He's leaving because the intern program openly discriminates based on gender, sexual orientation, or ancestry. Basically, they won't hire a white American male as an intern.
You're pointing to a specific outreach program, not to LLVM's entire intern program.
So LLVM only discriminates part of the time. What percentage of discrimination is OK? 10%, 25%, 49%,...?
"The last drop was llvm associating itself with an organization that
openly discriminates based on sex and ancestry (1,2). This goes
directly against my ethical views and I think I must leave the project
to not be associated with this." http://lists.llvm.org/pipermai...
Actually scientists aren't so sure about his. From the summary:
"The Hawaii Medical Association said it wanted the issue to be studied more deeply because there was a lack of peer-reviewed evidence suggesting sunscreen is a cause of coral bleaching, and overwhelming evidence that not wearing sunscreen increases cancer rates."
But hey, science isn't needed when your regulations are politically correct and well meaning.
And house districts are based on population. What's your point?
The number of districts are irrelevant, the county lines are not changing. The house won't be affected by the state breakup.
What is relevant is that greater california will have three times as many senators, electoral college electors, etc after the breakup. And since Senators are elected statewide the fact that the population of the proposed southern california is largely democratic is relevant.
Right, so it's a coincidence that just about allll the blue states are wealthier. You're being willfully naive. There's no way an almost universal economic divide forms along political lines by accident.
The willful nativity here is thinking one factor, political orientation, can explain it. As I explained, there are many other external factors that are likely to be the true causes. Additionally you assume a causality, that the political orientation of local government influences wealth, ignoring the the more likely scenario that wealth influences political orientation. For example these dense working class blue districts are clustered at ports, industrial centers, etc. Many of the industrial centers are located in a particular area due to local resources or transportation ease. These industrial centers imported workers, who eventually leaned democrat. Political orientation didn't create the wealth, the wealth was created by local resources (minerals, transportation, etc), political orientation was created by wealth.
"Its not one election."
Well it was because because that was what you provided as your source for "proving" the new Southern California state...
Awfully weak argument attempting to cover up your inability to hit the "2012" back button on the "2016" election results page. Furthermore southern california overwhelmingly voting for hillary does itself debunk the notion of some sort of red state. Mentioning the other recent elections was only necessary to debunk your flawed counterargument. The original point was made and demonstrated by hillary.
Finally, you've now chosen to ignore the map detailing how conservative the areas of Southern California that will be in the proposed state of Southern California are after I explained that you clearly misread it. Please get back to me on that.
See other post, ie Senators are elected by popular vote. Your number of counties argument, even if accurate, is irrelevant to the grabbing of seats in the US Senate.
Blue states are almost universally our most prosperous states. That's one hell of a coincidence if it has nothing to do with the governing party.
Yet in California it is coincidental. The weather facilitated aerospace. Major pacific ports facilitate international trade and transportation. Weather and beaches facilitated tourism. An offshoot of aerospace facilitated defense and electronics industries, which contributed to technology hubs. Other blue states have similar coincidences that contribute to their historical wealth.
Plus you claim a false causality. More likely the social bubble of prosperity and comfort allow the luxury of a liberal perspective, as exemplified by Hollywood, Silicon Valley, etc.
You can't use a single election to define the electoral slant of a state or region.
Its not one election. We have a blue southern california for both of Obama's elections as well, as well as Bill Clinton's first. Your claim that southern california "would most certainly be red" is just plain demonstrably false.
What you confuse and/or misrepresent is that southern california's moderate democrats will entertain the thought of voting for a republican when the democratic candidate is flawed (Yes Hillary was flawed but Trump was even more flawed). They are simply not mindless liberals who will vote democrat regardless of the candidate, yet they are predominantly democrats.
What are you talking about? That map clearly shows the proposed "Southern California" being mostly made up as "committed conservative" and "moderate conservative".
Again, you confuse area with population density. Those conservative regions are sparsely populated. Look at the population dense counties in southern california, they are liberals of some shade.
And we still have the fact that "conservative" counties voted for Hillary.
Its not as simple as you suggest, the civilian vs military scenario actually a bit naive. If things were to degenerate to large scale rebellion various members of the military would likely be as conflicted as civilians. Civilian vs military unlikely, more likely civilian and military of faction A vs civilian and military of faction B. We have two example of this in US history, the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. In one the legacy power lost, in the other the legacy power won. Conclusions on the proposed outcome of a third go at it are premature.
