I've tried all kinds of approaches. The only ones that ever worked were based purely on the person communicated to, not how I communicated. (ie, the person cared)
I've had nice conversations about it, the person listened, but was only able to be reasonable quiet for a short period of time. And then simply reverted. (they didn't care)
I found the best solution was simply to face this head on and deaden my reactions to it. This reduced my reactions to a living tolerable level.
Well, that's just you not empathizing with them. Chewing is not too different from walking. Imagine if someone told you they think your gait is too short, and could you take longer steps. How long would you be able to hold your affected gait before going back to your optimal gait?
I've had near violent reactions from people when I said "I can hear you chewing." I was a mild and meek kid, and this was after they acknowledged the noise they made.
Any subconscious behavior has to be controlled with a lot of effort and focus to change.
Almost no one I have ever met has changed a subconscious behavior, just because I asked in a certain way.
Walking can be met half way, or I can adjust _my_ gait to match there's. There's no equivalent to an irritating behavior.
I have a close relationship with a Chinese national that is going through the US immigration process.
His view on situations like this are enlightening.
He knows the difference between true dictatorships and political wranglings in the news. No system is perfect, and bad things happen to good people every day.
In this circumstance, it looks like this person didn't follow all the appropriate rules related to the entering the US. (visa issues)
My Chinese friend does not understand why people try to break the rules, get caught, and cry foul. Your treatment in his home country would be considerably worse. He is following all the laws to get US citizenship. Should his due diligence be considered a waste of time?
I also had a relative that overstayed her visa in a foreign country and was constantly afraid of being deported. Why should the expectations of foreigners in US be different from every other country in the world?
She was refused to enter the US, which is fine, this is the US rights to deny if you don't follow due process. But she didn't try to hide it or overstay her visa, she was coming through the border and was forthcoming about applying for the visa.
But instead of sending her back, they put her in jail for 2 weeks. Could have been longer without media attention. There was no process for her, once within the walls, to get herself out.
> Why should the expectations of foreigners in US be different from every other country in the world?
Are you telling me this is common in any other country in the world to be denied entry and then put in jail instead of just be sent back?
The norm pretty much worldwide is that if you present yourself at a border crossing and are found inadmissible, you are refused entry and turned around. Some people have wrongly used the word "deport", but that isn't what it is: Technically she will have never even been in the country until granted entry, so she should have just been refused entry.
She didn't sneak into the US and get caught walking through the desert. She didn't overstay an expired visa. She did what she was legally required to do and presented herself at a lawful border crossing to apply for the necessary visa. And for those who note that she previously had been refused the same visa, by her story the conditions of her visa had changed leading to a new, unrelated application, which again is how it is supposed to work.
And when they refuse that visa, thus denying entry, they say "sorry, you can't come in" and you have to go back to where you came from, which in this case was Mexico. Even if she flew in on an international flight and they refused entry they would make her stay in the international terminal (which is technically not "in" country) until a flight out happens.
That she was quite literally arrested on some unknown pretence is bizarre, and seems like the "feed the private prison" ploy.
Of course police in the US are now demanding that Canadians answer the question "Canada or the United States", so zero Canadians should be travelling in that country. Law has broken down into some bizarre, hyper-partisan charade, and the end result is going to be civil war.
> treatment in his home country would be considerably worse.
If you enter PRC on bad VISA you chill at the airport transit area and deported on next available flight. None of this for profit multi week detention to milk ICE contracts.
And if you come back and try again at a different location? Customs checks aren't perfect so it makes sense to up the consequences if you are found to be trying to work around them.
This system was recommended to me from an old veteran manufacturing expert that was one of the consultants on an ERP implementation. The brilliance that this brought was anyone could easily pick up the inventory and restocking process. But the people that got in the way of this were people that thought it was "dumb". One person already knew all the bits and pieces and this was just extra work. (she was leaving the company in a few months...) The people that liked this idea were the new people that were replacing the older people, and people that only worked with the inventory periodically, so didn't have ingrained knowledge. (also, the part numbers were inconsistent and many other small issues that new people struggled with)
But, the grumpy and the veterans won out, because they just didn't see the value in making a change like this. sigh
According to this article, Canada rejected her entry as well. Maybe it's not just the US, but this person actually had a real issue with her visa and her travel plans were not prepared well.
