The parser supports the type hint syntax, and the standard library provides various type hint related objects.
So you can do things like “from typing import Optional” to bring Optional into scope, and then annotate a function with -> Optional[int] to indicate it returns None or an int.
Unlike a system using special comments for type hints, the interpreter will complain if you make a typo in the word Optional or don’t bring it into scope.
But the interpreter doesn’t do anything else; if you actually return a string from that annotated function it won’t complain.
You need an external third party tool like MyPy or Pyre to consume the hint information and produce warnings.
In practice it’s quite usable, so long as you have CI enforcing the type system. You can gradually add types to an existing code base, and IDEs can use the hint information to support code navigation and error highlighting.
It would be super helpful if the interpreter had a type-enforcing mode though. All the various external runtime enforcement packages leave something to be desired.
I agree. There are usable third-party runtime type checkers though. I like Beartype, which lets you add a decorator @beartype above any function or method, and it’ll complain at runtime if arguments or return values violate the type hints.
I think runtime type checking is in some ways a better fit for a highly dynamic language like Python than static type checking, although both are useful.
Emphasis on the "something like": there are several different drugs in this class (triptans), and it might take a couple of tries to get one that works for you.
Personally, sumatriptan doesn't work reliably, rizatriptan makes me feel super woozy, but eletriptan works well and without noticeable side effects.
Immigrant visa issuance is discretionary and unreviewable, as this judgment has just confirmed.
Adjustment of status, which is the process to obtain permanent residency within the US, is also discretionary for family-based applicants. The USCIS policy manual[1] lays out what "discretionary" means; roughly, it's a balancing test where the positive factors need to outweigh the negatives, and in the absence of any factors in either direction, the fact that someone meets the minimum requirements for a benefit counts as a positive.
The person in this case thinks they're suspected of being a member of the MS–13 gang, and was denied the visa on the grounds the consular officer believed he sought to "enter the United States to engage [...] in certain specified offenses or any other unlawful activity"[3] (internal quotes removed).
Those facts wouldn't go away if this individual applied for adjustment within the country. USCIS would almost certainly decide this case warrants an unfavorable exercise of discretion and deny the I-485 application for adjustment.
As for the new policy[2]: there's a procedural bar to adjustment of status for people who entered without inspection. The new policy offers a route for some people to apply for parole-in-place--which has been available to undocumented spouses of military members for well over a decade--which removes the procedural bar to adjustment. The discretionary test above would still apply.
The new parole-in-place policy also has a discretionary test, and applicants must not "constitute a threat to national security or public safety".
So this person is ineligible for an immigrant visa on security grounds; would also be ineligible on procedural grounds if they crossed the Rio Grande; would still be ineligible on security grounds anyway; and doesn't qualify for the new relief to begin with!
The only benefit they would gain by crossing the Rio Grande would be the ability to spend a lot of money on further court appeals that would ultimately be denied; consular non-reviewability only applies abroad. But the new policy doesn't affect that one way or the other: anyone on US soil is protected by the Constitution and has recourse to the courts.
If they’re trying to follow the rules, then they can’t just fill out a 1099-MISC.
A babysitter one of the examples specifically called out as a household employee in the IRS guidance[1], so if you’re doing it right you should be running payroll. That’s pretty tricky to DIY properly.
I can see doing this for a nanny, but surely no one is jumping through all these hoops for ad-hoc, hourly babysitting? Any of the random highschoolers or college kids I've used would look at me like I was crazy if I tried to set them up on payroll lol.
It depends on if your yearly payments to them exceed some threshold. There may be more to it than that, of course. Don’t listen to me, I’m the idiot who couldn’t figure it out.
For all intents and purposes, a babysitter is looked at just like a nanny in that if they must adhere to the schedule you set and come to your home to take care of your kids based on the rules you set, the IRS will most likely view this as an employment relationship. And taxes can sneak up on you quickly. If the babysitter earns just $15 per hour and works even 10 hours per week, you’ll cross the $2,700 tax withholding threshold in a little over four months.
I have a housekeeper who only comes in once a month and (I learn) is fairly inexpensive though it doesn’t seem that way. Weekly it would be way over the threshold. I assume
my lawn guy whose basic work is under that threshold —and has a business—doesn’t count either although he does other jobs as well for me and others. But that’s true of contractors generally. So I assume one just does what most people do in common situations.
