Precisely. The phrase is exclusively intended to handle both foreign and US diplomats.
Diplomatically, embassies count as the soil of the country they represent and thus subject to the jurisdiction of said country. As a result, a child born to a foreign diplomat present in the US would not be granted citizenship. Similarly, a US ambassador (to Germany, for example) is treated as still subject to US jurisdiction, and by extension, any children of theirs would automatically become US citizens.
A person who entered the US illegally is still subject to US jurisdiction (or else they couldn't be violating US immigration law), so any children they have are citizens. The proper ways to address that are to a) prevent them from entering illegally in the first place, b) fix immigration law so they don't have to enter illegally, and/or c) add a constitutional amendment modifying the 14th amendment to explicitly deny citizenship to children born to parents who are here illegally.
> The phrase is exclusively intended to handle both foreign and US diplomats.
I'd argue that the phrase was originally intended to make it absolutely clear that formerly enslaved people were citizens, and so were their children.
Obviously it's been used for other purposes since then, and the authors and those who ratified it considered the repercussions through their own biases, but I believe that was almost exclusively the primary intent.
It's striking me at the moment how much the political climate today mirrors that of the time the 14th was ratified. From a historical perspective, the concern is over the expansion of the electorate - from the abolition of slavery then, and from uncontrolled immigration today.
The difference I see is that the abolition of slavery was a positive decision made by the US government; today's concerns around illegal immigration were caused by our failure to enforce our own laws. Based on my understanding of the motivations of our Justices today, that could be a key difference.
Tell that to anyone who was hoping to upgrade their RAM or build a new system in the near future.
Tell that to anyone who's seen a noticeable spike in electricity prices.
Tell that to anyone who's seen their company employ layoffs and/or hiring freezes because management is convinced AI can replace a significant portion of their staff.
AI, like any new technology, is going to cost resources and growing pains during its adoption. The important question which we'll only really know years or decades from now is whether it is a net positive.
The US federal budget in 2024 had outlays of 6.8 trillion dollars [1].
nVidia's current market cap (nearly all AI investment) is currently 4.4 trillion dollars [2][3].
While that's hardly an exact or exhaustive accounting of AI spending, I believe it does demonstrate that AI investment is clearly in the same order of magnitude as government spending, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's actually surpassed government spending for a full year, let alone half of one.
I'm sure they're talking about necessary healthcare - e.g., cancer drugs, insulin, dialysis, heart surgery, etc.
When giving the option of parting ways with some more money or dying, virtually no one is going to choose the latter.
Unfortunately, the US healthcare system is set up to extract maximum capital from people who interact with it. Worse: it's not alone. For example, the reason food in the US has so much sugar, salt, and fat in it is that the food industry has carefully engineered processed foods to be more addictive so people will buy more of it.
We live in one of the most exploitative societies in the world, and it's only getting worse over time.
A big hurdle to proper analysis is that people are unreliable narrators.
Let's take a person who made it rich betting big on bitcoin early on. Were they a savvy investor who made their own fortune, did they merely think it sounded cool and thought why not while bitcoin prices were so low that snatching them up was super cheap, did they rely on a tip or tips from friends/family, or was it some other reason?
If you come back and ask them years later after they've become worth 10^7 or better, how likely is the person who merely got lucky to admit it was dumb luck in an environment that lionizes the wealthy as self-made superhumans?
This is a standard cop-out that bears challenging every time it's used.
By refusing the job, you narrow the number of people who can do the job, making it more expensive, both because there are fewer candidates to do the job and because it makes the hunt for employees take longer. It also gives cover for others who aren't confident to stand against the job by themselves when they see others refuse it.
There's a non-zero chance that refusing such a job means it becomes too expensive to be feasible, especially if it requires expertise held by a limited set of individuals.
> By refusing the job, you narrow the number of people who can do the job
By refusing a job, I only narrow my employment opportunities.
The bank won't take my goodwill as payment before they take the house for not paying the mortgage. This is essentially where the discussion ends.
The world is cursed. I have to engage with systems that were not of my creation, and that will devour me if I am complacent. But we keep moving forward anyway.
I would like these companies to not exist. For the billionaires that direct them to create immeasurable damage to society to pay for their misdeeds. I even vote for whichever party that promises to limit the reach of those companies.
What I won't do is damage the lives of those that depend on me in an empty gesture of moral grandstanding.
It's just as gross and wrong that we allow parents to marry off their children to an adult as it is that we allow the marriage to take place at all. It's effectively the same as selling children into sexual slavery.
The grandparent's point is that articulate prose is irrelevant to the strength/correctness of the argument or intelligence of the author.
I would take it a step further and include that it has no bearing on the morality of the author.
The original claim was:
> But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons.
In truth, it does no such thing. Articulate arguments serve neither as proof the person making it isn't a monster nor that they are particularly intelligent or knowledgeable about that which they argue.
Though, I would also point out that monsters can occasionally be right as well.
I think he's using the wrong word here. "Articulate" isn't enough. What you need to do is compare the arguments from both sides about the subject, especially how they address specific things. Who is using facts, who is using emotions? How do claims stand up to time?
I believe Betteridge's law of headlines [1] applies here:
No.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
reply