"...when she reached the border [Canada], Mr Burke said the Canadian authorities denied her entry as they were concerned she may try to work illegally."
Most people I met when homeless didn't want the help the government offered. There's a direct conflict between people who lead and those that actually want to help.
Unfortunately, a lot of the homeless I knew were very proud, arrogant, angry, bitter and many other emotions that made it nearly impossible to get them to take care of themselves through any intervention.
And if people refuse to take care of themselves, they will always be in a state where they need others to step in. Once they become destructive to society, I don't think any expectation of mercy from leadership should be expected. That leads to the situations we currently see in some places today.
It's not the lack of shelter that's the issue. There's plenty of shelter and housing if you want it.
When programming, when engineering, I often run into these sorts of intractable problems.
Changing the rules, changing the preconditions or some aspect of the problem itself, that's usually how I solve them.
In this article, it looks like the Park Ranger is changing the rules by making the system work for the person who is experiencing homelessness instead of forcing the person to go alone into a system that they don't like and they don't necessarily see the value of.
SO it is possible to fix with the appropriate smart thinking and willingness to maintain multiple simultaneous perspectives, it seems.
I have a friend who is a foreigner, and is in a master's CS degree program in the US. He's married to an American woman as of a few months ago.
What is the reasonable amount of time it should take for him to be able to get a green card and work here in the US?
And is there something he can do to help expedite any process(es) (maybe not a greencard?) so he can legally work and support himself and his new family?
Largely because of the Biden administration's policy of waiving the in-person interview requirement in marriage-based green card cases, the process has been very fast over the last 4 years, often taking less than 6 months from the time of filing until the approval of the green card application. If the new administration brings back the interview requirement, then I suspect that the processing time will go back to what it was before, which typically was at least 1 year. While a green card applicant is waiting for their green card application to be reviewed and approved, they will receive a temporary work card. The processing of work card applications is all over the place but has been better over the past 2 years and can take less than 3 months now (although it also can take much longer). There is a way to request expedited approval of a work card application but the standard is high. Instructions for requesting expedite review of an immigration application are available on the USCIS web site.
You are missing a critical point. Before this, there was likely no proof that people could share or rely on to question if _any_ ghost could be an illusion.
This is very important to future critical thinking because this gave people evidence to back up being skeptical for future illusions that they can't immediately explain.
When I see a card magic trick, for all intents and purposes it "appears" magic. Once I learn _one_ card trick, I start to realize it's not magic. Regardless if I can prove anything or not.
This same applies here with ghosts. People needed to know they _could_ be fooled, how it was done doesn't matter, because people were being scammed and were afraid of things that weren't ghosts.
Proving something is a ghost has never been done, so ghost scams is a good thing to educate people on.
> With most Work for Hire agreements in the US, the client owns the code..
I think you have this backwards. By default the creator owns the code. (unless you agree in writing otherwise) Some exceptions I am aware of (IANAL) is if you are an employee, then the employer owns the code by default.
Under the "work for hire" clause, I think (?) that if you are commissioned for the work as an individual, you should have the copyright by default but may not have the copyright based on agreements made. But if you are commissioned as a business entity, your business entity would own the copyright. (again, unless explicitly agreed otherwise)
If someone else can chime here, as I may be wrong on this.
That's true of code developed in the absence of a working agreement. What GP meant, I assume, was that in _most_ cases, when you freelance or contract with a business with a MSA or other contract, that contract is going to specify that the work performed is WFH. Default ownership of copyright and code doesn't apply in this case.
But, if for some reason the agreement didn't specifically note the work performed as WFH then yes, the developer still owns the copyright to code they worked on. Where it gets muddy as hell is when you work with a team, some of whom may be other contractors and some of whom may be employees of the client.
I have signed a number of work agreements when being hired by a number of US companies.
They all clearly state that I transfer all rights, including the copyright, to the company. But it only applies to the code I write using company's technical means, or otherwise as a part of doing my job.
(Hence I keep any private stuff on my own laptop, never on company's.)
