This is very neat! The effect has only been observed up to three years out, but this seems like it could become a pretty cost-effective option?
Also, misc side note: I keep reading the words "Madonna" and "Cults" in the title even though they're not there. Was very confused when I first clicked the link.
I know this is written like it's supposed to make us sympathetic, but the engineer seems completely in the wrong here for reasons unrelated to his ethnicity or what language he was speaking.
A video call in the same area as classified info, where presumably classified discussions could be happening in the background, seems like such a massive security issue.
Samee understanding I got. He got laid off for breaking security protocol and then tries to put a racial spin on it to claim wrongful termination and add the dying relative story to gain sympathy.
A friend works at Airbus and needs to check his phone into a locker before entering the secure area where most of the work takes place, so if he wants to take a personal call he must do it outside that area and never bring his phone or other personal electronic devices inside.
Often you'll have penetration testers try to break in or security auditors who try to convince random employees to break security protocols to test you and it's no joke, if you loose your security certification you automatically loose your customers, as defense contracts depend on having said certifications. Rules are rules over there.
The paranoia is high because there are nation states who are well funded and well motivated to get their hands on your defense capabilities, so the tight security protocols must be obeyed by everyone if you choose to work for defense contractors, as consequences are dear, nothing against your ethnicity or language you speak.
So carrying a device he could use to receive and accept the video call in a restricted office space is probably, by itself, a serious breach of security rules?
Very much so. The concern is that such devices can be hacked and used to exfil information from inside the classified space. While that might sound far fetched, we're talking nation-state actors who are trying to penetrate the most critical of spaces. They're willing to go to great lengths for this because the potential payoff is vast.
If he took a video call in the space using their VC equipment, that's bad enough. (the understanding being that, you use equipment for work purposes, announce that there's an uncleared call taking place, and sanitize the area).
Accidents happen. I've seen people forget they were carrying a phone, it beeps, and they go running out of the room to deposit it, and later self-report the breach. No biggie. But if he brought in an actual phone, and retained it, and then took an incoming call on it, from within a secured area, well, then I'd expect the consequences to be exactly what happened.
To be clear, The article doesn't make clear that it's what happened, but if I watched someone do that, I think my jaw would fall off.
Edit: This applies to U.S. Government spaces which the article seems to imply. Private company security policies probably mirror this in many ways, but I can't speak for them.
It is. We can't be sure the exact circumstances, but reading this leads me to believe that there's some important facts that are missing.
"“Before doing so, he made sure there were no classified materials or anything else pertaining to MDA’s (Missile Defence Agency) or Parsons’ work anywhere near him,”
That's an important tell. The only way the presence of classified materials would even be a consideration would be if he was in a SCIF (secure facility for the handling of such.) And to be in there means he had been read on to and periodically briefed on that room's procedures.
Placing a call, from inside that room, to a foreign country, is highly suspicious. Note that similar exfiltration of data has taken place in previous instances.
I'm incredibly suspect of the claim that he "accepted the call". "Accepted" a video call? Into an empty, random cubicle? That doesn't make sense. I suspect (speculating here) that the individual got a message like an email and was asked to call, and so went into an empty cubicle with the needed VC gear and called. And frankly, he should have known better. You need to make a personal call, you step outside.
"“Despite there being no policy prohibiting the call" - I don't think that's true at all.
I'm sad at the circumstances that lead to this, and I'm sure the individual was trying to act in good faith. But that was a really, really dumb move, and I'm not surprised at the consequences.
I’ve seen and have been involved with stories like this before, albeit not in the federal space and not with this specific type of employee action.
The reporter may have gotten facts wrong. The Hindustan Times is probably not going to have a good vetting of stuff happening in Alabama. But if he didn’t, there’s definitely key facts missing because attorneys making complaints like this generally don’t make errors in facts like “no policy was violated”.
Perhaps this incident highlighted some inconvenient facts about the company’s policies (or lack thereof). Maybe the almost 80 year old engineer was a pain in the ass so some charge was ginned up. Or maybe the guy is just going out as loudly and painfully as possible.
>and ensures that there is nothing classified there
In the bureaucratic world of defense contractors, that might not be up to him to decide what is classified and what not. Usually there's a dedicated person who's job is to have the decision and liability on what is classified on what not, and not left up to each employee to decide.
