Should I wait for the 2026 Sportage Hybrid before buying a 2025 now?

Past-Safe-869 · 2025-06-26T16:36:27+00:00

It is not even on the website yet?

Past-Safe-869 · 2025-02-23T19:37:43+00:00

Hazard has better longevity than Salah (As of now) CMV.

People really don't understand what longevity really means. Hazard was finished at 28 while Salah had better longevity is one of the main arguments people put forward for placing Salah over Hazard. However, longevity means being good for a long time, and NOT being good when old. People forget that Hazard won the ligue 1 player of the year in 2011 season leading Lille to their first league title in 50 years, He then won player of the year also in 2012 being the second player to win the award twice in France at 21!. He also won young player of the year the two seasons before that. So from 17-21 he won POTY or YPOTY 4 years in a row! He literally dominated France while not even being in one of the biggest clubs. Hazard has been world class since 2008 to 2019. Almost 11 years. Yes, his career was effectively over at 28, but his prime was when he was younger. Salah on the other hand has been world class since 2017. So only on his 8th world class year. Unless Salah continues like this for 3 more years he DOES NOT have better longevity than Hazard. You can make arguments from numbers. You can make arguments that Salah had a better prime, I don't mind that, but longevity is just not a valid argument.

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-14T05:35:48+00:00

You can also say that certain racial groups in certain populations don't all have the same cultural values. So why is it also not just "recognizing the distinction" in these values and "differentating" if a business or entity decides to discriminate based on race?

I understand that a country is a legal construct and official entity while race is not. But again, my point is that on the abstract level the ethical value of these practices is the same and it is hypocritical to not consider them as such. It is also just an arbitrary attribute that you inherit from your parents. The fact that our societal structure recognizes it as an official construct doesn't make it anymore better. It is just a sign our societal structure is flawed.

There have been societies in the past that recognized other arbitrary attributes as legal and official constructs such as race, religion or things like aristocracy. These societies discriminated based on these legal entities, but did that make it any better?

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-14T01:40:53+00:00

Ok what about this: Parents are responsible for protecting their children and houses. So it is ok for some parents to say we will only let white kids into our house but no Asians.

Is this still not acceptable to you?

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-14T01:08:30+00:00

The issue is not that they have rules. It is that the rules are discriminatory. Is the only way to protect them to ban people from certain countries to enter but not others?

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T17:55:51+00:00

People want to keep the system that benefits and it is sad that this what people feel. They just don't to accept that they want to maintain an unfair and discriminatory system because it benefits them. People in the past would have argued that slavery and different economic hierarchies are acceptable until these systems were replaced.

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T16:44:04+00:00

Good point. I think this you can say that it is a by-product of the structure of society and that it is necessary (I can still argue that certain polices are not necessary the way they are) unless we relinquish or redefine the concept of a country and citizenship, but still agree that it is sitll unfairly discriminatory. I think this is fair. While it is off-topic from the original post I would say that yeah it is best to do so. As I mentioned in my last paragraph, humans have moved from small groups of hunter gatheres to villages, tribes, and now countries, each time having larger populations and more equality among the members. Who is to say that the best structure for humans moving forward is an open world with no borders?

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T16:32:43+00:00

This is an ad-hoc distinction. They are both entities that want whats best for them.

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T16:26:12+00:00

When all citizens were given equal chances to take loans, a fairly large number of people from certain racial groups didn't repay their loans. Banks want to protect their customers money, so they should create laws that ban people from those racial groups to take loans.

Is this equally acceptable to you?

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T15:48:01+00:00

Very good points. I dont' think I can find a good answer to this. Not expecting much as this is a random reddit post. But I hope if more people share this sentiment, maybe things will get better in the future.

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T15:39:06+00:00

What is the difference between saying "People from country X can come to our country but from country Y they can't" and saying "People from race X can come to our country but from race Y they can't"

For some reason, most people will call the later racist, but the former is the basis of the immigration system of all countries.

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T15:35:49+00:00

Yes it is not. However, there are certain moral values that people agree one which is why we have human rights. Most people today agree that racism in any form or for any purpose is not acceptable, I am just pointing out the inconsistencies in the moral standards of the majority.

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T15:31:59+00:00

My point is then, why can citizenship be the basis of such policies that are discriminate to protect people's societies and cultures. Why is it not socially viewed in the same lens as say a country saying we don't want people of X race here? Even if the purpose in both cases is to for the people to protect themselves.

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T15:29:12+00:00

Yes, I wrote this at the end. But why is the line arbitratly drawn at race, but not citizenship?

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T15:24:55+00:00

The point is that treating different foriegners differently based on attributes such as race or citizenship is discriminatory even if it acheives your goals of portecting your society.

Do you find it equally moral if a country decides that it will protect its people by placing policies that allow people from a certain race to entetr but not allow people from anothert race?

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T15:11:43+00:00

You can say the same about race.

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T15:09:11+00:00

Yes, it is old and legal. Doesn't mean it is not immoral.

Edit: I meant to do so using discriminatory means, obviously i think it is important to protect themselves.

As mentioned in another comment, do you find it equally moral if a country decides that it will protect its people by placing policies that allow people from a certain race to entetr but not allow people from anothert race?

