It's too bad that no immigrants work in construction to build more housing. If we could import lower cost laborers to build houses, that would greatly improve the housing affordability problem, but sadly, every time I go past a construction site, all I see are white guys whose great-great-great grandparents came over on the Mayflower.
Your parent was trying to be sarcastic that native WASPS are above working on construction sites and only migrants can do that.
Here in the EU where I was talking about, it's different, it's mostly European whites on construction sites, not WASPS, but intra-European migrants from balkans and eastern europe.
So here we literally gained nothing from the mass migration from africa and middle east except more housing demand instead of more skilled labor for building houses, contrary to the pro-migration propaganda.
> is there any country an immigrant can move to, and better their lives as well as the locals' life/economy?
The United States.
> It seems the world is turning hostile to immigration in general - or maybe it is just the impression I get from the media?
The world is turning hostile to immigration because the media (and social media sites) highlight and repeat the bad anecdotes, while barely mentioning the actual data showing positive outcomes.
What data suggests there is a positive outcome for the first world in integrating with the third world? Because my data suggests we're enthusiastically recreating the conditions that led to the Yugoslav civil wars.
And even you know it; I saw your other comment before you deleted it. You are well aware that there is a tipping point, and expressed disappointment that natives are resistant to the path that leads to it. It's like you want there to be ethnic violence.
Yea but the visa law is horrendous tho. 60 days hard deadline if unemployed, CBP invalidating H1B for reasons, can't return if you got laid off out of country, and whatever Trump did recently that made people worry to fly outside the country. Not to mention the brutal green card line.
By that argument, why should any musician get anything? They're not paying royalties to the musicians who they listened to in the past and whose songs they trained on while they learned to play.
An LLM can be a tool to make music. So is a synthesizer. So is a drum machine. So is a drum set. So is a piano. So is a guitar.
Should everyone who used an 808 or autotune or amplifier distortion have their music be demonetized? Or is the line on acceptable new technology drawn at exactly the moment you became an adult?
This is the first time I have seen refusing to pay bribes framed as a moral failing and character flaw.
Perhaps it's not that he "didn't understand he was supposed to bribe" but rather that he thought that system was bad and antiquated and that he was taking a principled stand for the modern (of the time) technology industry to move away from those historical norms.
Bribes are a feature of politically-controlled economies, not a bug.
Thirty years ago when this was all going down, I believed the narratives of the time. Greedy Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer pushing IBM's OS/2 out of the consumer market with aggressive DOS and Windows OEM deals.
I mean, they absolutely did do that, but I think the motivation was competitive survival.
The Steve Ballmer interview really shed a lot of light on this, particularly the portion about the IBM and Microsoft OS/2 divorce: https://youtu.be/CYC49_aeop0?t=1476
I find it simultaneously amusing and depressing that you took my comment as a promotion of bribery, rather than a stark commentary on the sytemic corruption that has destroyed Americas democracy, and is destroying liberal democracies worldwide.
How the system has self-corrected to empower the most greedy and sociopathic of behaviours, across all private and public institutions, the entire time; so much so that the average person can't even comprehend the root causes, or any solution beyond a simple band-aid non-solution.
You've picked a handful of consumer goods which have become cheaper due to technology and used them to construct a narrative entirely opposite of reality.
It would be more accurate to say the baby boomers could "work as a grunt and get what their children only dreampt of"
Single-income households, lifelong employment at the same company, people buying houses at 23 and having kids at 25, pensions, affordable health insurance, inexpensive college, people working their way up from the mail room to the C-suite. All taken for granted as typical, middle-America norms a few decades ago, but utterly unrecognizable to Millenials and Gen-Z.
Yes, people today have big TVs and air fryers. And they can use them to self-medicate briefly against the anxiety of rent that takes 40% of their post-tax income, student loans they'll be paying for the next decade and the knowledge that the whims of executives they've never met could make them lose their job tomorrow and be faced with a loss of healthcare and housing in short order.
Most people would happily downgrade their TV and drive a lower horsepower car in exchange for stable employment, no debts, no retirement worries and a spouse who doesn't have to work a corporate job.
The problem is on a thread where there is 1 AI post, people will identify 10 posts as being AI.
People latch onto the word "delve" or an em-dash or the idiom of "it's not X it's Y" as being proof that something was written by AI, without ever considering that AI is largely just writing in the style of how internet commenters write since that's a lot of the training data.
Now we've got students re-writing their homework to avoid looking like AI and commenters self-censoring against words and phrases that trigger AI suspicion.
I'm deeply skeptical that people can correctly identify human-written vs latest AI model written HN comments with sufficient accuracy.
OP was presumably not asking literally because they thought this was the best way to find out, they were doing so rhetorically to point out that Andrew Tate is not a person of any real significance or mainstream notoriety, who has garnered a weird amount of attention from a tiny set of terminally online people.
