DirtyWaterHotDog
No bio...
User ID: 625
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
I propose a flat rate of $100,000 per green card. Why wouldn't this work?
That is....cheap. Even Portugal asks $300k for a golden visa.
I like something like $300k over-a-period-of-time ~= $100k down-payment + 10% extra annual tax based on your income for 5 years. The person can either naturalize at the 5 year point or keep the green-card without the extra tax. The $100k keeps the entry bar high enough, that anyone who gets it is likely to be conscientious. At the same time, it is low enough that anyone who is highly motivated can save that much over the 20s, to make the move before they're 30.
Personally, I would consider it.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
Every time I see these posts, I'm tempted to go revive my dead food blog meant for lazy men who refuse to cook.
My suggestions:
- Parfait - Greek yogurt (plain), blueberries and very small amount of unsweetened cereal/granola.
- Baked chicken drumsticks - Literally get some chicken drumsticks with bone and skin on. dap them with paper towels. Put some salt and pepper. Pop them in an oven.
- not fried rice - rice with veggies. boil washed rice with lots of pre-diced veggies (peas, carrots, green beans and corn set) for 15 minutes. Pop an omlette on top. Some lao-gan-ma. Bam. Done.
- Chili beans. Get the canned chili beans. Add the pre-diced veggies and some spice mix. Add onions if you're feeling good. serve over rice.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
The one place where it helps to be a 'colored' immigrant.
The typical person peddling DEI/Woke bullshit is White or a 2nd generation ABC/ABCD . I can pull my 'lived experience from 3rd world country' card and shut them down. Doesn't even have to true. I just say it happened, and they have to believe it. LOL. Fight fire with fire, I guess.
Other immigrants are either annoyed with the DEI types or intellectually humble enough to engage honestly, rather than coming in guns blazing. So we get along.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
Back when I was a Fresh-off-the-boat immigrant, I did a 'crime detection' machine learning project. The unique part was that I mixed race with wider demographics (census info) & proximity to institutions (schools, banks,etc.).
I don't want to share the full report for anonymity reasons, but old naive me found a bunch of interesting statistical co-relations.
My favorite insight: Race does not help predict crime.
statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. - Aaron Levenstein
I am being half truthful ofc. The more accurate takeaway is : "Race is not needed when predicting crime, as long as you have other spicy features."
The spiciest - 'Female household with no husband'. It was by far the most predictive demographic feature for crime. The black crime problem is a fatherlessness problem. Not too surprising for the the average mottezian. But for a fresh-off-the-boat immigrant, I genuinely could not make sense of this finding. Nice to see my 8 year old study corroborate my 2024 intuition.
The more boring, but no less important feature was - 'Participation in labor force'. Nothing surprising here. Less jobs = More crime. More crime = Less jobs.
Second spiciest - Race can be completely discarded if you're accounting for local geography. Yes, black people commit more crime. But they seem to commit all their crimes in specific places. Crime occurs near nightclubs and schools. High density places have more crime, yes, but it is trivial to triage the hotspots down to the specific block. As much as random inspections in certain neighborhoods is a liberal meme, hot spot based inspections are objectively less racist.
Takeaways:
-
Joblessness and fatherlessness problems are the main cultural problems contributing to crime. You don't need an average IQ workforce to do well on either. Both are endemic in urban black communities. But, pair a bunch of Appalachian whites with these 2 problems and crime will still go up.
-
Crime is a hyper-local phenomenon. Crime can be largely addressed through stringent policing of the hotspots. My guess is that crime-as-a-lifestyle, like any social phenomenon is memetic and relies on social contagion. Dispersed criminals might find other spots to base their operations out of, but it is hard to scale if hotspots are stamped out. It also means that police don't need proportionally higher resources to curb crime. Most of the city can do just fine with the amount of policing it has.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
It's the kind of thing that makes a forum feel like a community.
Informative but has real heart. Visceral, but no shock value.
I feared that the original community has taken too many Ls. There were a lot of platform migrations and splinter groups. I still feel worry, but posts like these keep me optimistic.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
More anecdotal experience : I have lived across the North East corridor and west coast tech cities and your speculation sounds right.
- The court house or city center always seem to be the most affected by homelessness.
- Covid has made things much much worse. Cities with innate spirit and industry have bounced back (NYC, Boston). But, a ton of cities with less 'organic' downtowns are struggling. I am in SF now, and even it's booming economy cant revive their post-covid dead downtown.
