This or any DORK TOWER strip is now available as a signed, high-quality print, from just $25!CLICK HERE to find out more!
HEY! Want to help keep DORK TOWER going? Then consider joining the DORK TOWER Patreonand ENLIST IN THE ARMY OF DORKNESS TODAY! (We have COOKIES!) (And SWAG!) (And GRATITUDE!)
[I haven’t independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can’t guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.]
1: Origins of cowboy slang: Buckaroo = vaquero; cahoots = cohorts; ten gallon hat = tan galán (Spanish for “very gallant”).
2: In a 2003 Belgian election, the Communist candidate got 4096 extra votes; investigators suspect a cosmic ray flipped a bit in the voting machine.
3: Anatoly Karlin highlights (X) a section from Walter Isaacson’s Musk biography claiming that his father Errol, previously a successful engineer, suddenly became a crackpot in his forties:
One day [Musk’s cousin] Peter came over to the house and found Errol sitting in his underwear at the kitchen table with a plastic roulette wheel. He was trying to see whether microwaves could affect it. He would spin the wheel, mark down the result, then spin it and put it in a microwave oven and record the result. “It was nuts”, Peter says. Errol had become convinced that he could find a system for beating the game. He dragged Elon to the Pretoria casino many times, dressing him up so that he looked older than sixteen, and had him write down the numbers while Errol used a calculator hidden under a betting card.
Elon went to the library and read a few books on roulette and even wrote a roulette simulation program on his computer. He then tried to convince his father that none of his schemes would work. But Errol believed that he had found a deeper truth about probability and, as he later described it to me, an “almost total solution to what is called randomness.” When I asked him to explain it, he said, “There are no ‘random events’ or ‘chance.’ All events follow the Fibonacci Sequence, like the Mandelbrot Set. I went on to discover the relationship between ‘chance’ and the Fibonacci Sequence. This is the subject for a scientific paper. If I share it, all activities relying on ‘chance’ will be ruined, so I am in doubt as to doing that.”
I’m not quite sure what all that means. Neither is Elon: “I don’t know how he went from being great at engineering to believing in witchcraft. But he somehow made that evolution.” Errol can be very forceful and occasionally convincing. “He changes reality around him”, Kimbal says. “He will literally make up things, but he actually believes his own false reality.”
It’s okay, but the poem itself is too repetitive to set to music directly, so they had to reset it into a different rhyming, rhythmic form, and taking one of the best English poems and re-writing it without making it worse is a tough order that I’m not sure they managed.
5: The Pilate Cycle is a collection of Christian apocrypha. In one work, The Acts of Pilate, Satan tries to convince the Greek god Hades to trap Jesus in the Greek underworld (but ends up trapped himself). Another, The Vengeance Of The Savior, is a “revenge fantasy” that daydreams about horrible deaths for Pilate, Herod, and, uh, all Jews.
6: Why did Doordash win? Now that I think about it, I haven’t heard much from GrubHub or UberEats lately. The article speculates that DoorDash started with some good strategic choices (organizing their own delivery fleet, starting in suburbs), then executed better than their competitors.
7: A common sociological claim is that relative income (compared to your social circle) matters more for happiness than absolute income. Bryan Caplan thinks this can’t be true: after all, practically nobody moves to poorer areas to enjoy the higher relative income this would confer. I don’t know if you can really use revealed preferences this way - exercise and meditation plausibly make you happier, but most people don’t do them. On the other hand, there are enough people who do them and praise them that we all know somebody like this. Where are the people who coincidentally ended up living in the slums and love it?
9: Twelve years ago, I wrote about some interesting medical hypotheses on the productive border between crackpottery and consensus. One was Drs. Gat and Goren’s claim that prostate disease comes from venous insufficiency and can be treated surgically. Norman Yarvin digs much deeper and concludes it’s plausible. Great piece at the intersection of biomedicine and physics - if you want to think about the circulatory system in a sensible way, you need to really understand pressure.
10: In my report card last October, I said that Milei had reduced Argentine monthly inflation from 25% to 4%, but there was still a long way to go. The latest news is that it’s dropped further to 2.2%. And poverty, which went up during the “shock therapy”, is now lower than when Milei took office.
11: Update on Ozempocalypse: some pharmacies have stopped selling compounded GLP-1 drugs, others continue, with various flimsy legal excuses. Cremieux has a guide (partly subscriber-only) on how to order and use cheap “research chemical” GLP-1 from from peptide companies. And the Trump administration cancelled a Biden initiative to make GLP-1 drugs available via insurance.