I'm interested in what the US does well and does badly but you are apparently a poor source of info on the topic. In your ill-informed harangue you offered Vietnam as an example. I corrected you with the facts. The facts that Vietnam recently celebrated the 20 year old normalization of relations with the US and that it is strengthening its defense and other ties with the US. I could have similarly debunked various other claims you made but this one example was sufficient to demonstrate to other readers you are till-informed on the topic of the derision of america and/or politically biased. Either way a poor source of info. The individual you were originally replying to may have warranted derision, so may the current occupant of the white house, but america in general is not derided as you suggest. Vietnam an example of your error on the derision of america in general.
"London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises... Of the 47 murders in London so far this year, 31 have been committed with knives"
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
There is a hue and cry for knife control in the UK. It's the logical next step.
In case people thought you were joking...
"London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a crackdown on knives Sunday in response to the rising levels of violence in London, which recently surpassed New York City's homicide rate for the first time.
"No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law."" https://www.usatoday.com/story...
And other European states (ex Switzerland) show that civilian access to firearms, even semiautomatic firearms, is not a problem.
Semiautomatic? The Swiss militia (basically, everyone, though I think they're sexist enough to not include their women) requires members to keep FULLY automatic weapons, plus lots of ammo for same, on hand.
I believe keeping military ammo at home is no longer the case, except for highly specialized personnel. Keeping the military weapon itself at a local armory might now be an option for many, not sure on this one though.
In any case I am not referring to a reservist's issued weapon. I am referring to what a civilian may personally own. I believe a civilian may own weapons that would be banned in US jurisdictions like California.
So, why do you think that Americans need to pretend to be Canadians in Europe? What caused that phenomenon?
Of the dozens of Americans I know that traveled in Europe none pretended to be Canadian, or felt a need to. Perhaps you confuse phenomenon with urban myth?
And we get precisely zero thanks for this, and vile mistreatment.
Odd, when traveling in Europe I have been treated quite well. I take a few minutes to learn four words in the local language -- "hello", "please", "thank you", "bath room" -- and things go remarkable well. Usually after my "hello" in the local language the clerk/host/waiter begins talking in English. Where they cannot speak English a few English words and some pointing usually manages, and the local "please" and "thank you" among the few English words and pointing seems to keep things relaxed and pleasant. Give it a try. For me this even worked in that "vile den of anti-American bigotry", Paris.;-)
The Second Amendment is there to defend the First. If they fall, then the Fourth and the Fifth fall shortly thereafter. And then the dark times.
It's easy to see that this is not true. Plenty of European states without something comparable to the 2nd amendment, but with constitutional rules comparable to 1th, 4th and 5th Amendment.
And other European states (ex Switzerland) show that civilian access to firearms, even semiautomatic firearms, is not a problem. Of course criminal and mental background checks, safety training, and secure storage help.
I'm sure the Vietnamese wold like to hear your thoughts on how American guaranteed their security too!
june 2015: "This week, the United States and Vietnam deepened their defense ties during a three-day trip by U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to the Southeast Asian state.
Most notably, Carter and his counterpart, Vietnamese Defense Minister Phung Quang Thanh, inked a Joint Vision Statement on Defense Relations. The statement itself, which comes as both sides celebrate the 20th anniversary of the normalization of their ties, is not wholly new. It builds on a 2011 memorandum of understanding..." https://thediplomat.com/2015/0...
"London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises... Of the 47 murders in London so far this year, 31 have been committed with knives" https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Without taking too much of my own time up looking, this seems like a much better map to look at: http://www.ppic.org/content/im... from the Public Policy Institute of California, which draws data from multiple sources.
Perhaps you could take a slightly greater amount of time and read the captions of your own reference rather than just look at the colors. What you falsely consider "red" is label "conservative liberals", ie the moderate democrats I referred to. Your citation backs up my position. Don't let the "redness" or the label for "conservative liberals" confuse you and don't let the size of the actual red zones confuse you, those red zones are rather light on population.
"Irrelevent, the legislature/governor have little to nothing to do with that."
Irrelevant? Strength of government is a key statistical indicator for economic prosperity. There are few more significant ones in fact.
