The ”race tracks” are left- and right-hand traffic patterns for arriving aircraft and touch-and-go training, typically used by smaller aircraft. The polylines going from airport to the surroundings are IFR (instrument flight rules) STARs (standard terminal arrival routes) for inbound/outbound planes; each vertex in the line corresponds to a so-called navigation star which usually has a 5-letter name.
COS's airfield is also used by PSFB so you'll see different patterns than a normal airport. You find similar patterns, though, near other military bases like here, near Pensacola and Eglin:
The article makes it sound as if there were govt negotiations to have them sent home. It is light on details though, but with that many people of a friendly nation / corporation I imagine they get treated differently.
I interpreted that to mean they may not have permanent US immigration issues vs "being deported".
the national debate and evolving policies wrt deportations the past year has focused on:
1. getting those with criminal records depoarted and not allowed back (a fair number of whom have been depoted and have violated the ban on returning)
2. getting those who've wished to settle and work jobs to leave voluntarily by buying them plane tickets and giving them cash stipends and not barring their reentry in the future
These Koreans who came to Georgia on behalf of their company will probably not have their tickets paid for by the US nor get the stipend, so yes, they are treated differently as you suggest.
after the surprise arrests executing the judicial warrant, the Korean company and government stepped forward and expressed a commitment to helping these workers, which occurred without negotiation, although you could call the flurry of phone calls after that negotiations, it was probably more like "Q; what do we need to do" "A: you need to bring them home". neither country nor the companies involved is looking to disturb relations, though perhaps this is adjacent to a tariff negotiation.
> neither country nor the companies involved is looking to disturb relations
Relations are disturbed. You can take that to the bank. The SK government just stepped up for their citizens as they should. But US/SK relations just got dinged.
i didn't say neither country wanted to control its borders, visas, employment etc, but that's all consular stuff or domestic/border policing.
at the ambassaor/embassy/diplomatic level state to state, there will be no effect on relations because neither country wants that. We are important allies and major trading partners, this is a matter of minor corruption.
you're smarter than this, don't read/comment selectively to stay on your hobby horses. this does not bring us closer to the inevitable contradictions of capitalism and the revolution.
Most of the conflict occurs when the country of origin refuses to accept the deportees, for whatever reason. I don't imagine this will be the case with South Korea.
> 2. getting those who've wished to settle and work jobs to leave voluntarily by buying them plane tickets and not barring their reentry in the future
If you think the current administration is giving cash stipends to anyone it's been working to deport as part of its dragnet, I have a very large bridge to sell you.
it's a real policy (it's an app), provide a link if you have a source that says it's not, otherwise you're just unproductively snarking. it's certainly cost effective, a few thousand voluntary is much cheaper than administrative means.
as I said before, the program is to volunteer to go home prior to being deported by the govt; the point is by volunteering you save the cost of deportation (agents, lawyers, court time, incarceration, transportation)
so if your friends were deported before applying, then it's too late because that deportation already cost the govt money.
the program is only months old, so if your friends got deported before that it wouldn't apply.
you have to apply for the program (I think you just download the app and sign up) in advance, you can't just return home and then apply.
You didn't click on the link I shared. I'm talking about the cost to produce the response, not the request. One AI prompt uses around 10 times more CPU and energy than a Google search.
If ChatGPT handles 1 billion queries a day, that's like the energy cost of 10 billion Google searches every single day.
Someone has to pay the electricity bill. We all know it's not free like you claim.
you also didn't click on the link the poster you replied to shared...
seconding openrouter and fal, having to muck around with idiosyncrasies of each vendor just to try their "bestest model" and find out it does not satisfy your requirements is a chore.
I'd stick with Google Search until Microsoft figures out how to handle a billion OpenAI requests a day without draining the water supply of entire cities. Because in Chile, for example, people are struggling.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in blog posts from lobbyist in Washington, the same place pushing to build mega datacentres with Nvidia servers in developing countries.
Also, Andy's blog post doesn't mention infrastructure-scale impacts. Even small actions add up, and as AI scales exponentially, so does the demand on energy and water. That part gets left out.
I'll stick with the research papers published by AI researchers [1] and investigative journalists [2], but thanks for sharing your link, it gives me a good idea of what lobbyists in Washington aren't saying.
Not sure if you actually read the article but infrastructural impact is clearly discussed.
You sent over two links about the environmental impact of data centres. There is no denial that these are burdensome on the environment; the question is to what degree AI and its applications contribute to that effect. If you wanted to argue in good faith you'd be advocating for everyone to stop watching Netflix, because video streaming generates a far greater demand than AI currently does, but I don't see you doing this.
Historically, "safety" referred to protection from physical harm. It has now expanded into psychological, emotional, economical realms. This had the (very much intended) effect of redefining "unsafe" from imminent and persistent threat to anything that makes me uncomfortable.
Not sure how that's super relevant here? "my data could be used to accuse me of a crime" is a threat of physical harm anyway, unless you define being arrested as safe.
And I don't really think public opinion has shifted on that part. You could argue about emotional comfort or something, maybe.
You could probably find 10 separate videos of "public safety officers" assaulting innocent people by shooting them with rubber bullets for no discernible reason or by trampling them with horses (also for no discernible reason), and that's only from the last 2 days.
When your ideologies don't stand on their own merit, one last resort is to redefine words (and hope nobody notices) in order to force people to believe what you say.
