There's a big difference between using a cryptographic hash for things like security signing, and using one for generating a "content identifier"
is really a non sequitur. It's also a truism. Of course, there is a difference. If all you cared about was a "content identifier", you'd use CRC. But the reality is that you really want a secure content identifier (the one which does not provide a vector of attack on your system through spoofing of identifier through a simple calculation). Without it, you have a system in which it is trivial to create a haystack in which any one particular piece of content becomes a need to hide. All you need is to modify as many pieces of content as possible to collide with the one you want to be difficult to find.
The real answer he should have given is that any content which incorporates its md5 becomes unassailable because there is no known vector of attack to produce simultaneous md5 and sha1 collisions.
Snide aside, the Bayes theorem is rudimentary and foundational to probabilistic inference. If someone did want to learn about it more, looking up biography of Thomas Bayes would tell them much less than just looking up the (fairly trivial) theorem and seeing for themselves how it could be used for inference from probabilities.
Bayesian probability is named for the Bayes' Theorem (which is named after the namesake mathematician). But the Bayesian inference is called that because it relies specifically on applying Bayes' Theorem rather than any other of Thomas Bayes' work.
You referenced living in Germany "before the wall came down". That was over 25 years ago. And it was only up for 44 years or so. And, no, I will not give you any self-identifying information just because you invented some of yours.
It's sad too, when I asked Dmitry what it was like in Russia. He just said, quite darkly, "They don't have video games my friend." (He knew I was a gamer, so he was teasing me, but also drawing a real contrast.)
This caricature is out of date that I tend to doubt the whole story. It's hard to imagine that anyone thought that someone could fall for this. "My friend"? This is the caricature part because no one talks like that outside of a hollywood movie.
Another guy talked about living in Germany before the wall came down.
To put it in perspective, the Soviet Union was officially dissolved 25 years ago. It only existed for 73 years. So your references are getting more and more dated.
It's quite inspiring to see a new Chinese citizen say "Today I learned I have the right to own a gun! That no one can take it from me, and that nobody can stop me from saying president XYZ is a @!#?@!"
You are sooooo full of shit. No one but no one talks like that. The fact that you came up with some Chinese, Korean, Russian and Indian names does not add to your credibility as much as you think. You may done your homework, but you have failed the shibboleth.
Why should they not have a right to vote for mayors and city councils of the communities where they live for an extra 5-6 years that it takes them to get green cards?
This is a general civics question and I suggest you do a Google search on it. While there are a few countries that allow non-citizens to vote in small local elections, it is generally a bad idea to allow such significant foreign influence.
Think about it a bit more. You'll realize that you replied in too much of a rush. I wasn't advocating for non-citizens to get voting rights. I was advocating for their path to citizenship to be as long as everyone else's instead of what it is now (roughly twice as long). C'mon though. Before knee jerking into "you just don't get it" mode, think about how much a person should know about the world to make an informed judgement and to propose a simple and yet innovative solution to how to solve a social problem. Do you really think it comes out of a place of not understanding civics?
What is your field?
I get asked regularly if I would require a sponsorship, so I think it should be self-evident. I just tacitly pass on such "opportunities".
I can only speak for the software industry, but if you are an H1B Software Engineer who is being treated unfairly, I can point you to multiple companies in my local area that are hiring smart people and will sponsor you. There's no reason to put up with bad working conditions or lower salary.
You are talking about what should happen to the best of them. What about those who are not the best, but who are still pretty good? Or even just Ok? Why should they not be on equal playing field with their colleagues at work? With their neighbors in the community where they live? You do realize that we are creating a class of people who think they must be better just to get equal treatment and who, once they get all their legal right, will retain a degree of bitterness towards those who "had it easy"? If we want these people among us for their skills, we either recognize them us legal alien residents (which they are in every form but the law) or they will never see us as fellow citizens.
They are subject to the same labor protection laws as everyone else.
Oh? I had no idea that all programmers face deportation within 6 months if they get fired.
What idiotic manager would hire a less qualified software engineer for 10% less?