If the meeting room is in a classified area, then whatever is in the room is by default considered classified as well regardless if there was no actual classified stuff inside at that time, so no personal electronic devices are allowed in.
> I know this is written like it's supposed to make us sympathetic
Not just that, it's written to establish a narrative that is disputed. A more accurate title would be, "Indian-American engineer alleges he was fired for speaking Hindi."
You see this a lot in news articles about lawsuits, where the plaintiff's claims are presented uncritically. But plaintiffs can allege anything! It's like the recent Subway lawsuit that alleged that the tuna wasn't actually fish. It's unbelievable on its face: you're saying that Subway has found a fake fish that actually fools people and they aren't monetizing _that_? But the headlines lead with the complaint and only sometimes will end with ",says lawsuit."
I don't think it's mostly a male phenomenon. The original article says hikkikomori are about equally likely to be male as female. There are also more female NEETs worldwide, though female NEETs are more likely to be disabled and/or caretaking for dependents.
Can you expand on the family court claims? From what I've heard, fathers who ask for custody are slightly favored over mothers in family court. Women only end up with custody so much more often because very few fathers ask for custody (and custody is usually not given to the unwilling).
The original article here also says "The largest proportion of people affected [by being a hikkikomori] were in their 40s or 50s and roughly equally divided between men and women."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research actually notes significantly more female than male NEETs, though the female NEETs were also more likely to be disabled or caretaking for dependants. [0]
Those aren't NEETs but rather unemployed men unable to continue working often they're construction workers who's bodies give out. Since they are unable to be retrained in the Japanese system they often end up destitute and homeless. Along side recently divorced women unable to re-enter into the workforce it's two issues that are occurring simultaneously. There are some forms of resources for the women but the men are often left abandoned.
Are you replying to the link I posted? One of the summary bullet points: "More than half of young women not employed or in school (54 percent) fall into one of three categories related to disability and potential care obligations — have a disability, live with a disabled adult, or live with at least one of their children — compared to just over one-third of men who are not employed or in school (35 percent)."
The male NEETs in CEPR data were less likely to have a traditionally "good reason" for being a NEET.
NEET men were only slightly more likely to be disabled themselves than NEET women, and given the higher total count of NEET women, I'd guess this breaks out to about an equal number of each gender being NEET for reasons of their own disability.
I agree there does seem to be a disparity in resources for NEETs, though.
Japan often faces claims of especially harsh work culture with terrible hours/overtime expectations; I would expect that to contribute more than things like grandmothers being cruel. (Being unable to keep up with work culture ?=> perceived burdensomeness ?=> less social connection?)
I'm a little worried that this will become more common in aging countries as they place higher demands on the working-age population. There's that saying about Japan's social issues being a look at the issues the rest of us will have in a couple decades.
As a side note, if anyone's looking for an indie psychological horror game related to the discussion of hikkikomori, Omori was pretty enjoyable.
I've recently wondered if we are under-estimating the burdens being placed on the working age population in most developed nations. While public benefits are one mechanism to support the aging population, we have also returned higher than typical returns to capital over the last 3-4 decades. As capital is not evenly distributed across generations, and all else being equal - higher capital returns inherently means that less capital is flowing to the younger generation.
How much of the general cost increase we see in housing, education, and other fields is due to the funding needs of pensions/401k funds and other retirement vehicles?
I've noticed the sentiment in some countries in southern and southwestern Europe that the working-aged prime earners are being squeezed harder and harder to support the generous benefits received by the retiring and retired.
Interesting you bring up southwestern Europe, here we have people that are almost the same as hikikomori, as in, living with parents up until 30-35 years of age, not studying, not working.
But the main difference is, since so many people share the same experience (young adult unemployment), it's not looked down socially.
Actually, this kind of phenomenon and the environment it creates (e.g. many people hanging around in evenings, doing a botellón), contributes a lot to how Spanish people and culture is perceived - carefree, "lazy", siesta-loving, night owl.
My point is just that almost the same phenomenon can either be viewed extremely bad, or good.
Yes.
Germany is steering towards a massive cliff and nothing's changing.
The mandatory retirement tax I pay goes straight to retirees today. That system only works though if you have a growing population. Every year the ratio of retirees/workers increases.