13: Local pharma startup founder Trevor Klee is working on a supplement that prevents your body from absorbing plasticizers in food. These aren’t exactly the same as microplastics, but are probably also bad. You would have to take the supplement with every meal - but surely no price is too high if it keeps you safe from . . . whatever it is that plasticizers do.
16: Trump Tower is a BDSM erotic novel published in 2011. It was originally credited to Donald Trump as author (with Jeffrey Robinson as ghostwriter), but at the last moment Trump changed his mind, and Robinson was listed as the author. I appreciated Ozy Brennan's review of Saddam Hussein’s erotic novel, and nominate them to cover this one too.
Barry Devlin, Eamon Carr and Charles O'Connor met when they worked at Arks Advertising Agency in Dublin. They were cajoled into pretending to be a band for a Harp Lager commercial but needed a keyboard player. Devlin said he knew a Jim Lockhart who would fit the bill. The four enjoyed the act so much that they decided to try being proper rock performers.
18: I complained that Elon Musk’s idea of “truth-seeking AI” was bad for alignment, and I still think this is true in the very long run. But I can’t deny it’s an inspired / providential choice for the current moment, already paying dividends (X):
You may remember Miles Brundage from OpenAI Safety Team Quitting Incident #25018 (or maybe 25019, I can’t remember). He’s got an AI policy Substack too, here’s a dialogue with Dean Ball.
You may remember Daniel Reeves from Beeminder, but he has an AI policy Substack too, AGI Fridays. Here’s his post on AI 2027.
22: And speaking of the board drama, a new book finally reveals most of the story, and the real reason behind Altman’s firing was . . . he wasn’t consistently candid. Not sure what I expected. WSJ article, Shakeel tweet thread. Key sections:
The article doesn’t explain why the board did such a poor job communicating their grievances, maybe it’s in the full book. It does sound like part of board’s problem was that they were leaning heavily on Mira Murati but she was playing both sides off against each other.
24: Agent Village is a sort of "reality show” where a group of AI agents has to work together to complete some easy-for-human tasks (currently: pick a charity and raise money for it) and you get to watch.
26: Cremieux on birth order effects (X). His conclusion: “The birth order effect is social. It is driven by parental interactions and investments, and sibling interactions that are dynamic with respect to age.”
27: Claim from new paper, via Alex Tabarrok: “Prohibiting the FDA from regulating e-cigarettes reduced smoking attributable mortality by nearly 10% on average each year from 2011-2019 for a total savings of some 677,000 life-years, or approximately 1/3 the estimated benefit of early HIV/AIDS drugs through year 2000”. Related: FDA will not regulate lab-developed tests for the near future.
28: Bryan Caplan on Natal Con, the pronatalist conference in Austin. My strongest opinion on this is that they should either change the name or hold the next one in Natal, Brazil.
29: Am I living in a conservative filter bubble? I keep hearing how we need a “reckoning” over the government’s disastrous anti-COVID policies, but the latest YouGov polling suggests that large majorities of Americans continue to support those policies:
30: A California legislator proposed a bill that would ban OpenAI’s nonprofit → forprofit conversion, backed by a suspiciously specific interest group, the Coalition For AI Nonprofit Integrity. I assume this is either Elon Musk or our conspiracy; not sure which. But their plan was stymied when the legislature “amended” the bill to remove its entire text and replace it with unrelated text about airplane loans. The legislator apparently got cold feet after being warned it might inflict collateral damage on other companies, and because of the way the California legislature works it’s sometimes more efficient to turn doomed bills into other bills than to simply withdraw them.
31: EthnoGuessr is a GeoGuessr variant: it shows you pictures of an ethnic group, you click on the map where you think they’re from. Warning that if you play this too much you might get into race science.
Their source, humanphenotypes.net, divides humanity into a hundred or so ethnic groups. Although they cite sources, I don’t understand the philosophical basis of the classification. Also, 100 images is so few that you start memorizing them after a while. I hope they move on to real pictures of real people in naturalistic situations.
Remember, asking where someone is from ‘originally’ is a microaggression, but inferring it yourself based on their “mildly platyrrhine, high-rooted nose” is A-OK!
32: Farmkind has a new version of their calculator to determine meat offsets, eg how much do you have to donate to animal welfare charities to compensate for the animals you harm by eating meat. Does the average person really eat chicken 9x a week?
