Once their immigration status is tied to their employer they have no ability to shop around for better pay.

So why would they enter the program? They currently have demonstrated that they have no problem not having an immigration status, so why would they switch to having something that doesn’t benefit them, that they don’t want, and that costs them money?

Their goal is to make the legal path cheaper to appeal to farmers, but farmers aren’t the ones driving the price. As you said: market rate is higher than this guarantees people. If there’s a growing shortage of labor you can expect labor wages to rise. Why would you agree to work for less if you can just go to a different farm and make more?

I understand your point and the situation perfectly well.

migrant labor would get more and more expensive, as more and more people are deported.

I believe this is why you’re wrong, and farmers aren’t hoping it goes faster, but rather voted again their own interests like so many have, and just didn’t think they would specifically target their livelihoods.

A racist administration deporting people aggressively, lowering the incentives to come here legally, and not caring about the consequences, while farmers scramble to control damage they didn’t think was actually going to happen is a way simpler story. Also fits nicely with “America first” burning the ability of those farmers to sell to a global market, canceling programs that gave them money, and canceling food aid orders that mostly existed as back handed subsidies.

I feel like what you’re missing is that this is lowering the floor for what you can pay visa holders, but saying that will make them preferable to people where there is no floor doesn’t follow.

That doesn’t make sense. Adding paperwork isn’t going to lower labor costs.
Undocumented workers are already the least paid, least protected category of worker.
They’d be switching from workers with no minimum wage to ones that have a minimum wage, need to be properly tracked by the IRS and all that.

Hmm, that’s a good point. I’m not sure I’d entirely agree. I think the influence of individuals on the course of history is often exaggerated because it gives a greater sense of control to the affairs of the world.

The theme of society not giving a damn about poor people goes on well before we had anything like the modern billionaire. People were building the notion that they must deserve it into their religion before then. I think people largely have a bias towards the notion of justice in the world, so if you’ve been treated unjustly you must have done something to deserve it, and vice versa.
The people who have benefitted from the notion certainly have done what they can to resist the idea that we can be better, but protecting money is so much smaller than changing societal trends. Keeping yourself balanced on top of the crest of disfunction is trivial compared to changing the wave.

Well, they didn’t actually say that, it’s just a very common attitude. Given that they said “permanently end homelessness”, id imagine they meant closer to “cash can’t solve the structural issues that cause homelessness: if you give every homeless person a house, you’ll still have people falling through the cracks and ending up homeless”.

If they weren’t saying that, then I am. Obviously a bandaid is better than the “fuck all” currently being done, but let’s not pretend that a billionaire can just fix societal level problems.

There’s actually a duo feature that does that.
Normally apps can’t cross authenticate like that because they don’t have the ability to talk to each other in a standard way that’s also verifiable and secure. Teams could have a way to share your auth to something else, but it’s much more difficult for it to know that the thing asking for access actually is something that’s supposed to be able to do so.
OneDrive is built in to Windows, so it’s able to use the authentication you use to log into the computer to talk to the Microsoft servers. (Essentially, there’s like a million steps and layers of indirection).

Only for write operations. Reads are effectively free, and cached files are invariably predominantly read heavy.
Even then, the wear effects of writes on SSDs are exaggerated. Improvements in the technology and wear leveling have made them roughly as reliable as spinning disk.

For a phone, the storage is expected to remain viable beyond the expected usage lifetime of the device. It doesn’t really matter if caching wears storage a little faster if the device is inoperable before it’s a problem.

I mean… Caches, logs, and other system data currently in use by the system is a fairly decent explanation. Computers need space to put stuff while it’s working. It’s not particularly odd to not go to extremes labeling the contents of the junk pile that’ll get discarded if anything comes up.

Linux is about as open as a system can be and it has several piles of roughly undocumented junk that can be difficult to know exactly what they contain.