Even today that system isn't self-sufficient. In 2021 the government had to allot an additional 91 billion EUR. By 2030 it's expected to be 134.
Most of my peers (20-30 year olds) are fully aware that we very likely won't receive a government retirement or one so low that it wouldn't make a difference.
Didn't the german chancellor say recently that Germany would have to take in 1.5 million immigrants a year so that its pension system wouln't collapse? I personally don't think that is the solution but Spain is going through a similar phenomenon (pensions-low TFR).
Spain has the advantage of having an entire continent who speak Spanish, are generally Catholic, and were former colonies / have overlapping culture. Failing that, British expats might suffice.
German politics/demographics seem balanced carefully between {need for immigrants to maintain population growth} and {cultural reaction to immigrants}.
Although, credit to Germans, at least they're talking about the problem like adults. Mostly. Or moreso than other countries.
In at least my bubble of the US (Republican ~40yr old family members), there's starting to be some grumbling along the same lines, too.
Although I don't usually think of the U.S. as particularly generous to the elderly, social security and Medicare spend ~$2 trillion of the $6.3 trillion federal budget. I've heard complaints that it's squeezing the young too hard to pay for (increasingly longer & sicker) retirement for the old.
I don't understand the alternatives well enough to have a strong personal opinion, though.
The alternatives are fairly simple: you can either increase revenue or decrease benefits.
Increasing revenue (number games aside) would come from productivity gains or additional working population.
Decreasing benefits would come from cutting the payout or increasing qualifying age.
Honestly, taking Medicare out of the picture as a different problem that requires different solutions, Social Security should have been indexed to life expectancy from the beginning. It was never practical to build up a surplus that would be of sufficient magnitude to address demographic imbalances over decades.
Grandfather people in the program into the current rate, apply a sliding scale to people close to retirement (only fair, so their expectations don't drastically change), and make the hard decision.
I agree on indexing retirement age to lifespan, but I doubt that would get much support. See ex. the protests in France. In the U.S., the elderly are a very powerful voting bloc.
I'd argue another concern could be useless/harmful interventions. Like taxpayers paying 82k a year per person for Leqembi treatments, which seems useless at best. There are also a lot of interventions that drag on terrible-quality lives in an attempt to forestall death as long as possible; I have personal experience with elderly family members who expressed a preference for death over their treatment plans (but were no longer able to choose). If I retain the ability to choose, I would go to great lengths to avoid some of modern medicine's pallative care.
I don't know. It's all hard. Obviously I want elderly people to be healthy and cared for as much as possible, but not at infinite cost (to the taxpayer or to their own quality of life).
Medicare is an entirely different ball of yarn that should be separated as much as possible.
It's complicated enough that including it in any other reform overcomplicates the effort and kills it.
That said, I do think the "death panel" branding from Republicans was extremely intellectually dishonest and in poor taste. Everyone knew exactly what was really being discussed, and to claim mock outrage in front of cameras for political points was dodging the hard question and hurting the country.
The moral argument I always hear for our high prices is that it uniquely benefits medical research. I'm not convinced that dichotomy exists, and that those aren't largely indepedent of each other.
Social security is almost double the outlay of Medicare. We should definitely be looking at decreasing medical prices (especially for enraging subtopics like insulin), but I imagine supporting non-working elderly is going to be an increasing slice of the federal budget regardless.
> I don't usually think of the U.S. as particularly generous to the elderly
US benefits for retirees are quite generous by European standards, which is often surprising to both Americans and Europeans. Americans are consistently messaged to save for their own retirement throughout their lives, which lends to this impression.
Social Security is a classic Ponzi structure. If you can't see that you're deliberately not looking. Ponzi schemes always collapse, and the fallout is never pretty.
It's a Ponzi scheme in that the money isn't being invested. The money isn't working and earning a return. That's why people suggest private pensions as an alternative to social security as it can put money to work. And there's skin in the game as it's not a Pension fund board member investing tens of thousands of members savings with a single decision, it's you deciding your own future and the level of risk you're willing to take on
To me it's also pretty interesting, how politicans (at least here in Southwestern Europe), almost never consider or talk about ordinary, middle class working people.