33: Not going to waste your time listing every bad thing Trump has done this month, but among the worst is sending innocent people to horrible Salvadorean prisons (including one person picked up because he had an autism awareness tattoo in honor of his brother, which they mistook for a gang tattoo), then refusing to bring them back. I have seen a couple of people defend denying immigrants due process; I assume they will not be moved by humanitarian arguments, but I think there are some more practical considerations:
Zaid Jilani points out that if immigrants don’t get a right to due process, citizens also don’t get a right to due process, because the government can kidnap citizens, claim they’re immigrants, and the citizens can’t prove otherwise since they don’t get due process.
The Supreme Court has long maintained that immigrants have a right due process, including such bleeding-heart liberals as Antonin Scalia.
If you want to maintain a taboo, it often helps to keep things that look identical to it taboo. For example, to maintain the taboo against child porn, you might also want to ban AI-generated child porn where no actual children are harmed, because if you allow this, then the difference between a taboo act (watching real child porn) and an allowed act (watching AI-generated child porn) is just checking the label to see how a porn video was made, and it’s hard to maintain social outrage against people who are doing the same thing as lots of other people but except for checking labels. In the same way, colleges and other communities mix citizens and immigrants together so closely that it’s hard to tell who is who without asking. If the government can punish immigrants for speaking freely, then it’s hard to maintain bright-line outrage against it punishing citizens for speaking freely when the only difference is who has a green card vs. a passport, something that the person’s community might not even know.
34: Related: the Trump administration seems to be refusing to comply with a 9-0 Supreme Court order to bring back a specific deported immigrant. This is obviously terrifying, but superforecaster Peter Wildeford says it is not technically a constitutional crisis yet (X) because there are still some formalities the courts need to go to before they have officially “ordered” Trump to bring back the immigrant, and he won’t have officially “defied” the order until the formalities are complete. This doesn’t make me too much calmer but I guess is good to keep in mind. Related: Nicholas Decker asks when a violation of the Constitution becomes the sort of wolf-at-the-door dictatorship that we are supposed to violently rise up to prevent; people are mad at him but I think you have to either admit that some level of tyranny reaches this level or else just lie down and die. My proposed solution (drawing, of course, on medieval Iceland) is that the Supreme Court should be able to directly enforce its decisions by declaring violators to be “outlaws”; not only do outlaws lose the protection of the law, but anyone who uses force to defend of an outlaw becomes an outlaw themselves. See here for discussion of the pluses and minuses of such a system.
35: One bright spot in the political climate: FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), originally founded to protect students from cancel culture, has done a great job pivoting to protect students from getting deported over pro-Palestine views. I am impressed with their principled stance and have donated. In related news, FIRE has partnered with Substack to defend writers, and FIRE president Greg Lukianoff has co-written an article with Dean Ball on free speech and AI regulation.
36: AI can now generate short Tom and Jerry cartoons to a prompt.
37: Yali was a New Guinea tribesman who fought with the Australians in World War II. After the war, the Australians tried to use him as a spokesperson to introduce New Guinea tribesmen to the civilized world. But Yali was both power-hungry and didn’t really understand civilization, so he ended up as the prophet of a new cargo cult instead. “People continued to give him gifts, and he collected a fee for baptising Christians who wanted to wash away the sins of Christianity and return to paganism.”
38: National Catholic Reporter comes on strong: “If you believe the Scripture is the Word of God, the message is clear: Musk and Trump will go to hell for defunding the corporal works of mercy.”
39: Misinformation Is Not A Contagious Virus You Can Be Inoculated Against. An argument between two sets of misinformation researchers about the title metaphor. I think this is a linguistic misunderstanding: Dan uses “misinformation” to mean “false things”, and Sander uses it to mean “viral clickbait hyperpartisan slop of a sort which is at very high risk of being false”. I think Dan’s meaning is more natural and less likely to cause trouble.
40: California’s experiment to see how high they could raise the minimum wage before getting visible employment effects has finally produced (X) unambiguous results:
41: Trojan Sky, a scifi story by Richard Ngo. Straussian reading: Gur tyvgpuref ercerfrag evtug-jvat Gjvggre vasyhrapref.