Basically, talking about him should be beneath the New Yorker, and the choice to publish about him drags a weird little pocket of the deep internet into the mainstream, in a way that makes us all worse off.
It's 2026. LLMs are integrated into text editors the same way as spell checkers and grammar checkers. Even if people write things themselves, they likely are using LLMs to review and edit.
This isn't a bot pretending to be a human, this is an official announcement from a company. It's going to be written by a committee and edited by legal and PR and marketing anyway. Who cares if one (or several) of those steps used an LLM.
Yes? Can’t take 10 minutes to speak (or at least redraft) with your own voice?
I’ve written PR copy solo, and in committee. It’s not rocket surgery. It’s a group of people standing around with a thesaurus. But if you leave AI-isms in, just feels like you whipped it out while coffee was brewing.
I'm still deciding how I feel about LLM generated text in situations like this. My struggle is that the content is what matters and complaining about use of an LLM is like complaining that someone didn't work hard enough. I'm not sure I value how hard they worked to craft it or the exact words, I value the content itself.
This isn't true in something like fictional content, but...
So you've used AI to do fraud and you're confused why people are opposed to this?
You're the reason companies are pushing return to office and putting candidates through gauntlets of interviews and homework - because otherwise they end up hiring someone who lied on their resume and is trying to collect 3 salaries until they get caught and fired.
> Using AI, I've been able to land several interviews and work 3 jobs remotely currently without much effort
Working 3 jobs is almost certainly defrauding the employers, your employment agreement likely forbids this due to IP ownership issues and expectations that you're, ya know, working for them when they're paying you and not secretly collecting a paycheck while working for a different company during the time they're paying you to work for them?
Also, unclear if you're also fraudulently claiming experience you don't have by having AI write a resume tailored to the job posting rather than representing what you've actually done.
If your 3 jobs are actually part-time jobs, with clearly delineated and compartmentalized time and work tracking and the employers are aware and the contracts allow that, then fine. But your description definitely reads like someone bragging that they're hacking the system to get away with tricking multiple employers into thinking you're working full time for them.
Not paid hourly rate and we are about delivering milestones on time
Everyone is satisfied with the rate of PRs closed and fine with AI use
I'm still waiting to hear what part of this is fraud?
> Also, unclear if you're also fraudulently claiming experience you don't have by having AI write a resume tailored to the job posting rather than representing what you've actually done.
Where have I said to use AI to fabricate experience? Do you actually believe that will work and thats what people are doing before background checks ?
I think the "fraud" they are likely referring to is working 3 jobs at the same time as a software developer. Do all of the jobs know you have 2 others in the same line of work? If you're a consultant and advertise as such, no big deal imo, but I do think there is something to be said if you can't be honest with all of your employers about what other work is on your plate.
Programming is by definition technical work that requires a significant amount of brain power and focus and if I am an employer (a good one!) I would intuitively expect a certain level of focus from each employee that also entails a certain amount of downtime in order to stay fresh and alert.
This is my attempt at a steel-man of their argument. If your employer(s) is happy with your output and you aren't lying about your availability in order to juggle everything, then there is no harm imo.
> No they don't know and if they did I would get fired obviously.
This already shows the problem. They assume they are paying for your time exclusively, while you are doing just enough to satisfy them.
The fact you go such lengths to hide the fact that you are three timing them also shows that you know what you are doing is not acceptable.
Most likely you are in breach of the employment contract.
You are also somehow justifying this to yourself. The problem is that such behavior causes loss of trust and makes other 95% of honest peoples' life painful.
I don't see an issue since they are happy with my output. Who's getting hurt here ? That I'm working more efficiently then someone hired to do the job 9-5 ?
so you want me to make less money, couple myself to an employer who doesn't offer any upward mobility or job stability because you think its immoral that finally the dynamics have tipped the balancing pole in the workers favor?
People who are getting hurt are people like you and me. Employers are seeing your comments. They are reading about others who do this. They are losing trust. When they pay you, they expect you to work for them diligently and not just up to a level of KPI. This behavior will make them to force people to come to work. Remote working will be gone. They will start paying less because they expect people to two time anyway. Overall society loses due to loss of trust.
So you gain something, but society as a whole loses.
P.S. Even if my wife is very happy with me, it doesn't mean that I can have another relationship. Either I have an agreed open marriage or I am cheating. A different thing, but I would say similar.
Breach of contract is a civil issue, they could probably fire you without recourse (contract is void) but that's the extent of it if you didn't do anything else wrong.
> No they don't know and if they did I would get fired obviously
And yet, above, you're still asking where the fraud is. You clearly know you're violating the terms of your employment agreement. That's the fraud. It's not complex.
A breach of contract, if there even is one, is not magically fraud because you dislike it or find it offensive. Fraud requires damages. So be specific:
What damages occurred if the work was delivered and accepted and both parties are satisfied?
the employer would be upset if they knew thats your assumption. But that’s not fraud that’s you projecting your own morals here over and over out of jealousy