It almost always has to be about the elderly, or benefits to the ultra-poor.
Seems to me super weird that none of the major political groups "speak to me", as a normal, middle class worker.
I don't buy the work culture thing, I can't back it up with hard numbers, but I think Americans work equally long hours, some even two full-time jobs. It's not unheard of that in certain corporate environments people work 60-80 hours a week.
Or is it that Japan doesn't have a "water cooler chat" culture and/or breaks are frowned upon?
Looks like Japanese people worked significantly more hours than Americans in the 80s and 90s, the gap narrowed in the 00s, and the U.S. just (barely) passed Japan starting in 2015. I could be outdated in my understanding of Japanese work culture.
Japanese people seem to stay in the workforce a few years longer, but given the older population, I'm not sure how to weight this.
I'm not an expert on Japan by any stretch, but I do know that there was a severe economic collapse ~1990 (called the lost generation I believe), this changed a previously very strong economic/social contract where people were essentially guaranteed well paying jobs given a relatively low barrier of entry (in exchange they were obviously expected to work very hard), however this led to a removal of that system and many people from that generation have had to struggle to find meaningly work outside of low paying temp work (maybe like a gig economy deal), this led a lot to feel they had been abandoned by their government/corporate entities even though they had done all the things they were "supposed to do" to get into that system.
In a way, I lived through a similar thing in a post-soviet country. Pre-1990 it was illegal, to be unemployed. But on the other hand people got a guaranteed job if they wanted to work. Sure it was in most cases a meaningless job, but a job nevertheless.
Somehow that part of the world seems to have avoided this phenomenon. Maybe because it was a big political/external change (the collapse of the soviet union), so people found it easier to cope with it.
Maybe this also helps explain part of the reason the problem is prevalent in the US as well? Corporate culture in some places can be utterly soul crushing, and the rewards are rarely worth it.
Some people are able to survive, while others get crushed and give up.
> It's not unheard of that in certain corporate environments people work 60-80 hours a week
> certain corporate environments
it happens, both in terms of company, and situation (e.g. crunch weeks), but that ain't the entire country all the time the way it is in Japan.
I recall a study about how the average workday in Japan was peaking at 13 hours, and the corporate execs were worrying that it was starting to trend down. Similar approaches like 996 are a thing in China, too.
I don't think the raw working hours matter. Do a job you love and it's much less of a burden compared to something you dread but do anyways because of social expectations.
Maybe a dumb question, but to implement pay-per-mile, why not just increase the gas tax? I'd love there to be fewer (unnecessary) cars around, but dislike the idea of ULEZ CCTV expansion.
I've read that when visiting the Vatican, you can pay extra to be allowed to walk through before regular admission starts. Which seems totally worth the cost, but a) keeps it out of reach of most people, and b) kicks the can down the street until there are enough people willing to pay the higher cost.
But overall the system seems like the best we can get... one portion of the day with limited admission (maybe a cap at a very small number of visitors), auctioned so that those who are willing to pay the most get in. Then that money is used for upkeep & supporting general admission, where anyone can pay a low price to come in with ~no cap.
I die a little inside to discuss limiting a full experience of some of the world's best-known works of art to the wealthy, but I genuinely don't know of a better way to allocate a scarce good.
The lotteries for the national parks are abused by automated bots reserving in microseconds - at least in the PNW. Heck, I've even stumbled upon a secondary marketplace reselling them for thousands since they are transferable (fatal flaw). So the argument about equal access is moot.
There will always be some people that find a way to slip through but it is possible to make it a significant difficulty to do so. It’s just that most places don’t care to.
I know bots abuse the campground and permitted hike system but I don't how or why they'd try and manipulate the lottery. The cost is so high and odds so low of winning things like the the wave or the Enchantments.
What we really need is what my university had where if you grab a spot and no one shows up, you can't get a spot for a certain amount of time.
One that I've done is the Enchantments (also PNW, but WA state, not national).
For that, it is not transferable; you can register for multiple people (eg: 5 campers for dates XYZ), but whoever's name is on the lotto ticket must be present in the group when you register at the ranger station.
Almost everywhere in the world you can pay extra to get into places earlier than the general public. Just depends on how much money you are willing to spend
People aren’t entitled to experiences. Back in the day, most people barely left their own towns. You might be lucky if you saw one great work of art in your lifetime. That’s what we must return to in order to keep places from getting over saturated with tourism.
