Ah, good to know! Thank you for correcting me. I’ll edit my other comment

I think you’re confusing Trump’s ill-informed theory with actually theory and practice.

If foreign goods are taxed, those companies will not simply absorb the hit to their profits. They will instead increase their prices, which hurts the consumer.

You may be thinking, “then won’t consumers buy other products?” If so, you need to think a step further. Are there other products that are just as cheap? Will other companies simply raise their prices to match and take advantage of the extra profit? Are there even locally made alternatives to the product, and, if so, are they cheaper than even the tariff price?

In practice, tariffs are only effective if there are local competitors within the same price bracket, and your populace can absorb the difference in price without much pain.

https://www.usimportdata.com/blogs/top-10-us-Imports-data-by-country-product-hs-code-database Electronics, vehicles, fuels, medicines, and plastics are among our top imports. Home built vehicles are usually expensive. For example, when you think cheap, you think of a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic something. We know fuel is important. Medicines are not an optional cost. Plastics are part of everything. Our economy relies a lot on imports. The US shifted away from manufacturing and towards a service economy a long time ago. We don’t have a many home-built goods as we used to.

Tariffs will hurt the average citizen by corporations increasing their prices to absorb the profit losses imposed by the tariffs. There are often no comparable local alternatives, and many of these goods are not optional. Americans will pay this price. In effect, this makes it a tax on normal citizens

Personally, I like the idea of restoring local manufacturing, and I think tariffs can play a role in this… but to do so without harming citizens requires subsidizing local industry to provide cheaper homemade alternatives along with a more gradual adjustment. We would also need to reduce the cost of living in order to make lower wages livable such that the labor cost of local manufacturing is lower. But we all know that’s not happening - we desperately need wages to go up right now to make the cost of living bearable. Slapping double-digit tariffs on goods suddenly is a great way to destabilize an economy. So uh… fuck Trump.

Since many answers aren’t actually answering the question…

My comment is largely wrong!! See the reply below

Most places require a permit to assemble en masse. There are “free speech zones” where you can create large gatherings without any kind of advance notice or permit or whatever. Most universities have a free speech zone towards the middle of their campuses. Cities will also often have at least one but somewhere that doesn’t inconvenience commerce, like a park or near city hall.

Most mass assembly requires a permit and sometimes a fee, even in public places. Following this prevents arrest by “disturbing the peace” or other such laws, usually.

How this squares with the first amendment is interpretation. Individual freedom of speech is protected except very specific public order and safety things, e.g. calling for violence. Coordinated, mass freedom of speech is perceived as a fast path to rioting.

I’m not saying this is right, but this is my understanding of how things work. I’m not a lawyer or an expert in these matters. This is just what I learned from activist friends in my university time ages ago.

As for expulsion, public universities are run by states. To my understand, Trump has no legal mechanism to do this. He’s just talking out of his ass or expects to bully public institutions into expelling students by threatening to withhold department of education funding… but he’s planning to kill that anyway, so 🤷‍♂️

Fuck this fake or normal nonsense.

It’s you. There’s you when you’re relaxed, and there’s you when you turn it up. It’s all you.

Just do whatever you feels most you in the moment. Want to be the hot shit on the block, turn it up. Giving no fucks, grab the T.

Have you heard of the Russian book Foundations of Geopolitics? Read a little about it and tell us what you think Russia’s goal was for starting the war

So what the fuck would you do? And then play out a realistic scenario of the result of your idea

I’ll start by saying I’m not a doctor. This is my layman’s understanding.

Historically, vaccines have been samples of either weakened or dead viruses. Through trial and error, we’ve been able to determine how to weaken or kill these viruses, then inject them into ourselves in the hopes that our immune system can learn to recognize and kill the virus. This has worked really well for a long time, but it’s costly and can be difficult to scale. For example, horses have very strong immune systems. It’s quite common to inject a virus that hurts humans into a horse, then harvest the horse’s blood to acquire the material needed to produce a vaccine. The horse’s immune system learns how to kill the virus, and we can use the to teach our immune systems.

mRNA vaccines take a whole different approach. They kind of co-opt the mechanism that viruses use to replicate.

First, let’s tall about what RNA is. You might know that DNA is used to produce proteins, and proteins are the tools that life uses to do… stuff. Almost everything, really. Thing is, DNA is stored safely inside cells’ nuclei, but protein production happens outside the nuclei, in ribosomes. So if DNA is needed to produce proteins, but DNA can’t be moved to the protein production center, how do? Our cells can produce another molecule called RNA. It’s basically half of DNA. Since you can derive one half of DNA from the other, it essentially carries the same information. Inside the nuclei, RNA is produced based on your DNA. That RNA is then moved to the protein production center to be used as the blueprint for protein production. Voila! Your cells have proteins now and can do stuff.

What did that have to do with viruses? But first, how do viruses work? Funny thing: at their core, viruses are kind of like protein missiles with an RNA payload. (This is why people argue that viruses aren’t really alive.) Viruses pierce your cells and inject their RNA into your cells. That RNA provides the blueprints to produce more RNA and the protein module, effectively, a copy of the virus. The viruses uses your cells’ infrastructure to reproduce.

