There was a recent high profile of a case where a woman in Tennessee was accused of a crime in North Dakota. She spent months in jail, where she lost her car, home, and her dog. She was not even in the right state, and her life was destroyed.
> it's just suddenly defense attorneys care because of the immigration/deportation angle instead of just someone losing their home, job, car, life.
1.) This has nothing to do with defense attorneys who are not available in these cases nor dealing with them.
2.) The scale of it is massively larger.
3.) The defense attorneys were actually talking about it for years, I know because I read about similar issues for years. And I am not particularly interested in legal system.
There is that rhetorical trick where people just assume that since they just learned about something, professionals dealing with these issues were oblivious too.
The key word in 'it's just suddenly defense attorneys care' being 'care'. Nowhere did I say defense attorneys were oblivious.
Defense attorneys could boycott the system and force reform. How old is the saying 'you can beat the rap, but not the ride' now? You are right, defense attorneys have known that the justice system can destroy anyone just for being a target, for a very long time. I guess I should have written 'they suddenly have energy to challenge it'.
Weird, why is it morally right for anyone to work with immoral organizations? -- That's what's in the focus, right?
Whether the current government is immoral, or if government can be philosophically immoral is up to debate. But your question sounds like a deflection to me.
Heya pigpag. Your account seems to be shadowbanned, even though your comments seem normal. If you want people to be able to see your comments I reccomend creating a new account or appealing to hn@ycombinator.com
This is simply not (always) true. Spotify injects ads for Podcasts even for paying users. YouTube has tons of videos with adds built-in by content creators.
Yep, and a lot of the streaming services listed also inject ads for their own shows into the "ad-free" tier's content (before it begins). Plus ads on the home-page.
I dunno, I think it's clearly different if Spotify is using their platform to inject the ads vs the creators creating the content with ads included.
Like if Netflix let showrunners inject ads into their shows and provided a technical platform for that, and the Stranger Things creators added ads to every episode... nobody would be like "it's not Netflix showing ads, it's the Stranger Things creators".
In a democratic society, complaining is very important. It is probably why, by people complaining about a 5% inflation, the government had to take drastic moves to suppress it.
If you don't complain, you eventually won't be able to complain. If you can't complain, you take anything shoveled to you by the government, poverty being the foremost.
> It is probably why, by people complaining about a 5% inflation, the government had to take drastic moves to suppress it.
This is only a half-truth. Complaints are only worth respecting if people hold their governments accountable. There's a reason why single-payer healthcare polls higher than either party in the US. Inflation gets attention because it affects a minority of the population that matters more.
Some people had good financial discipline and still fell into poverty due to business catastrophes, accidents or health problems. We need better systems to provide shields for those people, be it bankruptcy laws, universal insurance or healthcare.
Others live in unhabitable environments that can never sustain a viable economy. Until humanity finds technologies to address those environmental issues, they can never get out of poverty.
Then there are always people who are reckless and irresponsible. They are black holes of resources. Some can be educated while others do deserve to be poor. It's based their own decisions and I don't see a moral issue to leave them alone.
I’d say 99% of the poor are in the first two categories. So I don’t really care if the third category gets some stuff too if it means we help everyone else.
The spectre of the "wasteful welfare recipient" is invoked constantly, but I've never seen any of these people. The poor people I've known are, by necessity, quite careful with money.
I don't understand. I thought politicians are a subset of the people. If millions are aware of the issue and the speech, why would the politicians be oblivious?
$100k filing fee cannot be legally viable. But I support the direction in general. There is virtually no gate control, causing the visa category to be flooded by fraudulent applications (including unqualified hires, duplicate lottery shots). H1B visas are initially designed for economic efficiency, so using monetary means to control it is justifiable.
It depends how this is implemented but I think that only “rich” people including criminals will use this as a way to bring undesirable people in. Again it spends on implementation but when you’re “paying” for someone to enter , is there extra leeway on the approval ? How strict will the entry requirements be ?
There’s no gatekeeping on any tech job, and it’s on purpose so big corps can abuse the system and lower the wages, while they make billions. It should be regulated to prevent abuse, that’s hurting everyone except corps.
reply