Yes I do, because I believe at the heart of Trump's appeal is the fact that too many people have been ignored in our society just because they failed to be successful. I don't expect average people to be capable of voting in their own interest, but I do trust they will burn everything down if they are ignored. Democracy ensures you can't ignore too many people if you want a functioning society, no matter whose at fault for why those people are upset.

It's not the technology that's difficult to grasp, it's how difficult it is to imagine how we might weave these technologies into a functional society. Just like how it is easy to break something than to create it, it is easier for an author to break future societies than to build better ones.

Writers have a wide range of political and economic viewpoints. You see dystopian futures more often because stories require conflict to be interesting.

Trump is doing the same thing, with the biggest challenge being he needs to find the smartest people who are also morally bankrupt enough to fix the "problem" he wants fixed. Not that many smart people agree that Democracy is a problem.

He never said he doesn't value more manufacturing, just that he doesn't want more manufacturing jobs. Those aren't the same things, which is something the US electorate has been slow to learn.

Your attack surface is lower if you only have one system that has your password, instead of two dozen. It reduces password fatigue and increases the chances that users will use a single strong password instead of creating dozens of weak ones. Or worst (and commonly) one shared password across all sites. There are plenty of other benefits, the these arguments aren't the best reason to do it.

The best reason is there have been numerous studies showing that companies that enact broad SSO use see significant drops in identity-related breaches. 2023 Forrester report showed a 60% drop in these breaches.

Harvard has also become more selective in the last 20 years. The US population has grown by 16% in the last 20 years but Harvard's undergraduate enrollment has stayed the same. And the number of foreign students has increased 60% over the past two decades. These factors alone could explain most of the grade inflation simply because the student body is smarter on average today than they were 20 years ago.

We have been pushing kids into tech for three decades, and the industry pays higher than every profession other than doctors and arguably lawyers (most law graduates don't make high salaries). The US has most likely saturated how many IT employees it can squeeze out of its citizen base. A good case could be made for improving primary and secondary schooling quality, but that would take decades to see the benefits. Immigration is needed at least until then, and arguably would still be needed.

The only thing that will truly limit the need for immigrants would be for the US economy to become less competitive globally. If our companies aren't strong enough to need as many high skilled employees, immigration issues will solve themselves.

Paying significantly above market rates can work for a company with high enough profit margins to outcompete other industries, but it can't scale across the economy. We have been pushing people into tech for three decades, and the only professions that make more are doctors and lawyers (arguably your average law graduate makes less than your average software developer). And these professions only make as much as they do because professional organizations restrict access to the professions to keep pay high, which hurts consumers by increasing the cost of care and legal services.

This leads me to believe we aren't likely to get more people into the industry by paying more. At least not significantly. Immigration is needed for a nation with 5% of the world's population to own a third of the IT industry.

Oops, I meant to say "net immigration was negative during the housing recession," not that it was necessary.

That would be a very poor assumption. Almost all work can be offshored. If the need is high enough, the electorate will even elect people to remove government regulations requiring onshoring. Any job can be offshored. People will travel to other countries to get surgery if the cost difference is high enough. Residential home building and maintenance is a rare exception, but even commercial plumbers can be offshored if the entire business is moved offshore.

At any time our economy maintains a certain equilibrium until a large change occurs. Sometimes that is a recession (net immigration was necessary during the housing recession) and sometimes it is regulatory changes like the one mentioned in this article. If you make H-1B more expensive, there will be winners and losers. There will be some people hired in roles that would have been filled by H-1Bs, but the research is overwhelming that overall employment of citizens will drop. A combination of less local consumers, increased offshoring, and reduced competitiveness of US firms will cause that lower overall employment.

I've never worked with an H-1B candidate who wasn't qualified for the technical work, but then again I've never worked with a US citizen who wasn't qualified either. That's what the hiring process is for. I've worked with H-1Bs and citizens who weren't very good in their specific role, but they were all at least qualified.

I've also almost never hired an H-1B candidate when there was someone else even remotely qualified for the role in the hiring pipeline. The only exception is when I had worked with an H-1B candidate before and knew he was exceptional. My leadership career started in 2017, and up until 2023 it had been very hard to find qualified applicants when paying market or slightly above market rates.

The bill only calls out the use of nonpublic competitor data in setting prices. It is basically just saying that you cannot collude with competitors (already illegal) just because you are doing it indirectly through a 3rd party. If Walmart and Target both paid a consultant who received nonpublic supplier pricing data from both companies and then did supplier pricing negotiations for both companies, that would already be illegal. But the pricing they give to customers is public information, so that's not illegal.

As long as ChatGPT isn't collecting non-public pricing information from landlords, this would be fine. The Act specifically calls out the use of nonpublic competitor data.

No, the AI was also artificially increasing the rent because a large enough number of landlords were using their tool. If rent should have been $2000 in a competitive market, it might suggest $2100 instead. As long as landlords know most of their competitors are also using the software, they can feel confident that not enough people are going to undercut them on price. That is what caused the rent prices to go up more than the market would have otherwise demanded.