Now we need AI to replace human users of chatgpt

Yup, there is still some tourism remaining to kill, so why not

I doubt there's much tourism to the US from countries with high overstay rates.

why?

The majority of all tourists (B1/2) in the US come from countries with either visa-free access or sub 5% visa overstay rates [0]

And plenty of poor countries with Sub-Saharan developmental indicators like Pakistan, Cambodia, and Nepal don't have elevated B1/2 visa overstay rates compared to other countries, so if some countries with similar developmental indicators are seeing elevated abuse of the B1/2 program, then it should be cracked down on.

[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_the_United_States

Your argument is like “If we don’t do covid testing, we’ll have no covid cases”

I use Frigate NVR (https://frigate.video/) for my home and it's far more feature rich including support for PTZ cameras.

Seems like a very simple use-case given that it will be barely used at scale. A few thousand employee entries and read qps a few 10s? What’s so special about it to post

The real test is to just test the quantity of trans fats in all oils under various conditions. Like when they are cold and at various temperatures. Why don't just do that and share data.

It's a good move but blanket 200k may mean that a kid from a well-off family in Iowa with a 150k income is able to get free tution while a kid with not so well off family in California with a 210k income is unable to get free tution.

Income as a number doesn't have much meaning until Cost of living is taken into account.

Tuition assistance isn't a binary all-or-nothing.

Every university like this uses a sliding scale.

In this case, their scale slides to the point that under $200K family income you pay nothing for tuition.

Under $100K they'll even cover food and housing.

Yes cost of living does matter.

But I’ve also never met or heard of a $200k household that I wouldn’t consider “well off”. Typically, stories about these “not well off” yet “over double the median income” households are budgeting issues.

People don’t like to admit that because most people blame external forces instead of evaluating their own choices.

Multiple kids + unexpected chronic health issues can quickly change this equation. And before you go judging someone for having multiple kids, consider that a) demographic collapse is probably very bad and we don't want our society to make having kids exceptionally hard, rather than the default norm and b) people may decide to have kids without expecting significant and rapid changes to inflation and cost of living.

This is one of the reasons why—although university admissions and financial aid has lots of paperwork—there is still a major human element.

This is explicitly mentioned on the FAFSA's web site: https://studentaid.gov/help/reporting-special-financial-circ...

The vast majority of people at 200k+ and "not doing well" are suffering from self inflicted budget issues.

How do you know?

Often those "chronic health issues" (obviously not you specifically) are related to poor health choices that are easily fixable. In a world with easy access to Ozempic/Wegovy/Zepbound, many have no excuses in the 200K+ club for not fixing that.

Basically, budgeting issues for the body.

Kids don't cost that much tbh. It's not as if having 2 kids vs 4 kids makes $100k vs $200k the same

Do you have four kids and live in a city?

You would need to set aside $10-15k a year for 18 years, depending on the interest rate, to accumulate $320,000 in cash for 4 years at an $80k school at full freight.

A family making $200k in California takes home about $130k, so call it about 10% of their net income over the child's lifetime. That's some pretty significant budgeting!

It depends on location. In San Francisco a mortgage on a median house might be over $80k/year and child care for a young kid $20k-$30k/year. Then $50k in taxes, assume two kids, that's maybe $180k and we haven't even bought groceries yet. Or healthcare.

It seems unlikely you are spending $30k on child at the same time as you are sending kids to college. Not many families have such an age gap.

Getting a mortgage that is 40% of your income is fairly irresponsible (I’m sure it does happen though). You also didn’t count property tax which is probably like $20k

The comment I replied to implies that all $200k income families are "well off". I think this is a reasonable counterexample, and in SF tuition assistance for childcare includes families up to a little more than $200k so the city government appears to agree.

Yes, it would be extremely irresponsible for a family making $200k to buy even a very bad house in the Bay Area. The bottom rung of the home-owning middle class is much higher than that.

Divorce and remarriage create lots of nonsensical situations.

Okay but renting a normal sized place would be $60k. Then child care for a young kid. Then taxes. If both kids are in childcare, fine, but childcare costs go away after they go to school.

It's very doable with money left over

Besides the obvious that there needs to be some sort of cutoff, it's more of a socioeconomic angle, not economic. By doing it this way it also encourages a larger geographic distribution and thus a wider range of background demographics.

To make matters worse, a kid from a well off family in Iowa is way likelier to stand out and get admission to such colleges than a kid from California, especially the bay area, where smart kids from well off families are common and standing out is hard.

Yeah my definition of not well off is minimum wage. Maybe I am wrong here and Starbucks is really paying barristas 200k per year IDK?

it already is supporting it. I have been already receiving messages on my iphone with RCS written around them

A good example of unnecessary over-engineering