Good thing we learned from that.

I’m assuming that if it is driven by tech, there will be offices for the major companies there. The developers will make it appealing for major tech firms to invest somehow.

I mean I don’t like capitalism, but this is just capitalism. I appreciate that there is emotion in it, but it’s not as personal as bullying is and I think you are misusing the term bullying altogether. Bullying is a personal attack, this isn’t personal and doesn’t impact an individual in the same way bullying does.

Doesn’t make it right, but this is not bullying. Also, bullying isn’t illegal in any context. You’d have to argue for a hostile work environment and saying your job moved isn’t a hostile work environment.

These appear to be predominantly corporate jobs. Those folks can go to either a tech company or a logistics company depending on their role. Their skillsets transfer just fine to other companies, competitors or not.

Most of Amazon functions this way at this point. It didn’t used to be so bad, but things really went to shit with some belt tightening in 2017/2018 where management wasn’t thoughtful. It was more about networking than a meritocracy.

As an Ex Amazonian, (did 5 years time in the Bezos era), you all are forgetting that Amazon’s entire culture is built to be predatory towards type A people. Jassy didn’t start that, Bezos did. Jassy is just relentless because of AWS operations. He’s not better or worse than Besos.

Please explain what ypu think “workplace bullying” is here. While I think it’s stupid, in at will states, Amazon’s terms of employment can be whatever Amazon wants as long as they comply with federal and state laws. It’s not illegal to tell you your job is moving. It’s just a shitty thing to do to your employees. There’s not bullying here. It’s just terms of employment.

If you ask me, you are only taking the capitalist perspective by focusing solely on the fact that TSMC can do this cheaper elsewhere and doesn’t need America. That’s explicitly not the point of this whole exercise. It’s not an exercise in capitalism, it’s to start to reduce our dependency on other nations. That’s a national security risk that became painfully obvious during the Pandemic.

I agree it is a complicated issue and it’s not even really being presented as capitalists are bad. The way the headlines are being run is trying to claim that we lack the skillset in America, which is not true. We lack the skillset at a cheap price because cost of living and labor are higher in the US. Bringing an entire industry home is going to be complicated in a lot of aspects. We haven’t even started tackling the environmental stuff publicly.

Yeah, but tech workers get paid six figures and TSMC doesn’t want to pay the workers. This issue isn’t that Americans lack the skills. The issue is that TMSC doesn’t want to pay for skilled American labor. In Taiwan they don’t have to. This whole situation is why Thomas Friedman’s theory on globalization was wrong.

Because they don’t want to lose grasp on the chip market. Semiconductors will be made in the US. Better for them to capture the market than try to compete with it.

Also, why should we put up with their crap? The whole point is to diversify where we get semiconductors and not be so dependent on Asia. We actually need to figure this out in a way that doesn’t result in underpaid Americans.

Jokes aside, this is basically the price point for a really good principal engineer, so yes they expect 15 years of experience with AI technology (and it’s foundational roots in ML, modeling, etc).

Who is digging in a hole? I just disproved your statement outright and that’s only a single thread I could pull on at this point.

A little summary of the situation: You said you grabbed the wrong quote. I agreed with implicitly on that and noted how all over the place you were just trying to find any reason to disagree with me. So you shifted to claiming that you didn’t use wrong quotes, that you never quoted me at all. I show you that you did quote me. Then you shift back to saying you did have the wrong argument/quote to begin with. Somehow you think this makes me look as though I am digging? Ok.

You seem to be under the impression that school administration are an exception and not the rule.

Nothing I stated indicated I am under this impression. Again, speaking to a subset of the population (school administrators) in context of conversation about that population does not necessitate it is an exception of the superset. I can draw you pictures on why this inference you made is flawed, but I see no point in that.

Bro, are you on drugs?

The text below is your entire comment before your updated quote comment. It contains a section where you quoted me. So it’s not that you neglected to quote. At this point I don’t even know what you are talking about. You’re all over the place.

You seem to be under the impression that school administration are an exception and not the rule.

They will fight you to get you to conform.

Stripping out the somewhat bizarre manipulative language, yes, of course any organization is going to want you to use their systems to streamline their processes; it’s far more efficient to have everyone using the same the system than for it to be a hodgepodge of different methods to achieve the same goal. Does that really strike you as odd?”

Again, saying that a subset of the population is illogical does not preclude the larger population from being illogical. You inferred incorrectly.

At this point you’re just looking for quotes to try to “correct” and grabbing the wrong quotes. Weird way to spend your time trying to disagree with someone when there is no disagreement.

No it is not odd. I’m not even sure why you are disagreeing with me at this point. I made an off the cuff comment you felt compelled to “correct.” I picked one population potentially impacted by a stupid policy. I did not say it was the only population potentially impacted by a policy. I’m simply speaking colloquially more than anything. Why you feel compelled to read so much into that, I do not know.

Ah, I get what you are saying now!

Obviously they will figure out how to get a kid to their parents are not going to kidnap a child. I’m also aware that there are reasons other than being poor to not have a cellphone. Again, you are thinking logically and not like a school administration. It is my experience that school administrators can be quite illogical. If you don’t want to use a phone, you are 100% going to end up fighting with school staff. They’re not going to like exceptions to their processes for any reason. They will fight you to get you to conform. It’s a school after all.

Reviews have always been like this. If you pay enough attention, you’ll find plenty of sellers who abuse that.

I would not be so positive. Schools aren’t well known for thinking policies through completely. Good chance this person lives in an area that has high enough income that they would just tell poor people to not be poor and get the app.

Yes, this is what gets me too. If they had sounded the sirens, people are taught to take a certain action. That action (get to higher ground) would have caused a different type of confusion. So I can understand that some government employees sat there discussing it and ruled it out because the action they needed people to take, was not going to happen with the siren. I really don’t know what they would have told me people to do. Everything was moving so fast that giving coordinated evacuation instructions would have been damn near impossible. I don’t think the warning systems really would have done much, when you think through it.