You are probably right. The move is most likely motivated by politics than by any desire to do the right thing. An agency filing a suit 2 days before the head of the new boss comes in? That seems more like loosening the screws in all the chairs in the office. If Trump's FCC drops the suit, Democrats get to yell that he is favoring bad business practices. If he allows it to continue, Democrats get to roll their eyes claiming that the suit was filed under Obama and Trump is just trying to take credit.
Since you have been involved with 2 lauded languages, you are in a good position to answer the following question: "are modern languages forced to rely on language run-time to compensate for the facilities lacking in modern operating systems?" In other words, have the languages tried to compensate for the fact that there are no new OS-level light-weight paradigms to take advantage of multi-core processors?
Security needs to be designed into the protocols from the start.
That's almost too cute. Except they need to be secure enough to be usable by consumers and not have en masse exposure to criminals who can come in physical contact with them. What protocols do you use to secure them during physical access?
Why not $.25? Offer $25 million and you might get an answer. Actually, you'll get a lot of answers. Isn't this what the patent office should be doing instead of whatever it is doing? Making sure that inventors get paid?
As long as your process does jump from core to core, there is no cache invalidation, so GIL will not hinder you (because it will work as if it was running on a single-core machine).
should have been
" As long as your process does not jump from core to core, there is no cache invalidation, so GIL will not hinder you (because it will work as if it was running on a single-core machine)."
But, as always, you cannot edit a Slashdot comment after it's published.
*Only* using multiprocessing is hard, too, for two reasons: not having threads makes async programming difficult (think GUIs). It makes I/O or event driven applications much harder.
No one is talking about using only multiprocessing. Threads should always be for IO blocking while processes should be for CPU bound contexts. This is done to avoid the expensive context switch when scheduling waiting on IO while going off to do other work. And each process should be bound (as much as possible) to one core.
Unfortunately, the GIL does not only inhibit performance scaling with threads, it causes performance to scale *negatively* on multicore systems. Don't believe me? Try to run a threaded code on a single core system, and then on multicore systems (`cpusets` come in handy for this test).
A python process is always using one core at a time (not always the same core because it can block and then get scheduled to run on a different core). If you find a way to bind your Python process to a single core, all your Python threads will be IO bound threads and GIL will not hinder performance. People are just bitching about having to think through the manager/workers pipeline, but any design which wants to take advantage of multiple cores should do that anyway. Multiple cores are best thought of as multiple single-core machines joined by a really, really fast network. And then run multiple Python processes (each bound to a single core). Then each one of them will have its own GIL and when you do want to share data between cores, you'd use system's shared memory. This works both in Windows and in Linux. As long as your process does jump from core to core, there is no cache invalidation, so GIL will not hinder you (because it will work as if it was running on a single-core machine).
If it were legal for IRS to release this data to the Labor department. But if that would require changing the law, then it would take require cooperation from the Republican Congress (which is not likely to give IRS or Labor Department any extra powers).
Ok, so there is a law suit. But I am fairly sure it will fail. I don't work for Google, but I do know a number of people who do. And, as I mentioned, most of them joined the company mid-career. And quite a few of them were past 50 when they joined. So I have problems believing what the suit alleges. It hasn't been resolved yet. Anyone can file a law suit in the US in the hopes that the company would settle to avoid the cost of litigation, but there isn't even news of that in your link. There is only a statement that a suit was files in 2014. Ok. Maybe statistically the suit does have merit. In my personal observation it does not. Until I see evidence to the contrary I am choosing to trust my personal observations.
Most people I know who found jobs at Google did so mid-career (so they were past the 40-years-of-age starting point of qualifying for age-discrimination protections). You must have Google confused with Facebook. It was Facebook's CEO who famously claimed that "young people are just smarter."
gerrymandering would serve as an explanation if they didn't win 39 governships. Or if the popular vote victory would be more spread across the country. The won in the California outlier and the fact the Democrats actually lost the popular vote without the California outlier only proves the gerrymandering claim wrong.
