lucky fortune game

lucky fortune game Some tech industry leaders are pushing the incoming Trump administration to increase visas for highly skilled workers from other nations. Related Articles National Politics | Trump threat to immigrant health care tempered by economic hopes National Politics | In states that ban abortion, social safety net programs often fail families National Politics | Court rules Georgia lawmakers can subpoena Fani Willis for information related to her Trump case National Politics | New 2025 laws hit hot topics from AI in movies to rapid-fire guns National Politics | Trump has pressed for voting changes. GOP majorities in Congress will try to make that happen The heart of the argument is, for America to remain competitive, the country needs to expand the number of skilled visas it gives out. The previous Trump administration did not increase the skilled visa program, instead clamping down on visas for students and educated workers, increasing denial rates. Not everyone in corporate America thinks the skilled worker program is great. Former workers at IT company Cognizant recently won a federal class-action lawsuit that said the company favored Indian employees over Americans from 2013 to 2022. A Bloomberg investigation found Cognizant, and other similar outsourcing companies, mainly used its skilled work visas for lower-level positions. Workers alleged Cognizant preferred Indian workers because they could be paid less and were more willing to accept inconvenient or less-favorable assignments. Question: Should the U.S. increase immigration levels for highly skilled workers? Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy YES: Innovation is our superpower and it relies on people. Sourcing talent from 8 billion people in the world instead of 330 million here makes sense. Nearly half our Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Growing them also relies on expanding our skilled workforce. The cap on skilled-worker visas has hardly changed since the computer age started. With AI on the horizon, attracting and building talent is more important than ever. Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research YES: After years of openly allowing millions of undocumented entrants into the country, why is there controversy over legally increasing somewhat the number having desirable skills? Undocumented immigration significantly impacts lower skill level jobs and wages competing with domestic workers at every skill level. Why should special cases be made against those having higher skills? Could they just not walk across the border anyway, why make it more inconvenient to those with desirable skills? James Hamilton, UC San Diego YES: Knowledge and technology are key drivers of the U.S. economy. Students come from all over the world to learn at U.S. universities, and their spending contributed $50 billion to U.S. exports last year. Technological advantage is what keeps us ahead of the rest of the world. Highly skilled immigrants contribute much more in taxes than they receive in public benefits. The skills immigrants bring to America can make us all better off. Norm Miller, University of San Diego YES: According to Forbes, the majority of billion-dollar startups were founded by foreigners. I’ve interviewed dozens of data analysts and programmers from Berkeley, UCSD, USD and a few other schools and 75% of them are foreign. There simply are not enough American graduates to fill the AI and data mining related jobs now exploding in the U.S. If we wish to remain a competitive economy, we need highly skilled and bright immigrants to come here and stay. David Ely, San Diego State University YES: Being able to employ highly skilled workers from a larger pool of candidates would strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. companies by increasing their capacity to perform research and innovate. This would boost the country’s economic output. Skilled workers from other nations that cannot remain in the U.S. will find jobs working for foreign rivals. The demand for H-1B visas far exceeds the current cap of 85,000, demonstrating a need to modify this program. Phil Blair, Manpower YES: Every country needs skilled workers, at all levels, to grow its economy. We should take advantage of the opportunity these workers provide our employers who need these skills. It should be blended into our immigration policies allowing for both short and long term visas. Gary London, London Moeder Advisors YES: San Diego is a premiere example of how highly skilled workers from around the globe enrich a community and its regional economy. Of course Visa levels need to be increased. But let’s go further. Tie visas and immigration with a provision that those who are admitted and educated at a U.S. university be incentivized, or even required, to be employed in the U.S. in exchange for their admittance. Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates NO: While attracting high-skilled immigrants can fill critical gaps in sectors like technology, health care and advanced manufacturing, increasing high-skilled immigration could displace American workers and drive down wages in certain industries. There are already many qualified American workers available for some of these jobs. We should balance the need for specialized skills with the impact on the domestic workforce. I believe we can begin to increase the number of visas after a careful review of abuse. Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth YES: We should expand skilled visas to drive innovation and economic growth. Individuals who perform high-skilled work in labor-restricted industries or graduate from respected colleges with relevant degrees should be prioritized for naturalization. We depend on immigration for GDP growth, tax revenue, research, and so much more. Despite the abhorrent rhetoric and curtailing of visas in the first term, I hope the incoming administration can be persuaded to enact positive changes to a clearly flawed system. Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health YES: But it should be based upon need, not politics. There are several industries that have or could have skilled workforce shortages, especially if the next administration tightens immigration as promised and expected. Over the years, there have been nursing shortages that have been met partially by trained and skilled nurses from other countries. The physician shortage is expected to get worse in the years to come. So, this visa program may very well be needed. Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere NO: While skilled immigration could boost our economy and competitiveness, the U.S. should prioritize developing our domestic workforce. Hiring foreign nationals in sensitive industries or government-related work, especially in advanced technology or defense, raises security concerns. A balanced approach could involve targeted increases in non-sensitive high-demand fields coupled with investment in domestic STEM education and training programs. This could address immediate needs while strengthening the long-term STEM capabilities of the American workforce. Not participating this week: Alan Gin, University of San DiegoHaney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers AssociationRay Major, economist Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com . Follow me on Threads: @phillip020

Confident Bucs gear up for stretch run against lighter season-ending scheduleDrama surrounds final three F1 races of season

CF Montréal names Corey Wray as sporting director, Saputo sons take on new roles

An online debate over foreign workers in tech shows tensions in Trump's political coalitionWEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — An online spat between factions of Donald Trump’s supporters over immigration and the tech industry has thrown internal divisions in his political movement into public display, previewing the fissures and contradictory views his coalition could bring to the White House. The rift laid bare the tensions between the newest flank of Trump’s movement — wealthy members of the tech world including billionaire Elon Musk and fellow entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and their call for more highly skilled workers in their industry — and people in Trump’s Make America Great Again base who championed his hardline immigration policies. The debate touched off this week when Laura Loomer , a right-wing provocateur with a history of racist and conspiratorial comments, criticized Trump’s selection of Sriram Krishnan as an adviser on artificial intelligence policy in his coming administration. Krishnan favors the ability to bring more skilled immigrants into the U.S. Loomer declared the stance to be “not America First policy” and said the tech executives who have aligned themselves with Trump were doing so to enrich themselves. RELATED COVERAGE Court rules Georgia lawmakers can subpoena Fani Willis for information related to her Trump case Mexico tests cellphone app allowing migrants to send alert if they are about to be detained in US Canadian ministers head to Palm Beach for talks with incoming Trump administration Much of the debate played out on the social media network X, which Musk owns. Loomer’s comments sparked a back-and-forth with venture capitalist and former PayPal executive David Sacks , whom Trump has tapped to be the “White House A.I. & Crypto Czar.” Musk and Ramaswamy, whom Trump has tasked with finding ways to cut the federal government , weighed in, defending the tech industry’s need to bring in foreign workers. It bloomed into a larger debate with more figures from the hard-right weighing in