What idiotic manager would not hire an employee of equal skill, but who can be pressed to work longer hours without compensation, over a citizen who can simply change profession if gets tired of this type of environment?
H1B visa holders wait 5-6 years to get a green card. That puts their voting rights, their civil protections, their right to collectively bargain on hold for 5-6 years. Why would anyone, in their right mind, compete with people who have no rights for work? Assuming both of you have equal skills and ask for equal wages, employers would be nuts to hire a citizen instead of an indentured servant.
If you gave them green cards the first day, they wouldn't have to work. Thus defeating the entire purpose of the system. It's a fair deal: They work, they get to stay. They pay taxes, they receive benefits. That is why there are work visas, and educational visas, and travel visas, and each one has different stipulations.
Why would they leave? H1B visas cannot be legally used to suppress wages. If they are qualified and are getting competitive wages, why would they not stay on the job? Oh, and since they pay taxes, why shouldn't they be on the same track to citizenship as other resident aliens? Why should they not have a right to vote for mayors and city councils of the communities where they live for an extra 5-6 years that it takes them to get green cards?
I can only speak for the software industry, but if you are an H1B Software Engineer who is being treated unfairly, I can point you to multiple companies in my local area that are hiring smart people and will sponsor you.
Oh, no, I am a US citizen. But I don't bother even considering jobs which offer sponsorship. That's right. I don't want to compete with indentured servants. I just make that choice consciously unlike most people who make it based on some externalities of these conditions after the fact.
If a US university cant produce the workers needed, no students would bother to attend any US university for any advanced degree..
If you come on a student visa, you have find an H1B job within 6 months of graduating or go back. So many of them actually have US education. The only way to fix this is to eliminate H1B visas and give them green cards from day one.
No, the program is the abuse. It incentivizes abuse because it creates a 2nd class of permanent aliens. They don't have legal rights of green card holders. Establish a new criterion for green card: if you deserve an H1B, you deserve a green card. That will fix all abuses.
No, it's a skewed market place. It would be basic supply and demand if they had the same legal rights as other legal immigrants. Establish a criterion that anyone who deserves an H1B, deserves a green card and then you'd have a basic supply and demand.
No, the easy fix to eliminate H1B visas and create a program which gives green cards based on the same qualifications as H1B visas are given right now. If companies really couldn't find local workers, they wouldn't care if the newly coming ones were on H1B's or on green cards. Oh, and you lying. H1B already has minimum salary requirements. If you were on H1B, you'd already know this.
And how large is the supply of fully-fledged citizens who are willing to take abuse at the work place without taking any legal actions? Don't you think that people who would be willing to put up with grueling working conditions would want more compensation for it if they don't have to compete on work-place conditions with indentured servants who can be deported if they don't agree to such conditions?
Of course, real immigration improves life overall.
Well, yes, it does... in the long run. But the orthodoxy gets stronger in the longer run, too. Look at SF housing crisis. You don't think that having non-voting immigrants effects your community? You may have cheaper software services. But you have completely skewed housing market because so many of the residents cannot vote. H1B visas are usually a path to immigration. But they are a longer path. And that's inherently dishonest. They are, in all respects, resident aliens. But the legislature doesn't given them full citizenship rights that resident aliens can get after 5 years. So their voting rights are lagging by 5-6 years (however long it takes to get a green card for an H1B visa holder). Which means their rights to vote to change local laws to allow more construction are delayed by those 5-6 years. This effects not only them, but also the low-end housing market consumers. So what little consumers save in electronic services, they lose in other parts of the market because the lower-end consumers are less politically represented by the legislatures.
Then admit the truth that the workplace standards are unreasonably skewed towards employees. Otherwise, you have citizens (and permanent aliens) who can't find jobs because they have legal protections, which cannot be contractually given up, and you have 2nd class citizens who don't have legal protections. So a company which cannot function while providing all the same legal protections which are available to regular employees is forced to look for employees who are 2nd class citizens. This makes certains jobs unavailable to 1st class citizens even if they were willing to give their legal protections contractually. You disenfranchise the citizens by having the 2nd class citizens.