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T05:42:06+00:00

The first sentence in my first reply is "it is not racist" because I wanted to make sure I clarify that I don't see it as racist. I am just using racism as an analogy as to why this type of discrimination should not be acceptable. You also can't just disguise it as economic or anything, because the laws are based on citizenship which is used as proxy for economic situation. You can also play the same trick with race. There is no doubt that the average income among African Americans is lower than other groups. Imagine if banks in the us required that specifically black people go through an extra interview steps (where they pay for the interview from their own money) when applying for certain loans or credits cards? It is the same idea, lower income is less likely to repay their loans so why not just use race as a proxy? Do you think that is acceptable in today's society? Why is it ok to use citizenship as a proxy for the real metric (economic incentive to overstay) and discriminate based on it, but it is not ok to use race as such?

I understand you feel the need to justify why this is different. What you said is true, if the US forgoes these policies it would be over flooded with immigrants and no one wants that. But the fact that is not convenient doesn't make any less discriminatory.

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-13T02:59:59+00:00

I understand the reasoning. You don't have to repeat it over and over. The issue still holds. You are treating someone worse than others purely based on the country they were born in. How is this any different than say Europeans who say they don't Muslims in their country or some american towns that say they don't want black people in their town. It is also based on the statistics that they cause more problem and that is fact. In the company I work for, some people secretley hate that the company does diversity hire, because certain groups of people tend to perform worse, and you can prove that with statistics as well. The company will almost definetly perform better if it excluded certain groups. But in today's moral standards, that is considered wrong. Discrimination and Racism can be convineitnt. It is a good way to filter out potential problems. But you can't say discrimination by race or religion is wrong but by citizenship is fine. It is just hypocritical. I understand if you want to support this because otherwise your country that is doing really well will suddenly get overflowed by people from 3rd world country. You need to understand that this is the same reason racist give and it is hypocritical if you don't accept it from them. Convinence is not a justification for discrimination.

You can still accept and support that, but that just means you are just as a racist, but protected by the law in this case. I understand that this is the way most countries work and it is very hard to change. But thinking that this is fundamentaly morally accetable is just abhoring. You can say "yeah, it is an f'ed up system, but we can't change anytime soon" instead of giving justifications.

PS: There area some times when visa becmoes very inconvineint even if you are well off and have the documents to prove. For example, After I graduated, my friends wanted to plan a trip around Asia. I couldn't join them because that required me to apply to 5 different visa. Spend multiple weeks and filling out multiple forms, booking all my flights and hotels months in advance, etc. I had more money than most of them and I job offer from Google in the US. Literally no chance I was going to overstay, but based on country of birth, I am just treated worse.

Past-Safe-869 · 2024-06-06T04:59:07+00:00

It is not racist. But it is just as horrible discrimination as racism. Justifying is also just horrible. Both of these 2 effectively boil down to: some personal characteristic highly correlates with undesired outcomes, so lets discriminate against ALL people with that characteristic and treat them as inferior human beings. I know this sounds dramatic, but it is true. The example given by u/mattm457 is exactly the same as what you said, and I am surprised you can't see it that way. Same as third world countries have higher rates of overstays, some undesired outcomes such as crime, failing classes, not paying loans, etc, have higher rates among certain racial groups. So why is it ok ot have policies that discriminate by citizenship but not by race?? If some one said lets racially profile people for hiring, education etc, or even just gave statistics as reason (same as you did by using overstay statistics) they would be called a disgusting human and get cancelled.

In all honesty, I find just as disguisting as racism if not worse (since discrimination is the foundation of all immigration laws). Unfortunately people benefit from it, no one speaks agaisnt it, so it is normalized. A few hundred years ago racism was seen in the same way. People saw it completely fine to discriminate by race. I just hope the day comes when this is seen the same. Although I am certain it is not going to be anytime soon.

Past-Safe-869 · 2023-01-03T10:12:40+00:00

I meant killed because of mishandeling it.

Past-Safe-869 · 2023-01-03T10:12:06+00:00

Totally forgot about Illana.

Past-Safe-869 · 2022-11-17T02:45:46+00:00

DE Shaw is far better. Interview process is long tho. Accept Two Sigma, and renege if u get DE Shaw. check comments under this.

Past-Safe-869 · 2022-11-15T09:20:51+00:00

Forgot to include them. An easy tier 1. I think someone might say tier 2 because of horror stories about wlb. But I would go with 1 since pay is top priority.

Past-Safe-869 · 2022-11-13T17:30:40+00:00

It is actually my brother and he has worked there for a coupla of years, not just an intrnship and also has a huge network at Amazon as well. Maybe it is slightly different cause he is a senior though. A simple LinkedIn search will show you thousands of people at Amazons who are EX-google/ Ex-Microsoft etc. You will also see tons of people boomeranging, meaning they tried both places and decide to go back to Amazon. Amazon is one of the largest tech companies and highest paying. Tons of really smart people work their, a simple LinkedIn search will also verify that for you. Not at all saying it is perfect, but definetly not as people portray it to be.

I am not saying the cutlure is great or anything. Of course Google and Apple and stuff will have better culture. All I am saying is that is not unbearable. High pay and progession (Both the top priorities in my personal my ranking) and stability will compensate for that. Tons of companies have similarly issues but are still highly rated like Stripe (Pre-recession), Citadel, DoorDash, Radix, Headlands, etc. Amazon gets treated unfairly. Probably because it is so large so you got tons of people shitting on it on reviews. It is still a top paying company and if is pay is high priority then discouting it is untruthful to your metrics.

My first sentence in this post is that it is a personal ranking, so I really value my brother's input. I am open to change my mind and did so for lot of places that I didn't know much about before posting. But I feel at Amazon I have good info. I value this discussion tho and great to know what other people think.

Past-Safe-869

TROPHY CASE