about the need to hire U.S. workers, whether values in American culture can produce the best engineers, free speech on the internet, the newfound influence tech figures have in Trump’s world and what his political movement stands for. Trump has not yet weighed in on the rift, and his presidential transition team did not respond to a message seeking comment. Musk, the world’s richest man who has grown remarkably close to the president-elect , was a central figure in the debate, not only for his stature in Trump’s movement but his stance on the tech industry’s hiring of foreign workers. Technology companies say H-1B visas for skilled workers, used by software engineers and others in the tech industry, are critical for hard-to-fill positions. But critics have said they undercut U.S. citizens who could take those jobs. Some on the right have called for the program to be eliminated, not expanded. Born in South Africa, Musk was once on an a H-1B visa himself and defended the industry’s need to bring in foreign workers. “There is a permanent shortage of excellent engineering talent,” he said in a post. “It is the fundamental limiting factor in Silicon Valley.” Trump’s own positions over the years have reflected the divide in his movement. His tough immigration policies, including his pledge for a mass deportation, were central to his winning presidential campaign. He has focused on immigrants who come into the U.S. illegally but he has also sought curbs on legal immigration , including family-based visas. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump called the H-1B visa program “very bad” and “unfair” for U.S. workers. After he became president, Trump in 2017 issued a “Buy American and Hire American” executive order , which directed Cabinet members to suggest changes to ensure H-1B visas were awarded to the highest-paid or most-skilled applicants to protect American workers. Trump’s businesses, however, have hired foreign workers, including waiters and cooks at his Mar-a-Lago club , and his social media company behind his Truth Social app has used the the H-1B program for highly skilled workers. During his 2024 campaign for president, as he made immigration his signature issue, Trump said immigrants in the country illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country” and promised to carry out the largest deportation operation in U.S. history. But in a sharp departure from his usual alarmist message around immigration generally, Trump told a podcast this year that he wants to give automatic green cards to foreign students who graduate from U.S. colleges. “I think you should get automatically, as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country,” he told the “All-In” podcast with people from the venture capital and technology world. Those comments came on the cusp of Trump’s budding alliance with tech industry figures, but he did not make the idea a regular part of his campaign message or detail any plans to pursue such changes.Save articles for later Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time. W e know what you’ll be thinking as soon as your eyes finish glazing across this list in its entirely: not one Taylor Swift album made the cut. Not a one! Let us explain: this is the problem with asking people to select their top 10 albums from across 25 years. It’s a lengthy period and everyone had a different favourite Taylor Swift era, thus splitting the vote and meaning she missed out. It’s a travesty, but that’s how the cookie crumbles. More importantly, the albums on this list – chosen by our critics with an eye to quality, influence and legacy – offer an interesting snapshot of this millennium’s pop developments to date: the death of rock, the ever-increasing influence of dance and electronic music, and the, um, cult of Lin-Manuel Miranda. Leave your furious comments below. Since I Left You, The Avalanches (2000) Since I Left You is pure joy. The debut of Melbourne electronica savants The Avalanches is a sparkling celebration of music itself – a sonic saturnalia dedicated to music’s endless delights. The Avalanches began as obsessive music fans, spending countless hours raiding op-shop record bins and chopping up thousands of sounds, storing them on a clutter of floppy disks. They stitched together the raggedly beautiful quilt that became Since I Left You on the fly, mad geniuses reinventing music with reckless, casual abandon. They sampled ’80s pop, old-school hip-hop, spaghetti westerns, forgotten comedy skits, wildlife recordings and even Sesame Street , and somehow transformed them into a coherent piece of manic surrealism. The wonderfully bizarre Frontier Psychiatrist and dreamy title track became unlikely hits, but the album is best consumed as a long, wandering journey – a fantastical odyssey to nowhere in particular. Impossibly layered