How do you generate RSS feeds for sites that do not expose native RSS endpoints (e.g., Twitter pages without Nitter or YouTube pages)? Additionally, how do you classify the extracted content into topics?
This question arises from the current regime's efforts to reverse naturalization.
For anyone who has one US citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, where the citizen parent has passed before the child applicant for naturalization reaches 18 years of age, resulting in the applicant applying for and receiving naturalization as an adult, can that same currently naturalized citizen also obtain natural born citizenship status through the deceased citizen parent and would it be advisable?
If I understand you correctly, you are asking whether the naturalized citizen was a citizen at birth based on his or her father's citizenship. To answer that question, we would need to know when the naturalized citizen was born and the countries where the naturalized citizen's U.S. citizen parent lived from birth until the birth of the naturalized citizen.
Thanks, you got it right. 1970 is the birth year and father lived in the United States for decades prior but had a child while out of the country, the naturalized citizen. The question is really about whether natural born citizenship is available to children of an American citizen when the child is born abroad, but the parent was deceased before majority age. Naturalization would probably be sufficient, but given that even naturalization is theoretically at risk, maybe obtaining outright natural born status is better insurance. There is an N-form for this sort of thing.
2008 TARP for Wall Street? Corporate tax breaks that were unfunded and yielded $2 trillion in cash reserves decidedly not funneled down to working people. Sounds like socialism for institutions too big to fail, but not for people who needed it (70% of Americans with less than $1,000 in savings for emergencies).
How long will this situation continue before the house of cards tumbles down?
What nonsense is this? The St. Louis Federal Reserve documented most inflation was due to profit seeking (gouging), not QE—that’s right wing libertarian drivel.
Profit seeking is normal behaviour. The economic system normally keeps it in check through competition. If it's not kept in check it's because of the economic conditions.
This comment is historically and intellectually uninformed, i.e., devoid of understanding about the antecedents and relationships between what is driving todays rise of the right, which is a populist counterrevolution to the 60s and beyond’s postmodernism-fueled culture wars, which elevated the marginalized and women, and served as a strategic distraction while the elite locked in wealth extract ion from below and minority rule by manufacturing a pervasive epistemic crisis.
Utter nonsense. Productivity gains of the last 40 years have been captured by shareholders and top elites. Working class wages have been flat all of that time despite that gain.
In 2012, Musk was worth $2 billion. He’s now worth 223 times that yet the minimum wage has barely budged in the last 12 years as productivity rises.
>>Productivity gains increase the standard of living for everyone.
>Productivity gains of the last 40 years have been captured by shareholders and top elites. Working class wages have been flat...
Wages do not determine the standard of living. The products and services purchased with wages determine the standard of living. "Top elites" in 1984 could already afford cellular phones, such as the Motorola DynaTAC:
>A full charge took roughly 10 hours, and it offered 30 minutes of talk time. It also offered an LED display for dialing or recall of one of 30 phone numbers. It was priced at US$3,995 in 1984, its commercial release year, equivalent to $11,716 in 2023.
What a patently absurd POV! A phone doesn’t compensate for the inability to solve for basic needs - housing, healthy food, healthcare. Or being unable to invest in skill development for themselves or their offspring, save for retirement.
It is also highly likely that the cost of that phone was externalized onto a worker in a poorer country that doesn’t even have basic necessity like a running water, 24 hour electricity, food security, etc.
Most of it is made in China, China isn't that poor any more it is like Mexico so people have running water and food security and way more than that as well.
Hey, thanks for your question! My goal is to keep the app as flexible as possible for the user. Right now, users have complete freedom to create their own tasks, manage them how they want, and organize their workflow in a way that suits them best. I don't plan on imposing rigid structures or methods—it's all about giving users control over how they track their time and complete their tasks.
600,000 homeless times $10,000 per tiny home, clustered where social services are made available, voila, the problem is solved for $6 billion, which is nothing, excluding the cost of those social services.
The issue is really there is a lack of genuine desire to solve the problem because the cruelty and baked-in lies within American self-reliance philosophy put such a solution outside the Overton window of what is possible.
Instead of a one-time investment, we dump more than $6 billion into the problem but never solve it.
Throwing money and houses at the problem has failed many, many times before. “just put a bunch of houses where social services are” is profoundly unrealistic. are there any areas that aren’t already developed heavily that would even qualify? social services are already criminally underfunded.
Even if you could do this for your extremely underestimated price tag, getting the “chronically” homeless (the people on the street we typically imagine as the homeless) to maintain a property without being a nuisance to neighbors and actually use the social services would require an entirely new social service of its own, with legions case workers being assigned to people, etc.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t build more cheap housing near social services, but I think statements like this profoundly underestimate and trivialize a problem that goes very deep - namely, the complete lack of societal safety nets and access to quality healthcare, all of which is exacerbated by a lack of housing.
You make it sound so simple, but the devil is in the details. You've not even gone into the high level details, let alone the low level details. Each level adds more complexity and more cost.
At the highest level, obviously the problem can't be solved with a one time purchase of 600k homes. The homes will be worn out and require replacing, some of them very rapidly, and their number will need to grow with time as new people requiring homes come to the city or drop out of regular housing. How many more homes do you need to build each year after the initial batch?
Furthermore, this number of homes has an infrastructure cost which isn't captured in your 10k figure. How much does it cost to hook each one into the grid, water and sewage? Without these they will be spoiled immediately.
And what of the land cost? Tiny homes aren't usually high rises, so you'll be creating tiny home suburban sprawl. Where do you put it? It should be close to city services, otherwise you might as well make it a camp in the wilderness. But it would be an inefficient use of space close to the city where land is generally valuable, and the cost of the land needs to be factored into it.
Furthermore you need to consider the impact to property values this housing project will have. Reduced property values means reduced revenue, from property taxes, from the city. This should be included in the cost of the project when proposing it.
Not so fast: my daughter could not afford Khan’s tutoring service at a crucial time in her development. I was out of work, had depleted our savings supporting the family, and couldn’t afford it. I pleaded for a waiver. The answer was no and basically “go eff myself.” My daughter lost all confidence in her math aptitude. Her teachers never alerted us as parents about her progress. We’ve been repairing the damage ever since.