The current budget surplus is a result of the national economy improving, California is just one boat on the rising tide. Governor Brown being slightly more frugal than his other democratic predecessors is an anomaly and it also does not contradict the fact that the state legislature is essentially a supermajority and not frugal, they constantly want to expand social programs with the current temporary surplus and this is the norm for California and why there are occasional fiscal revolts putting a republican into the governorship. This in no way indicates any strong red presence. The legislature indicates the nature of the state, 2/3 blue in both houses. Merely enough light blue to put a republican governor in office during fiscal revolts.
And the budget surplus is a single data point, and quite temporary and fragile. Unlike the blue shading of most of southern california outside of LA.
As for me being ignorant, your link made be laugh. You're using a single vote on a single position to show the political ideology of a region. Since you're new to statistics I'll take the time to explain to you that making broad generalizations based on a single data point rarely makes for accurate conclusions.
The single data point is voting for Hillary for President. That by itself is a sufficient contradiction to your hypothesis of southern california being a red region.
Basically you confuse moderate blue with red.
I can personally tell you from growing up and still living in California, once you get out of LA, Southern California gets fairly conservative (admittedly, its own unique flavor of conservatism). It's how we ended up with Reagan for governor among other things.
I too grew up and live in southern california outside of LA, in the area you falsely label red. Sorry, its moderate blue, moderate democrat. Not crazy liberal democrat like the bay area, but still democrat. The isolated pockets of conservatives outside of LA are outnumbered by their moderate democrat neighbors. The shading of the blue in that link is quite representative of ground truth. Reagan was a moderate republican when he was elected governor and that was 1961, nearly 60 years ago, for example he legalized abortions in California. When republicans win the governorship it usually has to do with some sort of fiscal revolt. The moderate democrats being more open to fiscal arguments. And there is the hollywood star thing, Reagan, Swarzenegger. And Reagan had been a labor leader in the past, making him more tolerable/trustworthy for moderate democrats.
Slashdot Mirror
You've built your cities not for people, but for cars.
Actually nearly all US cities were built for horse carts. The freeways were a modern retrofit.
Which doesn't really explain anything. If it was the last drop then he is saying that he did object to the code of conduct, without explaining why.
His full statement at the link provided explains a lot.
I wonder if Hawaiian lawmakers made any investments in that area recently.
Local sunscreen manufacturers and ABC stores. :-)
... They're not the ones who got these laws passed and signed by the governor ...
True, the ABC stores got the laws passed. They want the tourists using locally sold sunscreen. :-)
He's leaving because the intern program openly discriminates based on gender, sexual orientation, or ancestry. Basically, they won't hire a white American male as an intern.
You're pointing to a specific outreach program, not to LLVM's entire intern program.
So LLVM only discriminates part of the time. What percentage of discrimination is OK? 10%, 25%, 49%, ...?
His actual words from the mail list:
"The last drop was llvm associating itself with an organization that openly discriminates based on sex and ancestry (1,2). This goes directly against my ethical views and I think I must leave the project to not be associated with this."
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermai...
Anti science Republicans won't like this though
Actually scientists aren't so sure about his. From the summary:
"The Hawaii Medical Association said it wanted the issue to be studied more deeply because there was a lack of peer-reviewed evidence suggesting sunscreen is a cause of coral bleaching, and overwhelming evidence that not wearing sunscreen increases cancer rates."
But hey, science isn't needed when your regulations are politically correct and well meaning.
And house districts are based on population. What's your point?
The number of districts are irrelevant, the county lines are not changing. The house won't be affected by the state breakup.
What is relevant is that greater california will have three times as many senators, electoral college electors, etc after the breakup. And since Senators are elected statewide the fact that the population of the proposed southern california is largely democratic is relevant.
Right, so it's a coincidence that just about allll the blue states are wealthier. You're being willfully naive. There's no way an almost universal economic divide forms along political lines by accident.
The willful nativity here is thinking one factor, political orientation, can explain it. As I explained, there are many other external factors that are likely to be the true causes. Additionally you assume a causality, that the political orientation of local government influences wealth, ignoring the the more likely scenario that wealth influences political orientation. For example these dense working class blue districts are clustered at ports, industrial centers, etc. Many of the industrial centers are located in a particular area due to local resources or transportation ease. These industrial centers imported workers, who eventually leaned democrat. Political orientation didn't create the wealth, the wealth was created by local resources (minerals, transportation, etc), political orientation was created by wealth.
"Its not one election."
Well it was because because that was what you provided as your source for "proving" the new Southern California state ...