This is the weekly visible open thread. Post about anything you want, ask random questions, whatever. ACX has an unofficial subreddit, Discord, and bulletin board, and in-person meetups around the world. 95% of content is free, but for the remaining 5% you can subscribe here. Also:
1: ACX meetups this week in Warsaw, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Atlanta, Philly, Brooklyn, and Dallas, among others. And late additions to the list include Belfast, Vancouver, and Stockholm. See the post for details. And remember there’s a feedback form for meetup-goers.
3: I sent all ACX Grants recipients an email with a link to a form asking for updates. I think it went to spam for many of you. If you got a grant either last year or 2021-2022, please check your spam folder for an email from me.
4: Sorry for the delay, AMA with the AI 2027 team is planned for this Friday, 3:30 - 6 Pacific time. I’ll post a confirmation of this later this week.
Horizon Institute has a three-day AI Innovation And Security Policy Workshop. “Interested in whether you should pursue a career in AI policy in DC? Learn about AI policy under the new administration, meet the people shaping decisions in DC, and decide whether you want to apply your background to the opportunities and challenges ahead.”
Five, maybe ten percent of applicants are some kind of special snowflake whose father was murdered when they were five years old. As he lay there bleeding out, he said “Daughter, my whole life, I dreamed of being the first LGBT person to get a PhD in the study of ancient Assyria. Now that dream has been taken from me. With my dying breath, I give you my trowel and hand-painted figurine of Tiglath-Pileser III, in the hopes that one day you will succeed where I failed”. […]
The rest of us are just some kid who wants to go to college because that’s where all the good jobs are. If you really press us, we’ll say something like “idk biology seems pretty cool”. We encountered an approximately average number of hardships. Once when we got our wisdom teeth taken out, the surgeon said we had the weirdest reaction to anaesthesia he’d ever seen - does that count as a hardship?
(“Yes, but why are you applying to Dartmouth in particular?” “Because we looked at the US News & World Report rankings and realized we weren’t good enough to get into colleges better than Dartmouth, but we were too good for colleges worse than Dartmouth, any other stupid obvious questions?”)
The college admissions essay is what happens when you tell the second type of person that, in order to ever get a job better than busboy, they need to pretend to be the first type of person.
The Effective Altruism community has encouraged a range of different
approaches to doing good over time. Initially there was more focus on
frugality
as a way to increase how much you could donate, which was mostly
supplanted by emphasis on earning more. In late 2015 this started to
shift towards
doing
things that are directly useful, which accelerated
in
2021. Then the market
fell in
2022, FTX
turned out to
be a fraud, and there haven't been new donors near the scale of
Open Phil /
Good Ventures. Among many
changes, people are thinking more about frugality again: the
less
you can live on, the more you can stretch a given amount of
funding. [1]
To encourage myself to live more frugally and to give an example of
what I thought was a pretty fulfilling life at relatively low cost for
the US, I used to calculate numbers for how much we spent on
ourselves. This included housing, food, transportation, medical, etc
but not donations, taxes, or savings. At one point there were somenewsstories
comparing our spending to our income, and it was nice to have a simple
number to point at.
I was thinking it might be nice to start calculating these numbers
again, but when I looked back at why I stopped it's mostly that it's
actually a pretty tricky accounting question and I'm not sure there
are ways to draw the lines that make much sense. For example:
One of the main things I do for fun is play music. This costs
some money (instruments,
kids coming with
me to gigs, fun things while
traveling) and also earns some money. How should I account for
this? At one extreme I could say that income is income and expenses
are "spending on ourselves", but this doesn't match reality well:
there shouldn't be a difference between playing a dance weekend that
is $1,000 with reimbursed travel and one that's $1,500 but I need to
spend $500 on flights. At the other extreme I could look at the whole
activity on net, and subtract expenses from income, but should what's
essentially a family vacation tacked onto a gig really not be
"spending on ourselves"? In between I could count this the way the
IRS does (an approach I think is a good fit for determining income
for pledging purposes) but this is also not great. For example,
some portion of my
new keyboard should probably be "spending on ourselves" since I
was motivated in part by a desire to enjoy playing a nicer instrument
and have less hassle in gig packing. And in the other direction, if I
pay $200 in childcare to take a $125 gig the IRS doesn't count the
childcare against income at all but I think $75 would be closer to
what most people would consider "spending on ourselves".
When I last calculated these I didn't include expenses paid by
our employers: as someone earning to give my employer gave us much
nicer health insurance (and meals, and working conditions) than we
would have bought for ourselves, and at least that excess portion
doesn't seem like it's "spending on ourselves". Now that I'm doing
directly valuable work and my frugality is more driven by a desire
to extend
runway for my project, however, if my employer is paying a lot for
my health insurance that affects runway same as any other expense.
