A18 Pro offers 44% better single thread performance and similar multi-thread performance as the M1 processor.
The Neo should offer similar if not better performace as the first round of entry level Macbook Pro/Mini/Airs that Apple launched in 2020 with the M1 chip.
I am one of the people who uninstalled ChatGPT and closed their account and installed Claude in the last 24 hours. I know plenty of others who did the same. I wonder whether this trend can be sustained.
Yes, but a visa stamp renewal is a visa “application” while the document that allows the application is the “petition”, which is the word used on this text and the step requiring the payment.
"Section 1. Restriction on Entry. (a) ... the entry into the United States..., is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000".
OK, if I consider this interpretation, which of the following do you think will apply to already-approved H-1B petitioners:
1. Existing H-1B holder can amend their already-approved petition by "supplementing a payment" to become eligible for a visa and re-entry.
2. It's not possible to amend an already-approved H-1B petition. So existing H-1B holders can never satisfy the requirement. They cannot re-enter with H-1B visa anymore.
3. This EO is not retrospective. So already-approved H-1B petitioners (with or without visa) are fine.
I’m not not a lawyer at all and I have no real idea. My guess is that existing visas are already printed and henceforth there is no petition anymore, you have a status or visa already. Since the old petition didn’t require the payment, you don’t need to show proof of payment now. But lol if I actually know how this works, can be anyone’s guess.
My guess is that if this goes forward new h1b visas petitioned while the worker is outside the US will have a line saying “must show proof of payment” or something like that, while petitions while in the US won’t have that line on their visa stamp
I'm probably missing something but I never got the Merchant being on the hook for the chargeback. It should be the Credit Card Processor's liability for fraudulent charges (unless the merchant is actually at fault). If a stolen card is used to make a purchase, why is the merchant on the hook for this?