There’s nothing about it to “not trust”. If it wanted to hide something from you it wouldn’t tell you it was there and refuse to explain fully, it would just not tell you at all. It’s not like you can check it’s work.

It wouldn’t surprise me, but I haven’t heard anything like that. Tough production schedules are a great way to cause incidents.

You’re lining up for a strawman. I very clearly stated that fault was with the owners and management for not enforcing safe operating procedures.
I disagreed that the gap in regulation was likely because of safe storage quantities, and more likely because of a failure to enforce safe operating practices.

Don’t make it out to be like I’m saying nothing could have been done to save these people’s lives.
I’m saying expecting an explosives manufacturer to have less than what’s used in a typical charge onsite at any moment is unrealistic, as is storing reasonable quantities such that catastrophe is impossible. Any storage and manufacturing practices that could give you those guarantees would also require a rigorous training process and strong safety culture with well defined and enforced procedures and safeguards.

theoretical customers that for some reason are warehousing unsafe quantities

What, in your mind, is a reasonable and safe quantity of explosives to warehouse for the manufacture of bombs?
By their nature, bombs contain an unsafe quantity of explosives. Safety comes from handling, not saying you can only have half of a 500lb bomb at a time.

I didn’t say it was impossible, just unrealistic. The cost increase for producing in batches smaller than what can cause a problem aren’t worth it if you afterwards just put it in the same pile. Customers aren’t going to want to take delivery as dozens of small shipments spread out over months, but in batches determined by how fast they use it and how much buffer they need. They’re certainly not going to want that rate slowed down by the factory having other customers.

The place where regulatory oversight is missing is in making sure that management isn’t pushing workers to work unsafely, or even letting them if they try.

So I looked into it, briefly, and it looks like that incident was a different company who rented space in their complex.
That isn’t better for them now, but there’s a difference between negligence and renting to the negligent.

So, they do. Unfortunately, there aren’t realistic safety precautions that can be taken that don’t have some risk of catastrophic failure if you’re dealing with the manufacturing and storage of explosives. Even small quantities are destructive enough to be dangerous to store.
Ultimately safe storage comes down to human operational concerns. Missing or unenforced regulations relating to working hours, training, training compliance, or handling safety concerns would be my guess rather than storage conditions.

A lot of explosions at similar facilities had significant warning, unfortunately. While the detonation itself tends to be instant, they usually have rules about how densely explosives are packed, fire control systems, and systems to maximize the time between problem and disaster.

They probably knew something was wrong and that it was bad, but not how bad.

Most specifically, it’s to provide a framework so that small changes are orderly and big changes deliberate.
Laws provide a framework that tries to resist change to the maximum degree possible, with the benefit that it’s generally agreeable enough to enough people that it’s preferable to the danger and force involved in not having them.

It undercuts their dignity. If people think you’re a joke, they don’t do what you say when you say to do something awful.
We’re dealing with fascists. They’re a violent, angry pack of buffoons. We shouldn’t cater to their feelings.

For reference, see the works Chaplin, and Moe, Larry and Curly.

Well that’s sort of my point. Once you go down the military coup path it’s hard to get out.

What does that have to do with what I said, which was about how a military coup is bad?

Whether you’re right or wrong, it’s just unrelated to what I said.

Well, it’s also part of the oath the civilian leadership takes, for what it’s worth.

Point is, you want the military to say “you can’t tell me to do that” and not “I won’t let you do that”.
The latter is the military exerting power over the civilian government, which is a deeply dangerous precedent.

The best scenario we can hope for is for generals to simply refuse an illegal order, and when told to retire, refuse, and when reassigned to also refuse on the grounds that it’s illegal punishment for refusing an illegal order.

Anything more and you’re in coup territory, which sets the precedent that the military can step in and “correct” civilian government when it’s wrong in their view. See, for example, Myanmar. Even after the military relinquished control to allow democracy, they still decided to “correct” that democracy when it started to drift from their wishes.