Because the world doesn’t revolve around them. Just because you will never get to see the Sistine Chapel doesn’t mean you should be fine with it being burnt down.
Perhaps that could be your philosophy of the world. But indeed, me along with millions do want to broaden our understanding and experience of the world.
Else why even use phones and the internet to post here, unlike "back in the days of yonder".
From a purely pragmatic/selfish perspective, the more wondrous places that exist the greater the opportunity for me to see one, both from a "hey that's close to where I'll be" standpoint and "hey, the more tourists at the Sistine Chapel, the fewer at the Louvre".
But from a broader perspective, beauty in the world is worth cherishing. I regret the gradual destruction of both the coral reefs and Venice. I was saddened when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan, despite never expecting to see them, despite not even knowing they existed previously.
To me that seems a lot different than the scenario that the parent poster is presenting where the majority of people stay in their small town and never experience any of these things.
I can definitely get on board for the idea that humanity needs to work together to manage our cultural resources so that everyone can benefit. I can't get on board with the idea that the majority of people should live empty lives in order to preserve things for a lucky few.
Whether we like it or not, tourist attractions do not scale. Everyone isn’t going to get their 15 minutes with the Sistine chapel. Some won’t even get more than a few minutes if at all.
I get what you are saying, but you aren't explaining what your solution is.
It sounds like you are advocating returning to a model where the peasants toil away in obscurity to that the aristocracy can enjoy art, travel, etc. However, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that's not actually what you are advocating.
Is this your actual argument? You will accept nothing less than literally zero? Surely you realize that this is impossible among any group of people (including police) in literally any place on Earth.
What would your proposed policing system look like?
I would expect that if someone were killed by the police under suspicious circumstances there would be a meaningful and earnest investigation as to whether the police acted appropriately. If not, that their special authority be revoked and criminal charges be brought.
Ah, this I agree with. Qualified immunity has protected police in a few way-too-shady circumstances.
However, as a side effect, I think a lot of police would leave their jobs (or less people would join the police force in the future) without qualified immunity. In some cases this is good as it removes or prevents bad apples in the force, but in other cases I imagine perfectly good potential-cops are not going to put up with a dangerous, low-paid job that they can also be sued for doing at any time.
Sort of like aggressive medical malpractice lawsuits discouraging actually good/useful medical treatment as bycatch. Maybe there's some free-market equivalent of malpractice insurance for police (where the shadier they've acted, the more they'd have to pay for insurance)? Not sure the market is the right approach here, but I'm not familiar with any specific alternatives.
Or, to make everything a lot easier, just give every cop a bodycam and ~80% of the ambiguity disappears.
> * I think a lot of police would leave their jobs (or less people would join the police force in the future) without qualified immunity*
I'd rather have fewer police, even if that makes them dangerously understaffed, than the current situation where cops have very little accountability, and are unlikely to be punished when they break the law when interacting with non-cops.
Qualified immunity needs to go. Not just because it's a bad doctrine, but also because there's no basis for it in law; courts have just made it up with little legal justification.
> Or, to make everything a lot easier, just give every cop a bodycam and ~80% of the ambiguity disappears.
Body cameras are much less useful than we'd all like to believe. I think 80% is too optimistic. Cops can turn off the camera (or, "weird, it wasn't working"), and regular physical motion can easily blur the scene and make it impossible to know what's truly going on. I think cops should be required to wear them (and be auto-punished for turning them off), but I don't think they're the panacea many people think they are.
We might have a genuine disagreement then, because I have a very strong preference against police being "dangerously understaffed".
Given other societal forces (i.e. decreasing mental health care for those with the greatest need, since about the Reagan era), in my understanding we rely on cops to hold together denser areas. If policing were to substantially decrease, I'd want to be as suburban/rural as possible (whereas currently I'd like to be more urban). I might be in favor of less policing if it came after we had better services for the homeless & mentally ill.
Not claiming my viewpoint is morally or practically correct, only trying to give a better view of my perspective. I'm sure views on the police differ greatly by group membership (I am likely biased by police having low suspicion of me by default; I am also ~never going to "win" a physical interaction without backup.)
