checked, we don't live in 1850. Slavery is a distant memory. It was outlawed 160 years ago. Jim Crow and redlining have been illegal for over half a century. Any systemic racism going on today revolves around DEI, which damn near all corporate America follows.

I already told you I'm a progressive Dem. I'm not going to defend Trump and his administration's bullshit. The Dems were around long before DEI. Not all of us agree with that philosophy. Plenty of us disagree. Equality should never have been replaced with equity.

Today, the only systemic abuse of power that's done by organizations across the economy are ones using DEI to promote minorities over straight, white men.

And no, you're making the assumption that I'm a right-winger. I've been a solid blue Dem for over 20 years. I hate Trump and the Republicans far more than DEI. That said, I can't stand the woke far-left either. I'm hardly the lone Democrat who can't stand the woke leftists.

No, ensuring "people aren't hired over others just because they're white men" is called equality. That's the opposite of equity, which attempts to provide equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. In practice, equity is implemented through preferential treatment of minorities over white people in areas such as hiring and promotion, especially over straight, white men. (BTW, that preferential hiring is illegal, but employers following DEI practices still do it.)

Sorry, no. DEI is systematic racism that blindly promotes minorities at the expense of white people, especially straight, white men.

If there's any fault in the death of Arday, it belongs with the people who promoted him unquestioningly despite his self-promotional claims that were increasingly ridiculous and factually dubious.

I say that as a progressive Democrat based in the US who long believed in MLK's dream that people "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." DEI reverses that and judges people on the color of their skin, promoting minorities ahead of anyone else. DEI propelled Arday to such academic heights were he completely didn't belong due to his lack of academic merit.

The woke pushed DEI. That's a separate and distinct group from liberals and progressives, who never fully bought the DEI claims.

Your argument contains several claims that are not supported by the historical evidence.

There was a violent crackdown in Beijing in June 1989. This is documented by eyewitnesses, journalists who were present, diplomats, hospital workers, declassified government documents from multiple countries, and later research. While the exact death toll is disputed, there is broad agreement among historians that hundreds, and possibly more than a thousand, people were killed when the Chinese military used live ammunition and armored vehicles to clear protesters and bystanders.

The protests did not begin as a violent uprising. They started as largely peaceful demonstrations calling for political reform, freedom of speech, government accountability, and action against corruption. In the final hours, some protesters and residents did fight back by throwing rocks, setting military vehicles on fire, and attacking soldiers after troops advanced into the city. That does not change the fact that the military used overwhelming lethal force against civilians.

There is no credible evidence that the Chinese government deliberately recruited ethnic minorities because they "hate Han Chinese." The People's Liberation Army is a national military whose units are drawn from across China. Claims that the crackdown relied on ethnic groups chosen because they were hostile to Han Chinese are not supported by credible historical sources.

The claim about mandatory two-year programs for all ethnic groups is inaccurate. China has implemented various education, labor, and relocation policies affecting different ethnic minorities, especially Uyghurs in Xinjiang, but these policies were not introduced as a response to Tiananmen Square. Researchers generally view those policies as part of the Chinese government's broader strategy of political control and assimilation rather than a measure to prevent another Tiananmen.

Finally, dismissing the Tiananmen Square crackdown by comparing it to other events doesn't address the historical record. Serious discussions should rely on evidence from contemporaneous reporting, archival documents, eyewitness testimony, and academic research, not egotistical, unsupported assertions from the Chinese Communist Party point of view.