Even if your bank sends the cheque for collection and waits for the payor bank to confirm there’s funds there.
The cheque could have been stolen and forged, or a legitimate cheque could have been altered. There’s even an example up-thread of a bank recycling account numbers. The owner of the bank account it’s drawn against can take weeks or months to notice that the fraud has happened, and when they do the transaction can be unwound leaving your bank liable to return the value of the cheque.
When I used to deposit US cheques regularly in the UK, I’d be offered the choice between “negotiation” (we assume the cheque is good and will pay it this week) and “collection” (we’ll send the cheque back to the US and only pay you when we collect the money weeks later), but in both cases there was language on the form making it clear that they could pull the money back up to years later if something went wrong.
There’s literally no way of implementing cheques—-or most other payment rails—-without someone, somewhere choosing to extend credit and deciding to take on that risk.
Maybe. I've never taken one and only one client ever asked me if i can take one.
Tbh I think you can still pay by (local) cheque even here but you need to go to the bank and sign something in blood to get them. And not sure if anyone actually takes them any more.
They may have been used for B2B with 30-60-90 day payment terms 15-20 years ago.
SFO’s involvement is that they own or lease the roads and parking lots where the pickups happen, and so have the right to set conditions on their use.
Parking enforcement isn’t automatic at parking lots without barriers either, but that doesn’t mean paying a parking fee to the operator is a “voluntary payment” just because you might not get a ticket if you do skip payment.
As for how they could enforce it, it’s pretty easy to walk around outside the airport and spot the cars with Uber/Lyft decals, or multiple phones, or use ANPR to identify frequent visitors, or just ask passengers as they get into cars. Multiple options for enforcement.
The enforcement might end up targeting the drivers rather than Uber itself, but it would have the same effect.
PreCheck reduces the intensity of the actual screening: walk-through metal detector instead of millimeter wave scanners, can leave your shoes on, keep liquids/laptops/etc in bags, and at airports with a mix of 2D X-ray and 3D CT scanners for baggage, the PreCheck lanes are more likely to have the older X-ray scanners.
The reduced scrutiny is the justification for the fingerprinting appointment background check. I haven't seen anything similar in Europe, but busy airports are far more likely to have an efficient security setup that can already cope with leaving liquids in bags and the like. Many US airports still have security checkpoints that look like temporary installations, with portable equipment--even when they're brand new redevelopments!
Usually, the queues are shorter for the PreCheck lanes, but this isn't guaranteed.
CLEAR replaces having an an agent compare your face to your ID with having a kiosk compare your biometrics. The real advantage comes from having a CLEAR employee then walk you past the queue to get by the normal ID checking podium.
You need both to get the guaranteed short queue and the less intense screening.
(And then there are the programs to expedite the immigration/customs process too, but at least those include PreCheck, so you don't need all three...)
> busy airports are far more likely to have an efficient security setup that can already cope with leaving liquids in bags and the like.
Rome FCO, winner of best airport of 2022, 10th busiest airport in Europe. Boarding a flight last month, I had a sealed San Pellegrino bottle, passed it through screening, I had no idea that wasn't allowed. They confiscated it. I requested to drink from the bottle before it is thrown, they said that was an option before it was screened and now it must go to the garbage.
It sounds like CLEAR is doing what Precheck promised to do? I refuse to get it because me paying money for them to do a background check and make their process more efficient is completely backwards.
What's going to happen when CLEAR becomes saturated and slows down -- a fourth tier of passenger?
CLEAR is more than ten times as expensive as PreCheck: $189/year vs $15.60/year. That's likely enough to keep the queues low.
PreCheck (or rather Global Entry at $20/year, which includes PreCheck plus immigration/customs priority) is worth the cost for me. I'm an immigrant, so the US has already done several checks into my background and has many, many copies of my biometrics already, so there's no additional privacy loss.
I could afford CLEAR, but the value just isn't there for me.
I personally think this is a really ideologically unsatisfying reason to hold off on paying for it. The system shouldn’t be this way - but it is, so you might as well make the best choice within that system.
Pre-check eliminates a big list of screening annoyances: the full body scanners that flag every drop of sweat for additional screening, the removal of shoes and laptops, the separation and bagging of your liquids, the non-citizens and infrequent travelers slowing down your line by getting extra screening and not knowing what to do.
Clear is a bad deal because it is expensive and doesn’t improve the screening process beyond pre-check, it just cuts an already-short line.