The only way to equalize the marketplace is not to have artificial salary standards. It's to make them permanent alien residents. They don't compete just on salaries. They compete on work place conditions, too. They are willing tolerate more hostile work environments and more abusive management in general. The only way to make them not compete is to put them on the same legal footing as the US citizens and others who are not afraid that losing a job would mean a possible deportation. If there is a shortage of workers, then nothing is lost by giving them green cards on the 1st day. This is not a security threat because they are physically present in the country regardless of the visa. By importing workers on work visa the employers do much more than suppress wages. They import people who are willing to tolerate abuse. The employers suppress work place standards by doing this.
I feel like an old man "Get off my lawn, ya damn hippies!"
Oh, don't worry. The new hippies are actually the legalized version of the old hippies. It was funny when the tea party were the counter-hippies. But the new ones are the counter tea party hippies. So, by double negative, the new hippies are the old hippies.
Are they talking about moving from one residence to another or moving away from a computer? I stopped preferring typing over talking 2 decades ago when I realized that it takes at least 5 minutes to type what you can say within 1 minute. It's worse with phones. Texting is even worse than emails. Millennials are not zombified without a reason. They are just communicating less efficiently. So it takes more of their time to say what genX-ers still knew how to do: simply talk.
As long as you understand what closures are, you get it. But you mentioned that you thought it was run-of-the-mill OO language. Closures are not OO concepts. They allow function-like constructs to keep state in a reentrant function without binding it to any one object. It's not a conceptual step above or below OO development. It's a lateral addition to the (let's call it) concept pool. The fact that it is a 1st class citizen in Python (with its own keyword rather than hacked together from other language constructs) makes queue's effectively unnecessary. You just write generators which pump out data as you need it. In OO languages, you'd have to create an object and methods to have this behavior. In Python, you it's succinct and easy-to-read callables. Syntactically, it doesn't make the code set things up as callbacks (which are hard to debug), but as functions calling other functions (so it's much more intuitive and easier to debug).
Lexical file handles close themselves when they go out of scope in Perl too. Other objects have the DESTROY method.
Not quite. Destroy gets called when the object garbage collected. Context manager's __exit__ is called when the "with" scope is exited. So it's deterministic. Like a dtor of a C++'s object created on stack. You can use it to manage connections, locks and there is a well-known idiom combining closures (yielding functions) and context managers to produce cascading contexts. Mind you, this is still readable at a glance.
An immutable array with custom index names? Kind of like a hash?
No, it has dictionaries. Those are like hashes. Or, if hashes keep the order in which elements were added, then ordereddict. namedtuple is like an array which can be called by either positional attribute (attribute 3) or named attribute (attribute.something). This trivializes db bindings. At the same time, it allows to have the function run on all elements of a tuple (iterating by positional attribute). Mind you that you can do it without any extra hoops to jump. 'namedtuple' itself creates a factory method which can be used to create instances of a tuple, rather than creating instances of a tuple itself. So instead of doing $inst['something'], you can do inst[3] or inst.something (depending on how you are using it).
visitors are the main reason the book of 4 was so widely read. They allow for double dispatch (demarshalling based on arguments) in languages which only support single dispatch (polymorphism). And, as I mentioned, because of namedtuple, it's largely unnecessary in Python. Even though people coming to Python from Java do overuse it out of ignorance.
map, grep, sub, List::Util::reduce (the module is in core)
Well, map, filter, lambda, reduce are functional-language concepts. I didn't say that Perl didn't have them. I just said that they are 1st class citizens in Python. So to call it just an OO language is to ignore some of its best and most widely-used features.
In fact, writing Python code in a completely object-oriented fashion is something which almost immediately gives you away as a Java programmer. C++ programmers learn about 'with' fairly quickly because they want RAII guarantees which cannot be provided by loop-detecting garbage collector. Context managers, by the way, need not be objects. They are more often closures (so the closure ends when the context in which the context manager exists ends). Although this explanation sounds more complicated than the much clearer code which implements it.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know it wasn't Linus posting as AC?