Awfully weak argument attempting to cover up your inability to hit the "2012" back button on the "2016" election results page. Furthermore southern california overwhelmingly voting for hillary does itself debunk the notion of some sort of red state. Mentioning the other recent elections was only necessary to debunk your flawed counterargument. The original point was made and demonstrated by hillary.
Finally, you've now chosen to ignore the map detailing how conservative the areas of Southern California that will be in the proposed state of Southern California are after I explained that you clearly misread it. Please get back to me on that.
See other post, ie Senators are elected by popular vote. Your number of counties argument, even if accurate, is irrelevant to the grabbing of seats in the US Senate.
US Senate elections only consider the population.
Blue states are almost universally our most prosperous states. That's one hell of a coincidence if it has nothing to do with the governing party.
Yet in California it is coincidental. The weather facilitated aerospace. Major pacific ports facilitate international trade and transportation. Weather and beaches facilitated tourism. An offshoot of aerospace facilitated defense and electronics industries, which contributed to technology hubs. Other blue states have similar coincidences that contribute to their historical wealth.
Plus you claim a false causality. More likely the social bubble of prosperity and comfort allow the luxury of a liberal perspective, as exemplified by Hollywood, Silicon Valley, etc.
You can't use a single election to define the electoral slant of a state or region.
Its not one election. We have a blue southern california for both of Obama's elections as well, as well as Bill Clinton's first. Your claim that southern california "would most certainly be red" is just plain demonstrably false.
What you confuse and/or misrepresent is that southern california's moderate democrats will entertain the thought of voting for a republican when the democratic candidate is flawed (Yes Hillary was flawed but Trump was even more flawed). They are simply not mindless liberals who will vote democrat regardless of the candidate, yet they are predominantly democrats.
What are you talking about? That map clearly shows the proposed "Southern California" being mostly made up as "committed conservative" and "moderate conservative".
Again, you confuse area with population density. Those conservative regions are sparsely populated. Look at the population dense counties in southern california, they are liberals of some shade.
And we still have the fact that "conservative" counties voted for Hillary.
Its not as simple as you suggest, the civilian vs military scenario actually a bit naive. If things were to degenerate to large scale rebellion various members of the military would likely be as conflicted as civilians. Civilian vs military unlikely, more likely civilian and military of faction A vs civilian and military of faction B. We have two example of this in US history, the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. In one the legacy power lost, in the other the legacy power won. Conclusions on the proposed outcome of a third go at it are premature.
I'm interested in what the US does well and does badly but you are apparently a poor source of info on the topic. In your ill-informed harangue you offered Vietnam as an example. I corrected you with the facts. The facts that Vietnam recently celebrated the 20 year old normalization of relations with the US and that it is strengthening its defense and other ties with the US. I could have similarly debunked various other claims you made but this one example was sufficient to demonstrate to other readers you are till-informed on the topic of the derision of america and/or politically biased. Either way a poor source of info. The individual you were originally replying to may have warranted derision, so may the current occupant of the white house, but america in general is not derided as you suggest. Vietnam an example of your error on the derision of america in general.
... or the UK or Japan or Australia or Germany. https://www.theguardian.com/us...
"London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises ... Of the 47 murders in London so far this year, 31 have been committed with knives"
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
There is a hue and cry for knife control in the UK. It's the logical next step.
In case people thought you were joking ...
"London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a crackdown on knives Sunday in response to the rising levels of violence in London, which recently surpassed New York City's homicide rate for the first time. "No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.""
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
Semiautomatic? The Swiss militia (basically, everyone, though I think they're sexist enough to not include their women) requires members to keep FULLY automatic weapons, plus lots of ammo for same, on hand.
I believe keeping military ammo at home is no longer the case, except for highly specialized personnel. Keeping the military weapon itself at a local armory might now be an option for many, not sure on this one though.
In any case I am not referring to a reservist's issued weapon. I am referring to what a civilian may personally own. I believe a civilian may own weapons that would be banned in US jurisdictions like California.
Inflection points, by definition, break the historical trend.
So, why do you think that Americans need to pretend to be Canadians in Europe? What caused that phenomenon?
Of the dozens of Americans I know that traveled in Europe none pretended to be Canadian, or felt a need to. Perhaps you confuse phenomenon with urban myth?
And yet Vietnam is welcoming US tourism, US trade, US defense cooperation, etc ... deny it all you want but the evidence proves you wrong.