I would live in Boston regardless, but if
someone who would otherwise work remotely in a low cost of living area
decided their highest-impact option was to move here to work at the NAO I wouldn't want to count at
least some portion of their increased living expenses. Similarly, if
it made sense for use to move to the Bay Area (please no) for our work
I'm not sure how I would want to count the increased housing (and
other) costs.
If things started going poorly with childcare or school and one
of us went down
to part time, perhaps this is part time childcare paid in kind,
imputing
both income and expense? But you get weird results either way: if you
don't do this foregone childcare means "spending on ourselves" goes
down in a somewhat misleading way, while if you count all the
time we spend taking care of the kids as implied income+expense
you get very large numbers. And in between I don't really see a
principled reason to count this only for the delta between a normal
work week and the reduced hours.
I think part of why this doesn't feel very coherent is I'm trying to
get "spending on ourselves" to do too much. It can't be both what
people naturally understand the term to be (even ignoring that this
isn't all that consistent) while also a good number to optimize for
maximizing altruistic impact.
So I don't think I'm going to try to go back to calculating a number
here, and instead I'll stick with sharing spending
updates every couple years.
[1] Prompted by some observations a friend recently posted, but not
linking since it was friends-only.
This is an internal strategy note I wrote in November 2024 that I'm
making public with some light editing.
In my work at the NAO I've been thinking about what I expect to see as
LLMs continue to become more capable and get closer to where they can
significantly accelerate their own development. I think we may see very large advances in the power of
these systems over the
next few years.
I'd previously thought that the main impact of AI on the NAO was
through accelerating potential adversaries, and so shorter timelines
primarily meant more urgency: we needed to get a comprehensive
detection system in place quickly.
I now think, however, that this also means the best response involves
some reprioritization. Specifically, AI will likely speed up some
aspects of the creation of a detection system more than others, and so
to the extent that we expect rapid advances in AI we should prioritize
the work that we expect to bottleneck our future AI-accelerated work.
One way to plan for this is to imagine what would be the main
bottlenecks if we had a far larger staff. Imagine if each senior
person had AI support equivalent to all the smart junior people they
could effectively manage. Or even (but my argument doesn't depend on
this) AI systems that are as capable as today's experienced
researchers. I think if in a year or two we found ourselves in this
situation we would wish that:
We had collected a lot more data, because with a very large virtual
computational staff future-AI-assisted-NAO can wring insights out of
data far more efficiently than present-NAO.
We had started large-scale collection sooner, because, even if AI
accelerates sequencing's price decreases and we can collect a lot more
data in the future, it can't give us historical data.
We had a lot more partnerships for bringing in samples and data,
because these take real-human time to scale up.
While I don't think this is the only way things could play out, I
think it's likely enough that we should be taking these considerations
very seriously in our planning.
April 2025: since initially drafting this we've started an
ambitious effort to scale
up our pilot system.
Hundreds of people protest the arrest and detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a green-card holder and recent Columbia graduate who played a role in pro-Palestinian protests at the university on March 12 in New York City. | Spencer Platt/Getty Images
What should America’s immigration policy be?
This might seem like an absurd question to ask in a year when our current immigration agenda involves sending hundreds of people — including some who came here legally and many with no criminal record — to a Salvadoran maximum security prison known for human rights abuses, revoking the visas of PhD candidates and researchers in the country over speeding tickets or missing customs forms, and killing our tourism industry with random imprisonments and harassment at the border.
Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.
All the while, Vice President JD Vance posts on X that we cannot afford to worry about “due process.” Yes, he put a foundational constitutional right in scare quotes because of the necessity of deporting the alleged 20 million people who came to the US illegally under Joe Biden. Although these claims that Biden let in tens of millions of people are popular on the right, there are literally no credible estimates to suggest that 20 million immigrants, legal or not, entered under his tenure. Most credible estimates are that between 4 million and 6 million people entered the US illegally during the Biden administration, and 8 million total.
In the face of all that, it feels futile to try to outline what our approach to immigration should be. Any immigration policy at all that obeys the Constitution would be an improvement over the current situation.
