Contrary to the HN bias, but a way to avoid this if you want to get a new car full of tech gadgets is to get one that runs on Android Automotive. The privacy policy is a normal tech company privacy policy. Other cars come with privacy notices that just say they can give your data to anybody.
Sorry, but a lot of cars, even if they run Android Automotive, maintain a separate TCU/DCM with its own cellular connection that can collect vehicle information independently of Android Automotive.
For the same reason that foreign nationals can join the military, including the Coast Guard that has an overlapping mission: it's a nation of immigrants and for centuries until very recently most Americans readily recognized the value and necessity of recruiting foreign people into various posts.
> for centuries until very recently most Americans readily recognized the value and necessity of recruiting foreign people into various posts.
You forgot to mention that, for those centuries, US immigration was effectively whites-only, until the 1965 Hart-Celler act (that politicians promised wouldn't change this!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart-Celler_Act
I think you're conflating naturalization/citizenship with immigration.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 (and subsequent) acts said you had to be white and have lived in the US for X years already to become a citizen. [1]
However, per your cited article a law was passed in 1882 to decrease Chinese immigration (who famously immigrated and helped build our railroads). [2] The Chinese immigrants couldn't become citizens but there was nothing (at the time) stopping them from moving and living and working in the US. [3]
Anecdotally and more recently: my Mexican grandmother, who married my World War 2 veteran grandfather in Mexico, legally immigrated just fine in the 1950s.
But, yes, most immigration was Europeans and African slaves but probably that was because it was expensive unless you effectively sold yourself. [4]
> But, yes, most immigration was Europeans and African slaves but probably that was because it was expensive unless you effectively sold yourself.
You don't think it had anything to do with the Naturalization Act of 1790 that limited citizenship to whites, or the fact that even in 1965, congressmen felt the need to lie to the public and promise that law would not change US demographics? It was just because it was "expensive", that people from Europe immigrated, but not from South America?
Lol no. For almost the entire 20th century, until 1992, Filipinos could just join the Navy or Coast Guard at foreign recruiting posts, without even being American residents, then get fast-tracked for citizenship.
I've heard of some people on the lam who wanted to join the French Foreign Legion, a military that gives a no-questions-asked grant of citizenship at the end.
former squid here, can confirm. filipinos were very common until the USN pulled out of the bases in the Philippines in the early 90s.
they couldn’t get clearances easily if at all so a lot of filipinos worked in the galley (kitchens) which sometimes resulted in unexpected menu items. if it had been lumpia and chicken adobo that would have been great but usually it was stuff like spaghetti sauce with liver
That’s not an answer. Their comment didn’t mention whiteness at all. You believe that the whiteness of these immigrants is so important that leaving it out constitutes misrepresentation. Why is it so important? Come on, you obviously think it’s a key part of the story, so spit it out.
I'll summarize the conversation up to this point to you: The story is about a Chinese national working as a supervisor in CBP.
geetee asked why is CBP hiring foreign nationals.
jeffbee answered that it's because the US is a "nation of immigrants that for centuries recognized the value of recruiting foreign people".
I corrected him that those "centuries long" attitudes only applied to whites, and excluded the Chinese national subject of the article. This directly debunks his assertion that American values until recently meant his acceptance.
My beliefs are only relevant in so far as it is against my beliefs to lie. Why is that so strange to you? You seem to believe debunking lies requires one to have some fringe beliefs. What does that say about what you think are mainstream beliefs? What does it say about yours? I've only referred to widely-known facts of US history, that I don't believe you're ignorant of. Why did you not only not correct the lie, but attacked the person that did? The only conclusion I can make is that you are so at odds with truth, that you see correcting obvious lies as an assault on your worldview.
I corrected the actual misconception in another comment: CBP is not hiring noncitizens.
Given that, I don’t know what to do with the rest of this. Knowing about the racial makeup of past immigrants is apparently super important for a bad answer to a question based on faulty assumptions.
And I guess you dropped in that little parenthetical about politicians promising that law wouldn’t change white-only immigration just as a fun little reminder about how people in the 1960s were super racist.