The biggest benefit of CLEAR is if you frequently travel through an airport with a lot of occasional-tourist visitors, like Orlando. Just skipping the line there might be worth it.
For others in this thred, as you note, longer lines in Precheck do not mean longer waits in general. Precheck travelers are overwhelmingly frequent flyers and know the routine.
Contra what some others have said, my experience is that almost everyone I know who has Precheck has it as a consequence of Global Entry or NEXUS. But I’m a doctor; healthcare people are subject to background checks and fingerprinting already, so the vast majority of my coworkers are already clean legally. One old simple drug possession is about all anyone will have, because otherwise they would have run you off before you enrolled in nursing or medical school.
CLEAR is different than Pre-Check. CLEAR is a pay-to-skip-line service.
You still need to be screened by security in the normal way. There is Pre-Check CLEAR and normal CLEAR, and you go to the one that matches your security level.
> What's going to happen when CLEAR becomes saturated and slows down
I have CLEAR. When I was in Seattle I saw a family of 5 trying to go through clear because the father was a member, and members get guest passes they can use to sign people up for a trial. It was an absolute mess, but the agents saw me and escorted me past the family. Because of how CLEAR is set up, you can usually handle 5+ people at once, and it's expensive enough it probably won't be saturated by everyone.
> a fourth tier of passenger
I fly a lot, and I think we've just about gotten enough Tiers haha. You have the "normal" pool for occasional people flying to see family or go on vacation. It's slow, the TSA agents have to explain to people how to queue correctly, and the line ends up out the door during busy times. In some airports, you can now reserve your place in line remotely. If you fly 1/yr, its probably fine though.
You have PreCheck, which I recommend to anyone who flies more than 1/yr. It can sometimes get a line during busy times, but it moves - it's probably exclusively people who "know how airports work" so it's orderly. It's also a simpler security protocol, so it's actually less time per person.
Then you have private lines that some airlines set up. TBH I've never used them, but my understanding is that you go through existing TSA, they're just private queues. IDK why you'd do this instead of just paying for PreCheck or CLEAR. I think it's often sold for ~$20 each use (or free with 1st class, etc).
You have CLEAR which is literally just paying to cut the line for PreCheck or Normal TSA. This would compete with the private airport lines. This is $200/yr so you really need to fly often to justify the cost. I have it and use it where available, but I don't miss if its its not there. I would go out of my way to find a pre-check line, but not CLEAR.
Lastly, if you're really fancy there are private security entrances at some airports, with private lounges and security checkpoints. These run in the $5k range, so they're really not for most people. The LAX one will drive you across the tarmac to your plane in a luxury car I'm told. I assume there's no line here ever.
So America already has 5 different tiers of passengers just for going through security depending on your wealth (and risk profile). I can only assume we've rung all the money out we can, and we don't need another yet.
The disc acts as a licence key. The game itself doesn't get read from the disc after installation--that would be far too slow.
The disc versions of the consoles are popular for people who like to buy games second hand and/or trade in after they've finished playing; it's frequently much, much cheaper than digital purchases, even when the digital versions are on sale. There are disc rental services like GameFly, too.
Of course, the manufacturers would prefer to kill this secondary market, so sooner or later I expect the disc drives to go away completely. That was Xbox's plan around a year ago, per some recent leaks, and if one does it the other certainly will as well.
I could understand if it was just a key check, the drive could spin down after starting the game... except it doesn't. The laser stepper is pretty quiet compared to the motor, so I can't tell if it's actively seeking data.
Concern about people pulling the disc out after starting the game, maybe. Pulling out discs without the console realizing has a long history on playstations.
You can visit home, but you might end up stuck there.
Leaving the US as a non-immigrant always carries a small amount of risk: CBP can always decide to refuse your next admission, even with a visa. After the recent spate of tech layoffs some H1-B holders have been asked to show recent payslips at the border to prove their continued employment, for example.
If you’re super unlucky (with your citizenship, or even just sharing a name with someone on a list) visa renewals can be delayed by months to years for security checks (“administrative processing”).
There are also some green card routes which require a period where you simply can’t leave the US without abandoning your application, after which you’ll be refused entry as a non-immigrant and will need to do the entire multi-year immigrant visa process from your home company. H1-B holders avoid this, fortunately, but TN holders and tourists who get married and decide to stay can get caught out here.
tl;dr: the US immigration system is actively user-hostile.