Now, the Trump administration has chosen to pursue a lawless, vindictive, court-defying campaign against every immigrant in the country — and it’s essential that the Democratic Party develop a coherent alternative that can actually win elections. While I can’t, of course, speak for the party, I wanted to take a shot over the next few weeks at articulating some of the policies I want to see on immigration. That way when the public turns on this administration’s campaign of destruction, there are some compelling alternatives on offer.
What Biden got wrong on immigration
I am strongly in favor of immigration.
Immigrants make America stronger — high-skilled immigrants working in tech and science and medicine as well as immigrants working in agriculture and construction, who serve essential roles in the US economy. Immigration is good for the people who come here, but it’s also good for the people already here. It benefits America to be more populous — a bigger country has more power on the world stage, which benefits Americans in trade agreements, consumer goods access, international policy, and much more. Immigrants to the US tend to assimilate effectively, immigrant crime rates are strikingly low, and immigrant kids overperform academically, all of which enriches us as a country.
But immigration policy in a democracy requires a careful balance.
The public is generally supportive of immigration under some circumstances but fiercely opposed to it under others. Most legal immigration programs are individually popular, as are some paths to legal status for people who have been here illegally for a long time. But public opinion ricochets back and forth on immigration far more than on other contentious issues like abortion. When Biden’s term started, only 28 percent of Americans wanted immigration to decrease. By mid-2024, 55 percent did. And they cared a lot about it: Immigration routinely appeared near the top of reasons people voted Republican and is still the issue where Trump’s polling is best.
Biden adopted policies that resulted in a lot more people coming to the US illegally or with temporary status than any previous governments. There were, of course, factors outside his control; the economy and conditions in Central America dramatically affected immigrant flows. But policy mattered, too.
And the way the Biden administration responded to the surge of people at the border rapidly turned Americans against immigration and against Biden and Democrats. It even contributed to Trump’s return to power. Biden realized this and cracked down at the border in 2024, but belatedly. Neither his initial expansion of immigration nor the subsequent crackdown involved much in the way of making the case to Americans for the policies he was pursuing or explaining to skeptical voters why they would benefit.
The Biden administration’s unilateral, executive order-driven approach to immigration turned out to be a terrible mistake. For one thing, immigrants need stability and long-term assurance that they’ll be allowed to stay in the country, and any policy implemented by executive order can later be reversed by executive order, throwing lives into chaos. “Failure to secure the border is a gift to immigration restrictionists,” Derek Thompson at The Atlantic warned last year. Immigration is crucial to our country, and voters are open to it — but they have to believe it’s being done well.
It’s not entirely Biden’s fault that he couldn’t get a process through Congress. Both parties have called for comprehensive immigration reform for decades but are happy enough to kick the can down the road, and Trump opposed the bipartisan bill that did come up during Biden’s term. Congress isn’t doing its job, but the president still shouldn’t have tried to route around them.
There’s at long last a chance that the absurd abuses of the present moment will persuade Congress to stop putting it off and genuinely reform immigration. If that happens, what should we hope it will look like?
My hopes for a post-Trump policy
The first thing we need is a full re-embrace of international students. It is a very good thing that people from all over the world want to come to America to learn. It’s a source of income for American universities, businesses, and communities; it is a chance for Americans to meet, learn from, learn with, and share our culture with people from very different backgrounds than our own. And many of them stay and go on to become very successful in America and innovate crucial technologies, as my colleague Bryan Walsh explained earlier this month.
As part of embracing students, Congress should pass explicit free speech protections for visa holders, taking away the secretary of state’s power to kick a student out of the country for writing an op-ed. (I think those deportations are likely to be found unconstitutional, but a new set of formal legal protections for student visa holders will be a good way to shut the door on that chapter.)
While we’re at it, we should also reinforce existing laws and, where necessary, add new ones to protect against other Trump abuses: The government should not have the right to send anyone to prison indefinitely without trial — whether the person is a US citizen or not and whether the prison is in the US or not — and Border Patrol should need a warrant to seize and read our phones.
The second component of a better immigration policy is to expand and improve our pipeline of workers. There’s a deep shelf of good proposals to improve the H-1B visa program, which brings talented people who are crucial hires for the US. Right now, the program works by a lottery, so that everyone who is eligible submits an application for an H-1B and only some get one — with no relationship between who we need most and who we get.
Advocates for better immigration processes have been beggingus to fix this for a long time. We should also modestly expand the number of H-1Bs we offer, which would be a win for applicants, the companies that want to hire them, and taxpayers who benefit from the taxes that people pay and the value they create when they move here.