With me so far? Here’s where it gets cool.

What if we could capture a virus’ RNA? What if we could then isolate just enough of the RNA blueprint to get some part of the protein missile, without the payload? And then what if we could get so specific that we could make sure that part of the protein missile is something your immune system could learn to recognize and kill? Lastly, what if we could package this harmless but recognizable part of the virus in a manner that your cells could mass manufacture it?

This is mRNA, the “m” standing for “messenger.” mRNA vaccines basically give your cells the blueprint to produce a recognizable part of a virus that won’t hurt you. Your cells then produce that virus part, and your immune system learns how to recognize and kill the virus based on that part.

The best part? We can do this fast. No need for trial and error on how to weaken viruses. No need to manage livestock like horses specifically to harvest their immune system material. The COVID vaccine was an mRNA vaccine. I haven’t actually checked the numbers, but I’m very confident that the COVID vaccine R&D was the fastest humanity has ever had for any vaccine. We’d been researching and experimenting with mRNA vaccines already, but they weren’t yet approved for medical use. For good reason, medicines go through a huge amount of testing before we start injecting ourselves with magic feel-good juice. Given the emergency that COVID was, most countries fast-tracked their approval process for the COVID mRNA vaccine. In the long run, this may actually have been a benefit, as we’ve learned a lot about how to produce these types of vaccines rapidly, at scale and even update them for new variants of a virus.

So yeah, mRNA vaccines are super fucking cool. They’re also a remarkably clever innovation, copying an idea from viruses and adapting it to a way to kill viruses. Theoretically, future vaccines should be produced faster, be better targeted, and have fewer side effects.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk? 😅

But that’s an arbitrary distinction. You could also argue, “what’s the difference between a vaccine and medicine?” Or “what’s the difference between medicine and physical medical treatment?” mRNA vaccines involve more innovation and impact than bloodletting via leeches.

But I won’t respond to that line of thought anymore because you didn’t answer my question.

You can choose to answer my question or just not reply. Do you know what the differences are between traditional vaccines and mRNA vaccines?

Are you familiar with the differences between traditional vaccines and mRNA vaccines in terms of production?

I live in Korea. How do you define “loyal to workers?”

Per the other comment, headlines. Internet dwellers read the headline to decide whether or not to read something. You can think of a headline as involuntary information injection.

So Newsweek wants everyone to see Joe Rogan’s name but not MeidasTouch.

Bias fucking bullshit. Why is Joe Rogan named and not the podcast that usurped him? Media fucking blows

Sorry for the delay, busy days.

Yeah, fake postings are total bullshit. I still don’t understand the motivation for them.

As for having jobs up for months, I can understand that when a role has very specific needs. But if the roles specific needs haven’t been made clear in the job description, then yeah, that’s total bullshit

My job postings are usually up for two to three months, and the rejection rate is maybe around 80-90% for the resume review stage at the beginning. I’d like to think the job descriptions are clear, but that’s subjective. But do those sound like reasonable numbers to you, though? What do you think is reasonable? (Like I said, I want these opinions for my improvement)

Unfortunately, I haven’t hired for a service job, so I don’t have a complete perspective here. You mention “one of the first to apply.” For an imaginary job that requires no background, what do you think would be good reasons to reject a candidate or choose one over another?

I love this. Thank you for fighting back by educating <3

“Life sciences” teacher in middle school at a Christian school told us evolution was impossible because genetic mutations only cause a loss of information. Sneaky assholes

Got it. Okay, that makes much more sense. Nothing new there for me, then.

When you say companies shouldn’t be “this selective,” what are you referencing that they’re being too selective about? If I’m being more picky than I need to be, I should stop, so I’m eager to learn something here

Can you share what kinds of questions you’re asking? Or at least generic versions of them?

100% this

And the same thinking applies to interviews, but that’s very difficult. My leadership sometimes gets surprised about how much I help interviewees, and I have to clarify to them that I don’t care about how good they are at interviewing. I care how good they are at the job.

Unfortunately, this makes my interviews super long, but we have arguably the best engineering team in the company.

Our new CTO was very skeptical of our long interviews and ordered us to shorten them. Fortunately, we had one scheduled already. He sat in on it and is no longer worried about our long interviews. He understood the value once he was able to see where the candidate stumbled and excelled in our … simulations? of the work. We try to simulate certain tasks in the interview, especially collaborative ones, to see how they would actually do the work. It’s really hard for us as interviewers to prepare and run, but it’s proven highly effective so far

All of this. When I tell people I meet that we don’t do coding tests, we instead do tiny assignments, they often get quite excited. It also seems to be way, way more effective

Do you have any qualifiers for that? Like “with sufficient time to learn” or something? Is there some kind of personal development that you think could enable that?

In my understanding, asking a chef to be a doctor or a software engineer to be an artist often doesn’t work great.

How selective do you think is appropriate?

To be clear: I’m a hiring manager for some specialized stuff. I’m genuinely curious about your perspective because I hope it can help how I do that work. I’m not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong or anything.