Qualified immunity as a concept is necessary in some cases. You don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. All you need is comprehensive and codified rules to prohibit certain police behaviors.
Miranda rights are a good example. Police don't get qualified immunity for violating Miranda Rights because they are codified.
Separating it Internal Affairs and police investigations under a different organization seems like a no-brainer. This would remove conflicts of interest.
The kind of person who is unwilling to be a cop without qualified immunity is 100% not the person who should be allowed to be a cop.
No other job in the US, including ones that can cause negligent death and send you to prison, has qualified immunity. If a cop can't do their job without breaking the law, something is very wrong with the law or their job description.
>dangerous, low-paid job
It is not even remotely either of these. Cops die less on the job than sanitation workers. Most cop deaths (excluding when covid was the primary cause) are caused by car accidents. Is the police union attempting to stop car chases which have shown to be dangerous and ineffective?
I think "the kind of person unwilling to be a doctor without [some level of] protection from medical malpractice lawsuits shouldn't be qualified to be a doctor" would be false - there's a lot of reasons someone might want protection from constant litigation in a high-stakes job, even if they are trying to do it well. What do you see as the key difference between doctors & cops here? Other jobs don't have qualified immunity per se (except other governmental jobs), but there are plenty of jobs with specific licensing/insurance that seems to be trying to do something similar.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Police and sheriff's patrol officers and transit and railroad police have some of the highest rates of injuries and illnesses of all occupations."[0] It's certainly not the deadliest job, but I'm guessing it is vastly overrepresented in deaths & injuries compared to most jobs (and many potential officers' next best option).
In 2021 police & detectives in the U.S. had a median wage of ~$66k[1], lower than the national median of ~$71k[2]. Again, not the worst paid by far, but below median.
Obviously a lot of this depends on location; different areas have vastly different crime rates, and police in a wealthy suburb probably are very well-off compared to the night shift in inner cities.
Police work is far from the worst job you can get, but it still seems harder than a lot of (most?) other work. Though I don't feel qualified to make a subjective comparison to other jobs of similar pay & starting requirements.
I'm not sure what you mean by police unions trying to stop car chases. Presumably chasing criminals through sometimes-dangerous situations so they don't get away is a core part of the job description?
in my case, it would not only enforce the law, it would obey the law, be culpable for breaking the law, and would actively route out criminals, and gangs that manage to enlist.
I think approximately everybody agrees with these ideals, but approximately nobody agrees on how to achieve them in the real world. Or agrees about comparative importance - ex. weighing being culpable for breaking the law against ability to enforce the law, if you see the discussion below about qualified immunity.
>I think approximately everybody agrees with these ideals
Maybe in vague theory but in the past several years, every time a cop shoots someone without just cause there are a lot of people defending them. Hell, they get donated millions to defend themselves in court! Strangers send money to a random cop so he can afford expensive legal council to keep him from being guilty of a crime. Surely that can't be read as everyone wants accountability right?
I'm wary of kicking the hornet's nest here, but just as a note, a lot of the highest-profile "just cause" cases have a lot of disagreement around the actual details. Thanks to the PETA principle[0] (section III is about exactly this), the events that make it into mainstream media almost always have intensely divisive details that do make an impartial ruling a lot harder. People that disagree with you would probably also disagree with how innocent/guilty you find the people involved.
I think pretty much everyone wants police accountability, but the cases where the police are most unambiguously & egregiously wrong on every level aren't divisive enough to stay in the news as long as divisive ones. (Not necessarily always true! Please do not take any of this as a strong personal opinion any any particular case(s)!)
I think it would be more similar to prohibition than pineapple pizza, at least to people who care about it.
Presumably less alcohol/less gay marriage is expected to help save people from the temptation toward grievous sins (at least in Christian settings), and help support the traditional family unit in its duties to raise the next generation (less alcohol = less domestic abuse and financial stupidity / less homosexuality = more straight relationships, more children, and partnerships more likely to follow a traditional division of labor & have a woman to raise the children).
I'm in favor of equal rights to marriage, I just think your comment would badly fail the Ideological Turing Test.
Also, misc side note: I keep reading the words "Madonna" and "Cults" in the title even though they're not there. Was very confused when I first clicked the link.