It should also be easier for the spouses of people on H-1B visas to work in the US, and we should end the country-specific green card process rules that force immigrants from India and China to wait much longer to become permanent residents and citizens than immigrants from anywhere else.
And while skilled workers are the most clear-cut win, we should improve the pipelines for all workers. People do not only make America wealthier and better off by coming here if they are going to be a software engineer. We also benefit from the hard work of immigrants in manual labor. The reliance on illegal immigrants in our construction and agriculture industries is, frankly, something to be ashamed of. If we want someone’s labor, we should provide a legal pathway for it. (Again, none of these are new ideas or even partisan ideas. They’re just ideas I think are worth spotlighting as we try to offer a positive vision on immigration.)
Historically, the grand bargain imagined in an immigration deal would be a marriage of these proposals to welcome more people to America (which Democrats support) with a step up in border security and enforcement (which Republicans support). In a future newsletter, I’ll argue that whether or not there’s bipartisan compromise on the table, we have to pursue immigration policy with an eye to both parts of that picture — or we get neither.
As an American who works with some people who speak British English,
the language differences are usually not a problem. Most words mean
the same thing, and those that don't are usually concrete enough not
to cause confusion (ex: lift, flat, chips). The tricky ones, though,
are the ones that differ primarily in connotations. For example:
In American English (AE), "quite" is an intensifier, while in
British English (BE) it's a mild deintensifier. So "quite good" is
"very good" in AE but "somewhat good" in BE. I think "rather" works
similarly, though it's less common in AE and I don't have a great
sense for it.
"Scheme" has connotations of deviousness in AE, but is neutral
in BE. Describing a plans or system as a "scheme" is common in BE and
negative in AE.
"Graft" implies corruption in AE but hard work in BE.
These can cause silent misunderstandings where two people have very
different ideas about the other's view:
A: "I can't believe how much graft there was in the procurement
process!"
B: "Yes, quite impressive. Rather keen on going above and beyond,
aren't they?"
A: "And did you see the pension scheme they set up?"
B: "Sounds like they'll be quite well off when they'll leave
office."
In this example A leaves thinking B approves of the corruption, while
B doesn't realize there was any. It could be a long time, if ever,
before they realize they misunderstood each other.
Are there other words people have run into that differ like this?
$ ssh_ec2nf
The authenticity of host 'ec2-54-224-39-217.compute-1.amazonaws.com
(54.224.39.217)' can't be established.
ED25519 key fingerprint is SHA256:...
This host key is known by the following other names/addresses:
~/.ssh/known_hosts:591: ec2-18-208-226-191.compute-1.amazonaws.com
~/.ssh/known_hosts:594: ec2-54-162-24-54.compute-1.amazonaws.com
~/.ssh/known_hosts:595: ec2-54-92-171-153.compute-1.amazonaws.com
~/.ssh/known_hosts:596: ec2-3-88-72-156.compute-1.amazonaws.com
~/.ssh/known_hosts:598: ec2-3-82-12-101.compute-1.amazonaws.com
~/.ssh/known_hosts:600: ec2-3-94-81-150.compute-1.amazonaws.com
~/.ssh/known_hosts:601: ec2-18-234-179-96.compute-1.amazonaws.com
~/.ssh/known_hosts:602: ec2-18-232-154-156.compute-1.amazonaws.com
(185 additional names omitted)
Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no/[fingerprint])?
The issue is that each time I start my instance it gets a new hostname
(which is just derived from the IP) and so SSH's trust on first
use doesn't work properly.
Checking that "185 additional names omitted" is about the number I'd
expect to see is ok, but not great. And it delays login.
I figured out how to fix this today:
Edit ~/.ssh/known_hosts to add an entry for each
EC2 host I use under my alias for it. So I have
c2-44-222-215-215.compute-1.amazonaws.com ssh-ed25519
AAAA... and I duplicate that to add ec2nf ssh-ed25519
AAAA... etc.
Modify my ec2
ssh script to set HostKeyAlias:
ssh -o "StrictHostKeyChecking=yes" -o "HostKeyAlias=ec2nf"
...
More secure and more convenient!
(What got me to fix this was an interaction with my auto-shutdown
script, where if I did start_ec2nf && sleep 20 &&
ssh_ec2nf but then went and did something else for a minute or
two the machine would often turn itself off before I came back and got
around to saying yes.)