> I corrected the actual misconception in another comment: CBP is not hiring noncitizens.
If you want to imply that what I corrected wasn't a misconception, why don't you say so directly? Is it because doing so would make it too obvious you're trying to deflect from the truth?
Your statement is far too broad to be correct in any case. Thousands of Chinese and other non-white people immigrated long before 1965. Ironically, some of the earliest Chinese people employed by the federal government were employed by Customs, decades before 1965.
Yes, my broad statement about US immigration policy is incorrect because of a few exceptions. It's impossible to talk about trends and averages because there's always a counter-example somewhere that, by your logic, disproves the whole thing. This gas is not hot - look at these ten molecules, they're moving slow! I guess China is open and welcoming too, because they have thousands (1.4 million!) of foreigners living there?
(0.1% of China's total population, but why let statistics get in the way of anecdotal reasoning?)
Are you really incapable of thinking statistically, even this little bit, or are you just playing dumb because it lets you avoid engaging honestly with the question a little bit longer?
You’re the one who can’t fathom that a general answer to a very broad question must be a lie (not merely incomplete, not merely wrong, but a lie) because you think the answer to a broad, general question must include “although our immigration policy was racist as heck until the 1960s so this specific guy would have had a hard time before then” at the end. I’m not the one incapable of engaging honestly here.
Yes, saying it was part of US historical culture to accept people like this guy, when the culture explicitly rejected them, is a lie. Nothing you said so far disproved this.
But I was more polite, and merely said he "forgot to mention" that aspect. That's all it took to draw your objections. I'll leave you to your word games now.
Edit: Fine, you get one more reply.
> The question was “foreign nationals,” not “people like this guy.”
But the topic was this guy.
> And it’s a specific choice to consider race as part of “like this guy,” not a law of nature.
Yes, a specific choice that the US made, from its founding up until 1965. But you are more comfortable talking in vague abstractions divorced from real world implementations, talking about words without thinking what those words refer to, so I get why you're confused. It's just a way of thinking I find repellent, and refuse to humor. As I said, enjoy your word games.
The question was “foreign nationals,” not “people like this guy.” And it’s a specific choice to consider race as part of “like this guy,” not a law of nature.
Race baiting bullshit allows people to poo all over the discussion and avoid having to confront the actual reality of what kinds of people we make good immigrants and citizens and why, because the answers to those questions are gonna cast some shade domestically. Any correlation to skin tone is mostly coincidental or just a figment of how the cards fell historically.
Bro since when is just naked racism and xenophobia cool enough that people feel comfortable enough to post nasty shit like this on hn even. Can't we have an auto-ban no tolerance policy for this???
This is ahistorical nonsense. White immigrants are perfectly capable of retaining native prejudices. Localized tensions among Eastern European immigrants in the earlier 20th century have been documented.
And any immigrant group regardless of race will align with American culture a few generations in.
If by not fitting in you mean that they will continue to look different and retain some links to their ancestral culture then sure.
> In-car dongles that track jerky driving, crash event recorders, and driver monitoring systems now let an insurer observe behavior directly and price it.
Uh, but not in California, because of 1988's Prop. 103. Telematics for insurance pricing are completely unavailable in California.
I've long thought that black boxes for drivers can also act to detect various diseases. If someone's smoothness of driving suddenly starts to deteriorate, then it's often a sign of early dementia or eye diseases.
Because of Prop 103 California has reasonable insurance rates especially considering cost of living. California's laws and regulations are oriented around forcing people to have at least some coverage. I suspect that the laws annoy insurance companies because they conflict with MBAs craven impulses. But those impulses when not pushed back against eventually result in collapse.
Isn’t that exactly the problem pointed out on the article? In an attempt to make driving more affordable, the state causes the victims of drivers to pay for their own victimization. Par the course for a CA law but still.
As a side n ote,curious if people have takes on why CA creates so many objectively garbage laws.
Worth pointing out that uninsured motorists coverage in California is quite inexpensive. And that is NOT true of Florida.