but eminently accessible, complex but freewheeling and a little unhinged. It’s made by fanatics, but it’s for everyone. Tom W Clarke Is This It, The Strokes (2001) New York was about to change in 2001. Two planes flew into the twin towers, forever altering the city’s skyline and psyche. And The Strokes released their debut album, igniting the city’s music scene in a way that hadn’t happened since the heady days of CBGBs in the ’70s. They looked drop-dead cool, all stick-figure limbs in tight jeans, leather jackets and sneakers, like the Ramones before them. The duelling, intertwined guitars of Nick Valensi and Albert Hammond Jr. provided the bedrock for Julian Casablancas’ distorted, sinewy vocals, telling bleary-eyed tales of the city that never sleeps. These clarion calls from the streets of downtown Manhattan reverberated around the world, announcing that rock was back. Drugs, alcohol and musical drift would soon change The Strokes, but on Is This It they are forever preserved as the band that put the spotlight back on New York City and kicked down the door for other guitar-wielding groups to burst through in the Noughties. Barry Divola Discovery, Daft Punk (2001) Gun to head, Homework (1997) is a better album than Discovery , but Daft Punk still made a mockery of the “second album syndrome” with their disco-inspired record that spawned enormous hits One More Time and Harder Better Faster Stronger , and a couple of their loveliest downtempo moments in Something About Us and Veridis Quo . Even Daft Punk’s so-called album tracks are peerless examples of their dazzling artistry, from the energy rush of Superheroes to the infectious dance-funk of High Life to the soulful disco house of Too Long , featuring Romanthony’s indelible vocals (he sung on One More Time , too). On Discovery , Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo changed the electronic music landscape for the second time in four years, incorporating samples in ingeniously inventive ways and trading raw and gritty Chicago-inspired house for euphoric disco-pop that at once evoked the nostalgic wonder of childhood and romantic adventures in outer space. Annabel Ross Fever, K ylie Minogue (2001) Fever is our greatest pop artefact and the epitome of Kylie as queen of reinvention. After the misunderstood swing that was Impossible Princess (1997), an alt-pop pivot so disastrously received that she was dropped from her record label, Kylie had already dipped her toe into Euro-inflected dance-pop on Light Years (2000), producing the improbable comeback hits Spinning Around and On a Night Like This . But Fever upped the sophistication, eschewing the campy winks (we still love you sometimes, Light Years ′ Your Disco Needs You ) and delivering a masterpiece of sultry, slinky, romantic dancefloor euphoria. Beyond the no-skips tracklist – including Love At First Sight , Can’t Get You Out of My Head and Come Into My World - it’s ridiculous how well the album holds up almost 25 years on: with Fever , Kylie took the temperature of the next two decades of pop music, preempting a wave of club-centric stars from Robyn to Carly Rae Jepsen to Dua Lipa. I think this is what people actually mean when they call their favourite pop star mother . Robert Moran Back to Black, Amy Winehouse (2006) Amy Winehouse’s second and final album is a true time capsule, and a potent reminder of a talent and a life gone too soon. Hers was a once-in-a-generation voice that recalled the smoky jazz clubs of the 1960s, belied by her young age – 22 when this album was released – and the tumultuous personal life that the press preyed upon until (and beyond) her tragic death in 2011. Produced by Mark Ronson, Back to Black has some of Winehouse’s finest songs, such as the triumphant Tears Dry On Their Own and the sadly ironic Rehab . It’s all buoyed by bright, colourful musical backing that takes its cues and influences from across genres and eras – everything from doo-wop and ’60s girl groups to soul and R&B. But it’s the title track that’s the defining sound of this particular moment in 2000s history – a heart-wrenching, heartbroken performance that’s simultaneously infused with a quiet strength and fury. Giselle Au-Nhien Nguyen My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Kanye West (2010) Made during a period of exile imposed on (the artist formerly known as) Kanye West following his stage-bombing of a young Taylor Swift at the VMAs, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy captures a celebrity at war with fame, a genius tortured by his singular vision, believing he’d never be truly understood or appreciated. This album changed everything. It is populist maximalism, totally unrelatable and deeply human. The keys on Runaway , the Chris Rock skits and Bon Iver sample, Nicki Minaj’s barn-storming turn on Monster . And the closer, the