There's a big difference between using a cryptographic hash for things like security signing, and using one for generating a "content identifier"
is really a non sequitur. It's also a truism. Of course, there is a difference. If all you cared about was a "content identifier", you'd use CRC. But the reality is that you really want a secure content identifier (the one which does not provide a vector of attack on your system through spoofing of identifier through a simple calculation). Without it, you have a system in which it is trivial to create a haystack in which any one particular piece of content becomes a need to hide. All you need is to modify as many pieces of content as possible to collide with the one you want to be difficult to find.
The real answer he should have given is that any content which incorporates its md5 becomes unassailable because there is no known vector of attack to produce simultaneous md5 and sha1 collisions.
Snide aside, the Bayes theorem is rudimentary and foundational to probabilistic inference. If someone did want to learn about it more, looking up biography of Thomas Bayes would tell them much less than just looking up the (fairly trivial) theorem and seeing for themselves how it could be used for inference from probabilities.
Bayesian probability is named for the Bayes' Theorem (which is named after the namesake mathematician). But the Bayesian inference is called that because it relies specifically on applying Bayes' Theorem rather than any other of Thomas Bayes' work.
A deal doesn't work if one party gets everything, and has no obligation to hold-up their end of the deal.
Residency status is not technically a bargaining chip. The moment it becomes one, you've created indentured servitude.
You referenced living in Germany "before the wall came down". That was over 25 years ago. And it was only up for 44 years or so. And, no, I will not give you any self-identifying information just because you invented some of yours.
It's sad too, when I asked Dmitry what it was like in Russia. He just said, quite darkly, "They don't have video games my friend." (He knew I was a gamer, so he was teasing me, but also drawing a real contrast.)
This caricature is out of date that I tend to doubt the whole story. It's hard to imagine that anyone thought that someone could fall for this. "My friend"? This is the caricature part because no one talks like that outside of a hollywood movie.
Another guy talked about living in Germany before the wall came down.
To put it in perspective, the Soviet Union was officially dissolved 25 years ago. It only existed for 73 years. So your references are getting more and more dated.
It's quite inspiring to see a new Chinese citizen say "Today I learned I have the right to own a gun! That no one can take it from me, and that nobody can stop me from saying president XYZ is a @!#?@!"
You are sooooo full of shit. No one but no one talks like that. The fact that you came up with some Chinese, Korean, Russian and Indian names does not add to your credibility as much as you think. You may done your homework, but you have failed the shibboleth.
Why should they not have a right to vote for mayors and city councils of the communities where they live for an extra 5-6 years that it takes them to get green cards?
This is a general civics question and I suggest you do a Google search on it. While there are a few countries that allow non-citizens to vote in small local elections, it is generally a bad idea to allow such significant foreign influence.
Think about it a bit more. You'll realize that you replied in too much of a rush. I wasn't advocating for non-citizens to get voting rights. I was advocating for their path to citizenship to be as long as everyone else's instead of what it is now (roughly twice as long). C'mon though. Before knee jerking into "you just don't get it" mode, think about how much a person should know about the world to make an informed judgement and to propose a simple and yet innovative solution to how to solve a social problem. Do you really think it comes out of a place of not understanding civics?
What is your field?
I get asked regularly if I would require a sponsorship, so I think it should be self-evident. I just tacitly pass on such "opportunities".
I can only speak for the software industry, but if you are an H1B Software Engineer who is being treated unfairly, I can point you to multiple companies in my local area that are hiring smart people and will sponsor you. There's no reason to put up with bad working conditions or lower salary.
You are talking about what should happen to the best of them. What about those who are not the best, but who are still pretty good? Or even just Ok? Why should they not be on equal playing field with their colleagues at work? With their neighbors in the community where they live? You do realize that we are creating a class of people who think they must be better just to get equal treatment and who, once they get all their legal right, will retain a degree of bitterness towards those who "had it easy"? If we want these people among us for their skills, we either recognize them us legal alien residents (which they are in every form but the law) or they will never see us as fellow citizens.
aha. it's trump's fault. no wonder the judge opposing him came from Seattle. Nothing to see here. Move along.
salesmanship skills?
They are subject to the same labor protection laws as everyone else.
Oh? I had no idea that all programmers face deportation within 6 months if they get fired.