And we get precisely zero thanks for this, and vile mistreatment.
Odd, when traveling in Europe I have been treated quite well. I take a few minutes to learn four words in the local language -- "hello", "please", "thank you", "bath room" -- and things go remarkable well. Usually after my "hello" in the local language the clerk/host/waiter begins talking in English. Where they cannot speak English a few English words and some pointing usually manages, and the local "please" and "thank you" among the few English words and pointing seems to keep things relaxed and pleasant. Give it a try. For me this even worked in that "vile den of anti-American bigotry", Paris. ;-)
The Second Amendment is there to defend the First. If they fall, then the Fourth and the Fifth fall shortly thereafter. And then the dark times.
It's easy to see that this is not true. Plenty of European states without something comparable to the 2nd amendment, but with constitutional rules comparable to 1th, 4th and 5th Amendment.
And other European states (ex Switzerland) show that civilian access to firearms, even semiautomatic firearms, is not a problem. Of course criminal and mental background checks, safety training, and secure storage help.
I'm sure the Vietnamese wold like to hear your thoughts on how American guaranteed their security too!
june 2015: "This week, the United States and Vietnam deepened their defense ties during a three-day trip by U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to the Southeast Asian state. Most notably, Carter and his counterpart, Vietnamese Defense Minister Phung Quang Thanh, inked a Joint Vision Statement on Defense Relations. The statement itself, which comes as both sides celebrate the 20th anniversary of the normalization of their ties, is not wholly new. It builds on a 2011 memorandum of understanding ..."
https://thediplomat.com/2015/0...
... or the UK or Japan or Australia or Germany. https://www.theguardian.com/us...
"London murder rate overtakes New York as knife crime rises ... Of the 47 murders in London so far this year, 31 have been committed with knives"
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Without taking too much of my own time up looking, this seems like a much better map to look at: http://www.ppic.org/content/im... from the Public Policy Institute of California, which draws data from multiple sources.
Perhaps you could take a slightly greater amount of time and read the captions of your own reference rather than just look at the colors. What you falsely consider "red" is label "conservative liberals", ie the moderate democrats I referred to. Your citation backs up my position. Don't let the "redness" or the label for "conservative liberals" confuse you and don't let the size of the actual red zones confuse you, those red zones are rather light on population.
"Irrelevent, the legislature/governor have little to nothing to do with that."
Irrelevant? Strength of government is a key statistical indicator for economic prosperity. There are few more significant ones in fact.
The current budget surplus is a result of the national economy improving, California is just one boat on the rising tide. Governor Brown being slightly more frugal than his other democratic predecessors is an anomaly and it also does not contradict the fact that the state legislature is essentially a supermajority and not frugal, they constantly want to expand social programs with the current temporary surplus and this is the norm for California and why there are occasional fiscal revolts putting a republican into the governorship. This in no way indicates any strong red presence. The legislature indicates the nature of the state, 2/3 blue in both houses. Merely enough light blue to put a republican governor in office during fiscal revolts.
And the budget surplus is a single data point, and quite temporary and fragile. Unlike the blue shading of most of southern california outside of LA.
As for me being ignorant, your link made be laugh. You're using a single vote on a single position to show the political ideology of a region. Since you're new to statistics I'll take the time to explain to you that making broad generalizations based on a single data point rarely makes for accurate conclusions.
The single data point is voting for Hillary for President. That by itself is a sufficient contradiction to your hypothesis of southern california being a red region.
Basically you confuse moderate blue with red.
I can personally tell you from growing up and still living in California, once you get out of LA, Southern California gets fairly conservative (admittedly, its own unique flavor of conservatism). It's how we ended up with Reagan for governor among other things.
I too grew up and live in southern california outside of LA, in the area you falsely label red. Sorry, its moderate blue, moderate democrat. Not crazy liberal democrat like the bay area, but still democrat. The isolated pockets of conservatives outside of LA are outnumbered by their moderate democrat neighbors. The shading of the blue in that link is quite representative of ground truth. Reagan was a moderate republican when he was elected governor and that was 1961, nearly 60 years ago, for example he legalized abortions in California. When republicans win the governorship it usually has to do with some sort of fiscal revolt. The moderate democrats being more open to fiscal arguments. And there is the hollywood star thing, Reagan, Swarzenegger. And Reagan had been a labor leader in the past, making him more tolerable/trustworthy for moderate democrats.