voice of Gil Scott-Heron asking, from 1970, “Who will survive in America?” Ye no longer has the answers or even the hypothesis. His relationship to fame and reality has become more protracted and upsetting in recent years. But for a moment in 2010, he went to hell and back, found bravery in his bravado, stole fire from the gods and handed it over to the world. Brodie Lancaster Emotion, Carly Rae Jepsen (2015) In a 2019 interview with Time , Carly Rae Jepsen shrugged her shoulders and said, “I think it’s very cool to be uncool and just shamelessly feel it all”. Shamelessly feeling it all has been the Canadian popstar’s MO, right from her 2012 breakthrough hit Call Me Maybe . The single was so impossibly huge that many people (not unfairly) slotted her into the file of “one-hit wonders.” But Jepsen returned in 2015 with EMOTION , an album that boiled over with yearning and lust and love and confusion and every other human feeling that Jepsen could conjure. Its lush, pristine ’80s synthpop production underscored Jepsen’s exceptional songwriting, with rushing, full-throated verses and choruses that lifted like an A380. Run Away With Me , with its now-iconic saxophone riff and screamable “take me to the feeling” refrain, and the aching title track, are high points in an album with no low ones. One of the most acclaimed pop records of the decade, it was an album that helped usher in the era of “poptimism” and unexpectedly cemented Jepsen as a cult pop hero. Jules LeFevre Hamilton, Original Broadway Cast Recording (2015) Having launched his hip-hop revolution of musical theatre with In the Heights , Lin-Manuel Miranda dared to dream higher still. What better subject for a transformational musical than that key revolutionary, Alexander Hamilton? Miranda uses rap to solve a problem faced since recitative faded from operatic fashion: communicating swathes of story rapidly, without resorting to dialogue (given that songs more efficiently communicate emotion). Rapping doesn’t just accelerate the dissemination, it lends the whole show momentum, and with Miranda brilliantly playing Hamilton, the performing matches the writing. His songs shame much new-century composing for musicals. My Shot has the anthemic “Rise up!” refrain, Helpless is an R&B classic, The Duel Commandments is frighteningly visceral, and The Room Where it Happens is wickedly catchy. High art meets thrilling music as the rhymes, among the most dazzling since Byron, fly at you with the velocity of grapeshot from a cannon. John Shand Lemonade, Beyonce (2016) Watching Beyoncé‘s visual album Lemonade for the first time felt like witnessing a pivotal shift in the singer-songwriter’s career. Beyoncè’s music often depicted female empowerment, but with Lemonade she got personal and political, tapping into darker emotions fuelled by betrayal and survival and explored themes of womanhood, blackness in America and her southern roots. It showcased her ability to transcend genres, incorporating gospel intro Freedom , a tribute to the Black Lives Matter movement; bringing country tones into Daddy Lessons , a song about her relationship with her father; and integrating electro beats into Sorry , which detailed an incident of infidelity and brought the phrase “Becky with the good hair” into popular use. Unsurprisingly, it was a commercial and critical success, earning nine Grammy nominations (famously missing out on album of the year to Adele) and becoming the best-selling album globally in 2016. Fans even co-opted the lemon emoji to showcase their appreciation. Vyshnavee Wijekumar Brat, Charli XCX (2024) Charli XCX’s sixth studio album, Brat , is the high point for an artist whose underdog refusal to quit has made her the most consistently risk-taking pop star of her generation. Unlike her revisionist contemporaries, Charli XCX’s discography is entirely rooted in the 21st Century. Brat reflects our third millennium club-cultural zeitgeist, with executive producer A.G. Cook mischievously blitzing this century’s dominant dance music styles (electro house, techno and EDM) into three-minute bangers. Unlike most pop stars, who wrap themselves in an untouchable aura, Charli makes her ridiculous life feel relatable, like you’ve been invited into her stretch Hummer to pop bottles with Lorde, Billie Eilish and Troye Sivan (whose definitive remix appearances have supplanted the album versions). The Brat ethos says that simply by existing you’re worthy of having some fun in this life – and it doesn’t make you any less of a thoughtful, caring, intelligent person for doing so. Nick Buckley Honourable mentions Stankonia , Outkast (2000) 1989 , Taylor Swift (2014) To Pimp a Butterfly , Kendrick Lamar (2015) Melodrama , Lorde (2017) Norman F—ing Rockwell! , Lana Del Rey (2019) What albums do you think deserve a place on the list? Tell us in the comments.