What idiotic manager would hire a less qualified software engineer for 10% less?
What idiotic manager would not hire an employee of equal skill, but who can be pressed to work longer hours without compensation, over a citizen who can simply change profession if gets tired of this type of environment?
H1B visa holders wait 5-6 years to get a green card. That puts their voting rights, their civil protections, their right to collectively bargain on hold for 5-6 years. Why would anyone, in their right mind, compete with people who have no rights for work? Assuming both of you have equal skills and ask for equal wages, employers would be nuts to hire a citizen instead of an indentured servant.
If you gave them green cards the first day, they wouldn't have to work. Thus defeating the entire purpose of the system. It's a fair deal: They work, they get to stay. They pay taxes, they receive benefits. That is why there are work visas, and educational visas, and travel visas, and each one has different stipulations.
Why would they leave? H1B visas cannot be legally used to suppress wages. If they are qualified and are getting competitive wages, why would they not stay on the job? Oh, and since they pay taxes, why shouldn't they be on the same track to citizenship as other resident aliens? Why should they not have a right to vote for mayors and city councils of the communities where they live for an extra 5-6 years that it takes them to get green cards?
I can only speak for the software industry, but if you are an H1B Software Engineer who is being treated unfairly, I can point you to multiple companies in my local area that are hiring smart people and will sponsor you.
Oh, no, I am a US citizen. But I don't bother even considering jobs which offer sponsorship. That's right. I don't want to compete with indentured servants. I just make that choice consciously unlike most people who make it based on some externalities of these conditions after the fact.
If a US university cant produce the workers needed, no students would bother to attend any US university for any advanced degree..
If you come on a student visa, you have find an H1B job within 6 months of graduating or go back. So many of them actually have US education. The only way to fix this is to eliminate H1B visas and give them green cards from day one.
No, the program is the abuse. It incentivizes abuse because it creates a 2nd class of permanent aliens. They don't have legal rights of green card holders. Establish a new criterion for green card: if you deserve an H1B, you deserve a green card. That will fix all abuses.
No, it's a skewed market place. It would be basic supply and demand if they had the same legal rights as other legal immigrants. Establish a criterion that anyone who deserves an H1B, deserves a green card and then you'd have a basic supply and demand.
No, the easy fix to eliminate H1B visas and create a program which gives green cards based on the same qualifications as H1B visas are given right now. If companies really couldn't find local workers, they wouldn't care if the newly coming ones were on H1B's or on green cards. Oh, and you lying. H1B already has minimum salary requirements. If you were on H1B, you'd already know this.
And how large is the supply of fully-fledged citizens who are willing to take abuse at the work place without taking any legal actions? Don't you think that people who would be willing to put up with grueling working conditions would want more compensation for it if they don't have to compete on work-place conditions with indentured servants who can be deported if they don't agree to such conditions?
Of course, real immigration improves life overall.
Well, yes, it does... in the long run. But the orthodoxy gets stronger in the longer run, too. Look at SF housing crisis. You don't think that having non-voting immigrants effects your community? You may have cheaper software services. But you have completely skewed housing market because so many of the residents cannot vote. H1B visas are usually a path to immigration. But they are a longer path. And that's inherently dishonest. They are, in all respects, resident aliens. But the legislature doesn't given them full citizenship rights that resident aliens can get after 5 years. So their voting rights are lagging by 5-6 years (however long it takes to get a green card for an H1B visa holder). Which means their rights to vote to change local laws to allow more construction are delayed by those 5-6 years. This effects not only them, but also the low-end housing market consumers. So what little consumers save in electronic services, they lose in other parts of the market because the lower-end consumers are less politically represented by the legislatures.
Then admit the truth that the workplace standards are unreasonably skewed towards employees. Otherwise, you have citizens (and permanent aliens) who can't find jobs because they have legal protections, which cannot be contractually given up, and you have 2nd class citizens who don't have legal protections. So a company which cannot function while providing all the same legal protections which are available to regular employees is forced to look for employees who are 2nd class citizens. This makes certains jobs unavailable to 1st class citizens even if they were willing to give their legal protections contractually. You disenfranchise the citizens by having the 2nd class citizens.
