Once they are established they will require a subscription, or they will stop support after a few years so you have to buy a new car or pay more to get extended support.
> Once they are established they will require a subscription, or they will stop support after a few years so you have to buy a new car or pay more to get extended support
> its how vendor lock in and deceptive pricing work
Which doesn’t work for a commodity. If self-driving fails to commoditise, you’re right. It currently looks like it’s going to be commoditises, with every car-industrial cluster having a couple options for manufacturers.
While safety does play a role, it isn't the primary driver of decisions.
For example, if consumers were truly worried about safety, most consumers wouldn't drive without seatbelts or car seats for minors.
Across Asia - be it India, Vietnam, China, or Korea - traditional norms remain strong, and not being able to even afford a $4-6k car bodes poorly on your earning power and thus your marriageability given that traditional status milestones like a 2LDK, kids educated at private school, destination tourism, and higher education abroad are difficult if you cannot afford that.
All that is true, but I was not claiming it is the primary driver, but that safety and comfort mattered too.
With seatbelts I think the biggest problem is most people simply do not understand how much safer you are if you wear seatbelts - people who will pay a premium for a "safer" car and not wear seatbelts.
I as not familiar with the term 2LDK. it seems to be a Japanese term for a two bed flat? The places I know are less crowded and the equivalent would be a house or somewhere a lot bigger (at least for anyone who could afford higher education abroad).
> All that is true, but I was not claiming it is the primary driver, but that safety and comfort mattered too.
Absolutely! Though comfort would be rated much higher than safety.
> I as not familiar with the term 2LDK. it seems to be a Japanese term for a two bed flat? The places I know are less crowded and the equivalent would be a house or somewhere a lot bigger (at least for anyone who could afford higher education abroad).
In India and Vietnam, a 2 or 3 bedroom flat/condo would often be part of a gated community/society that includes 24/7 security, park/greenspace, gym, swimming pool, playgrounds, and schools, and would have a mall across the street that includes a mix of Western (eg. McD, Starbucks, Levi's) and domestic (eg. Chaayos, Third Wave, VinFast) aspirational brands.
A good example would probably be this gated community/society [0] in a Tier 3 industrial town called Bhiwadi - most residents would be working as Mechanical, Automotive, Chemical, Electronics, Tooling, Semiconductor, and Automation Engineers or Managers at companies like Honda, Tata, Saint-Gobain, Lumax, Maruti Suzuki, Motherson, or Sahasra with a take-home in the $8-20k range (and with 0% income tax below $13k). This is the Indian (and Vietnamese) Dream.
Most of the residents will have studied in regional engineering colleges and polytechnics and then started off as trainees, and have close familial roots in the region, as regional mobility in India is extremely low [1], and as such factories have decided to move to small towns and Tier 2/3/4 cities in order to be closer to labor. You this all over India like in Mysore with DigiLens [2], Anantapuram with Hyundai-Kia [3] Baddi with AstraZeneca [4], and others. Even in my ancestral village, there has been a wind turbine factory operating since the mid-2000s that exports to the US and Western Europe, and a home-turned-EV battery factory operating since the early 2010s that exports to ASEAN.
In Vietnam it's the same story except labor moves away from small towns to megacities because in much of VN, the rural safety net (derisively called "freebies" in India) is weak-to-nonexistent pushing labor migration away from small towns to Saigon, Hanoi, and Haiphong.
Finally, at $10-20k/year, international education isn't that expensive - at that income you can get a loan term for US$20k-25k/yr, which is what international tuition (including dorm fees) tend to cost in the UK, Australia, and Canada - people in the Tier 2 and below middle class don't know the difference between Oxford and Oxford Brookes, and crap tier universities in the Commonwealth take advantage of that (eg. Oxford Brookes and RMIT), pissing off domestic students and leading to the immigration backlash and pissing off Indians and Vietnamese who are starting to view British and Australian services as an inferior good. The same thing happened in China a decade ago as well.
I am a bit confused about this. Is that a list of things you needed to open a bank account? Or a list of things for which you needed to show ID?
I am not sure a government digital ID would help with dealing with businesses.
Right to rent is a stupid and useless bit of bureaucracy which encourages racism - its much easier for landlords not to rent to someone who looks or sounds foreign, especially at the bottom end of the market where people might not have passports.
Edit: I should have said something like discrimination on grounds of race or national origin. The landlords are not motivated by a desire to discriminate, but to avoid have to carry out checks, especially if they do not understand the requirements with regard to visas - easier just to let to someone who (they think!) is definitely British.
> I am not sure a government digital ID would help with dealing with businesses.
I am pretty sure it would if it was allowed to. Once businesses have one usable source of ID and/or residence, they don't have to create and maintain elaborate alternative ways of establishing this information.
I come from a country where there is a national ID and lived in the UK for a while (before there was any form of electronic registration of foreign workers). I facepalmed everytime I had to interact with a business requiring ID or address, or with the government. This is a long-solved problem and they refuse to use the known, good, solution. They even managed to make a national ID into law around 2010 and then scrape it a year or so later when a new government came into power. I still can't believe it.