Where I disagree with the point of the article is insurance is a last resort thing. If you want to reduce traffic deaths that's not where to focus your attention. Reading the article it smells of neoliberal thinking.
Some aspects of Prop. 103 work. The definition of "good driver" as everyone who hasn't caused a fatality in the last 3 years is not one of those aspects.
It feels like there must be multiple completely different implementations of LG OLED TVs. I would not say that my LG has a "main screen" of any kind. When I turn mine on it shows the last input that had been used or, if that thing is off, it shows the bouncy egg and "No Signal". If I press the button on the remote that says RECENTS and has a picture of a house on it, which I guess is the "main screen", it maintains the bouncy egg but shows a ribbon of apps on the bottom. Those are my installed apps: Hulu, Prime, Peacock, YouTube, Netflix, Apple TV, and Disney+ happen to be today's recents. Where is this "main screen" where unbidden appvertisements arise?
Mine has been strictly MRU forever. When I look at this video, it does not resemble the software on my LG OLED TV at all. There must be several platforms or generations.
This is almost unreadable. The "papers" are never referenced anywhere, so the claims being refuted cannot be evaluated. The whole fact of the TTL doesn't seem relevant at all. There are many, many well-researched admission and eviction policies that this readme doesn't mention. I just don't get why we are reading this.
Your statement about SSD availability and performance does not fit with my personal recollections of history. Smoking fast SSDs were completely vanilla items you could order from anyone in 2015. For example, the Intel DC P35/6/700 series. Each of these was as good as 25 HDDs for linear reads and more like 5000 HDDs for random reads. The U.2 specification for putting SSDs in boxes was formalized in 2011. Outside of the mass market, cloud builders had private SSD designs long before 2015.
Less than 5% of commercial storage capacity was SSD of any flavor in 2015 (NVMe probably less than 1%), and the price-per-GB was anywhere from 5-15x. NVMe hardware RAID didn't happen until 2017, and AWS SSD via EBS was capped at 320 MB/s (~500 MB/s with striped EBS volumes). Before 2015 it was capped at 160 MB/s.
In practice even NVMe SSDs at the time were maybe 10x faster for sequential R/W and maybe only 200-500x for random I/O. Most databases in 2015 were limited by serial dependency chains like walking a B-tree to figure out what nodes to read next and couldn't max out what an NVMe was capable of. Not to mention we were stuck with libaio in 2015 that made O_DIRECT ops synchronous.
So the OPs claim of reading multiple terabytes of data in seconds on AWS in 2015 literally wasn't technically possible.
SSDs simply were not as ubiquitous in 2015 as they are today, and I didn't know anyone using them outside of mission critical systems were the cost made sense.
I'm pro-information and believe generally that anti-data-center activists are chasing a Glonzo on par with anti-5G electrosensitives. That said given the tide of opinion I'm overjoyed that Trump and his allies want to step into the fusilade to defend the unpopular.
That data centers need a lot of power and some cases a lot of water isn't some sort of conspiracy theory. When you have data centers like the box elder county DC that is planed to consume more power than the entire state of Utah and it wants to do that by burning natural gas, that's not some sort of conspiracy theory that it would be tremendously bad for the environment and the regional gas and electric bills (particularly since a decent amount of power already is generated via natural gas there).
I'm not wholesale against data centers, but there are more than a few projects that are downright irresponsible.
It's not the only GW datacenter planned [1]. AFAIK, a majority of these big datacenters are going to produce their power via natural gas turbines. I don't know of any that are actually planning on powering themselves via renewables or even nuclear power.
The sub 100MW data centers are mostly relying on the grid, but even a number of them plan on having natural gas turbines.
I agree, that'd be a great way to approach things. The problem is a lot of the regulators are instead looking at doing tax breaks for these data centers when they should be taxing them (and other businesses) for the externalities of the problems they'll cause.
That's roughly 250x more than it would cost to perform this stunt using on-demand Cloud Bigtable, if my math checks out (~1150 nodes @ 85¢/hour for 1h).
yeah, this is a definitely a "best case" workload for a sharded database. Single row reads on the key used to shard with no hotspots (no shard to shard network traffic at all).
reply