The only way to equalize the marketplace is not to have artificial salary standards. It's to make them permanent alien residents. They don't compete just on salaries. They compete on work place conditions, too. They are willing tolerate more hostile work environments and more abusive management in general. The only way to make them not compete is to put them on the same legal footing as the US citizens and others who are not afraid that losing a job would mean a possible deportation. If there is a shortage of workers, then nothing is lost by giving them green cards on the 1st day. This is not a security threat because they are physically present in the country regardless of the visa. By importing workers on work visa the employers do much more than suppress wages. They import people who are willing to tolerate abuse. The employers suppress work place standards by doing this.
I feel like an old man "Get off my lawn, ya damn hippies!"
Oh, don't worry. The new hippies are actually the legalized version of the old hippies. It was funny when the tea party were the counter-hippies. But the new ones are the counter tea party hippies. So, by double negative, the new hippies are the old hippies.
Are they talking about moving from one residence to another or moving away from a computer? I stopped preferring typing over talking 2 decades ago when I realized that it takes at least 5 minutes to type what you can say within 1 minute. It's worse with phones. Texting is even worse than emails. Millennials are not zombified without a reason. They are just communicating less efficiently. So it takes more of their time to say what genX-ers still knew how to do: simply talk.
Callback function with a closure, I think?
As long as you understand what closures are, you get it. But you mentioned that you thought it was run-of-the-mill OO language. Closures are not OO concepts. They allow function-like constructs to keep state in a reentrant function without binding it to any one object. It's not a conceptual step above or below OO development. It's a lateral addition to the (let's call it) concept pool. The fact that it is a 1st class citizen in Python (with its own keyword rather than hacked together from other language constructs) makes queue's effectively unnecessary. You just write generators which pump out data as you need it. In OO languages, you'd have to create an object and methods to have this behavior. In Python, you it's succinct and easy-to-read callables. Syntactically, it doesn't make the code set things up as callbacks (which are hard to debug), but as functions calling other functions (so it's much more intuitive and easier to debug).
Lexical file handles close themselves when they go out of scope in Perl too. Other objects have the DESTROY method.
Not quite. Destroy gets called when the object garbage collected. Context manager's __exit__ is called when the "with" scope is exited. So it's deterministic. Like a dtor of a C++'s object created on stack. You can use it to manage connections, locks and there is a well-known idiom combining closures (yielding functions) and context managers to produce cascading contexts. Mind you, this is still readable at a glance.
An immutable array with custom index names? Kind of like a hash?
No, it has dictionaries. Those are like hashes. Or, if hashes keep the order in which elements were added, then ordereddict. namedtuple is like an array which can be called by either positional attribute (attribute 3) or named attribute (attribute .something). This trivializes db bindings. At the same time, it allows to have the function run on all elements of a tuple (iterating by positional attribute). Mind you that you can do it without any extra hoops to jump. 'namedtuple' itself creates a factory method which can be used to create instances of a tuple, rather than creating instances of a tuple itself. So instead of doing $inst['something'], you can do inst[3] or inst.something (depending on how you are using it).
visitors are the main reason the book of 4 was so widely read. They allow for double dispatch (demarshalling based on arguments) in languages which only support single dispatch (polymorphism). And, as I mentioned, because of namedtuple, it's largely unnecessary in Python. Even though people coming to Python from Java do overuse it out of ignorance.
map, grep, sub, List::Util::reduce (the module is in core)
Well, map, filter, lambda, reduce are functional-language concepts. I didn't say that Perl didn't have them. I just said that they are 1st class citizens in Python. So to call it just an OO language is to ignore some of its best and most widely-used features.
In fact, writing Python code in a completely object-oriented fashion is something which almost immediately gives you away as a Java programmer. C++ programmers learn about 'with' fairly quickly because they want RAII guarantees which cannot be provided by loop-detecting garbage collector. Context managers, by the way, need not be objects. They are more often closures (so the closure ends when the context in which the context manager exists ends). Although this explanation sounds more complicated than the much clearer code which implements it.