- Baltimore is not the north east. Baltimore is not like anywhere else. The city has no comparison. It is a shithole like no other. I'd rather run a gas station by the Brooklyn projects, than be in Baltimore.
If this is GP's first experience with urban living, I'd recommend giving it another shot. Literally everywhere is better. NYC is 100x better than the news makes it look. Boston is America's best imitation of a nice European city. SF's homeless are easily avoided, and the rest of the city is like living in paradise, if you can afford it. Seattle, well, I don't have nice things to say about Seattle. Sorry.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
Yeah, more men bend over for their wives than vice versa.
Anecdotally, the typical republican woman hates abortion than the men. So, the chance of them voting blue is nil. On the other hand, democrat voting men have no such single-issue hatred for the republicans.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
Bangladesh will end-up with a nominally democratic govt. controlled by the army.
Sheikh Hasina did not leave because the protests went too far. She left because she wouldn't commit proper genocide (no matter what many many like to believe) and she lost the army's support. Now that the army is 'stabilizing the situation', they are free to wield heavier weapons than Hasina ever could.
Bangladesh will have a Tsunami of Hindu refugees moving into India. India will likely welcome them. But that's about it.
As horrible as the idol-destroying protesters are, I don't think they're going to devolve into ISIS. No Assad-like chemical warfare, no secondary players like Hezbollah or Kurds, and no ISIS.
DirtyWaterHotDog
11mo ago
Multiple bad incentives aligning is what's happening.
India was critical to the independence of Bangladesh, and both countries have generally had an amiable relationship. India has been a big proponent of turning Bangladesh into a somewhat secular nation. It is still 92% Muslim, with 8% Hindus.
Bad incentives:
- Muslims have always oppressed Hindu minorities. So, the tensions have precedent. Using one against the other is Muslim politics 101.
- Hasina is seen as the secular leader, so anti Sheikh Hasina riots have turned into anti-hindu riots.
- Hasina is seen to be a close to India, so protestors are turning anti India. India has a major illegal-immigration problem from Bangladesh, so Indian public rhetoric is slightly anti-Bangladeshi right now, which has fanned the flames. Anti-India riots have turned into anti-hindu riots.
- As Hasina pushed her opposition into a corner, they relied on the far-right (practically violent Islamists) for new rhetoric. Bangladesh has undergone massive Islamization (as has Pakistan & Maldives), and they genuinely want to destroy temples and beat up Hindus.
- India is a non-retaliating big-brother of a terribly run subcontinent. So when leaders in Bangladesh/Nepal/Pakistan/Maldives fuck up, they love to point fingers towards India to move blame away from themselves. Free lunch.
This is coupled with some really odd global incentives which empowers the anti-hindu lynch mob:
- India insists on being non-aligned. So CIA wants to find other means to counter balance China. Keeping the neighborhood unstable is to their benefit. Bringing down Hasina is so they can establish control in the chaos.
- Ivy league students are stupid & uninformed. Hasina was running an authoritarian pseudo-democracy. She was still the most democratic and liberal choice by a country mile. Ivy league kids don't care, they started opposing her.
- Indian muslims & left work together with global orgs to attack Modi's BJP from the outside. So Left-Muslim nexus is strong. Left doesn't want to bring light to hindus being persecuted by muslims because it ruins the narrative.
- Hasina's reaction led to 100s of dead students. Global ivy-league kids had friends their age who died. So anti-Hasina and pro-islamist sentiment was purchased by west wholesale.
Truth is, Hindus are 2nd only to Jews in being lynched & exiled from every historic homeland. From Malaysia (whose Hindus ended up forming Singapore) to Afghanistan (which may be my family's ancestral home....20% chance), majority Islam has shown itself to be incompatible with Hinduism. There might be a bunch of incentives this time around, but this is a movie we Hindus have seen before.
In my experience, immigrants move from low-risk-guaranteed-income streams to riskier ventures once they get a Green Card. If a new green card holder is expected to pay $40k every year, it restores the golden handcuffs. This means they may pivot by moving cities, changing professions or trying to start a business. This may involve a serous amount of income insecurity.
A $40k fee adds fresh insecurity, that defeats the purpose of a green card. If a Green card can be revoked anytime, it is not a green card. It is a visa.
More options
Context Copy link