They are still trying to bring in digital ID. There are multiple attempts to push it. They still plan to try to push it as a convenience. They also plan a digital ID for children.
Not sure what invoking children here does for the sake of argumentation.
Digital ID is not bad; the issue is the implementation of digital ID that will cause huge issues such as giving billions of pounds to friends of MPs
> Not sure what invoking children here does for the sake of argumentation.
Because by requiring children, but not adults, to have digital ID as part of a much larger (and pretty terrible) law that is already close to being passed and disguising it as a safeguarding measure they are sneaking it in for some people AND getting the next generation used to it.
> Digital ID is not bad;
The opposition to digital ID is largely coming from people who do think Digital ID is bad.
Digital ID is a very wishy-washy concept that has been co-opted by various groups to make strong statements about government overreach. If you want to make criticism you should make narrower statements, for example.
A centralized ID system that can be used to safely verify the authenticity of a presenting party is good!
If that system can be used to track this person in more invasive ways than already possible with IMSI catchers, credit cards and facial recognition that is bad!
People think Digital ID is bad and this everlasting evil concept that will further make the most surveilled country in the world an Orwellian nightmare overnight which is a dramatization. The devil is really in the details here and depending on what flavors of implementation determines the "goodness"
Covid and lockdown did happen, as did vaccine passports. All of these were used to push and normalise certain practices. The ruling classes want to get all this in by the 2030s.
You attempted to move the goalposts. You talk about the early 2020s as if everything that went on was normal and acceptable, and not contradictory at all.
Real quackery is allowing people to go to the supermarket all the time, but disallowing them to exercise in the park. Or telling people not to talk to their neighbours over the fence but allowing international flights to continue.
I remember walking on a local government run public golf course once so that I could exercise well away from people, only to have someone come within two metres of me telling me I was endangering them. Yet my local supermarket had dozens of people wandering around inside it. I'm told those kind of contradictions were normal.
You know fine well that many places encouraged their citizens to download apps onto their phones for QR codes or tracking their location. That was publicly advertised in many of them by TV.
A lot of countries already do this. You cannot get visas to most developed countries if you are likely to become a "public charge". In general, its a lot easier to get a visa if you are from a rich and stable country (or are rich yourself), and if you look at where countries allow visa free travel to citizens of another country the countries on this list are unlikely to qualify!
In that case, why not have some measurement of what makes a person likely to be a public charge that applies to every country, rather than a blanket ban on everyone from targeted countries?
There are lots of possible reasons. Some good, some bad.
A possible good reason might be that there is a higher level of fraud (e.g. faked financial statements), or a higher level of public charge in applications from some countries - especially if it is a pause while procedures are changed. On the other hand the true motive might be something else.
That said, I have no idea why its this particular list of countries. Why Thailand or Jamaica or Nepal?
H1B processing is hopelessly backed up for the 60-70 thousand visas we give out annually. We would have to massively cut immigration inflow, from the 1-3 million annually we have today, to make those granular determinations feasible.
I don't think individualized determination are even possible. Unless you take very few people from each country, they'll inevitably find each other and form communities. And the kinds of communities they form will be driven by their cultures. The question isn't "would this one Bangladeshi be a good immigrant." It is "when 100,000 Bangladeshis inevitably form a cultural enclave in some city, will that be better or worse than what was there before?"
They already literally review on a case by case basis regardless of country of origin. Providing evidence of financial support is a big part of visa and green card applications.
That is not the same as this. If you're a multi-PhD holder from Iran who's a world-famous scientist, you can get into e.g. the UK. This would forbid them, purely based on country of origin.
The article says it is a temporary pause. other sources seem to confirm this:
"Immigrant visa processing from these 75 countries will be paused while the State Department reassesses immigration processing procedures to prevent the entry of foreign nationals who would take welfare and public benefits,"
The U.S. already does this. Providing evidence of financial support is a big part of visa and green card applications. If this is a big problem, it's because the U.S. is approving applications without sufficiently reviewing that evidence (but more likely, it's a bogus excuse).
Does the US currently allow immigrants who are likely to become a "public charge"? The UK has not for a very long time (at least a few decades) and many other countries will not either.
> Does the US currently allow immigrants who are likely to become a "public charge"?
Providing evidence that the applicant is unlikely to become a public charge is an important part of most visa and green card applications. Form I-864 is an Affidavit of Support where a sponsor (usually the family member or employer sponsoring the visa or green card) promises to financially support the applicant.
If the U.S. really does have a problem with lots of visa and green card holders becoming public charges, it's not because their application process doesn't directly address the issue.
> But I definitely feel a lot more comfortable when secrets are never written to persistent unencrypted files, and being aware of these leakage vectors is helpful to avoid that!
It is very common for people to set environment variables for a server process from a config file that is readable by the application which is a bigger problem. At least put them a file that is only root readable (and have the process started by root).
reply