California would not have tilted the election even if it had 50% more electoral votes than it currently does. I am suggesting that electoral college is a good system for putting a check on cluster fuck or group think or whatever else you want to call it. Obviously, the people in California are woefully misinformed and completely isolated from the opinions outside of those prevalent in that state. Having a place like that have such a huge impact on the rest of the country would be a gross step away from democracy.
Yes, I guess the first thing I should learn is that when you try to pose as an insider, it helps if there is a mechanism to post anonymously, AC. Thanks. That was such a valuable lesson. Too bad calling someone a troll has become so cliche that it's almost trolling in itself. It could have been a very appropriate way to categorize your post.
And if you still don't think "let's find some Russians to blame" is the modus operandi for handling elections loss in the DNC, just recall this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chapman
They rounded up some RF nationals who worked in finance (not even in government) and expelled them ON JULY 4th in the year when they were trying to stem the tide of the upcomming losses which were to come from the Tea Party surge in the mid-term elections. Their "espionage" consisted of advising RF government in financial matters... imagine that. Some finance guys advising foreign government in financial matters. Don't take me wrong. I am a very vocal critic of Putin's government. And I usually find myself on the side of vehemently mocking RF apologists. RF could not sway Ukrainian election (which is why they had to resort to open warfare with Ukraine). But now we are supposed to believe that they can sway US elections? Why? Because there is a few RF citizens engaging in some credit card fraud? So Russians are these super hackers all of a sudden? But only when DNC losses the election. When the RF manages to get a glance at some military data, that's not news because that's on Obama's watch. I call bull shit.
That's because the DNC had a lot more secrets exposed.
And? It's a private organization. Hacking government facilities is far more worthy of official retaliation than hacking of a political party. Especially when the only thing which appears to have been exposed was the misdeeds by the DNC. The whole thing smells like a DNC cover up to blame a scapegoat de jour to distract the country from what Wikileaks actually exposed : system corruption within a party which is known for accusing others of "hypocrisy" whenever those others don't meet their own integrity criteria. Russia may have interfered with the US elections by allowing the US public know how the DNC unquestionably did interfere with the US primary election process (by using the Democratic Party resources to subvert one of the two leading primary candidates). If Russia was really in it to help Trump, where is the intelligence to show that RF hacked campaigns of all the other Republican primary candidates? If Trump is the Manchurian Candidate, where is any proof that he beat the other Republicans through Russian efforts? This is nothing but retaliation for exposure of how dirty the Democratic party has become. C'mon... they advertised on the most popular social network? And then made sure that the people they hired knew some programming languages? This is evidence of hacking elections? How dumb do you have to be to believe this? It seems to me more like "we lost the elections... round up the usual suspects" a la Casablanca.
So this wasn't news when they hacked into CIA and the White House. But it's news when they broke into DNC? Because Democrats lost election on all fronts. White House, both houses of Congress, 39 governerships. Oh, and that "popular vote lead" that Hillary got was entirely from the People's Republic of California. She won popular vote by 2.5 million, but she won the vote in California by 4 million (so without California she lost the popular vote 1-1.5 million). And I don't anyone can suggest that California reflects the values or viewpoints of the rest of the United States enough to be the only state which decides its elections. Just to sum up... they recruited "spies" by advertising jobs for RF military technology personal on the Russian clone (and that's what it is) of Facebook? And they promised not conscript them into "mandatory" military service? RF's ability to force young people to actually comply with conscription laws has been so abysmal that its military can pretty much be called voluntary. The only people who go through the "conscription" are the ones who can't think of anything better to do with their lives. Seriously though... spies? These sound like government contractors doing infrastructure work more than spies. You just don't recruit for clandestine operations out in the open. It's official NYT and Washington Post have both joined the ranks of fake news. They are about a year or two away from reporting UFO sightings.
I don't get why super-concentrated jobs in one location are so awesome.
Unfortunately, when most jobs come from the same industry, but a large number of them is from different employers, then you have to concentrate them where the employees with these skills happen to be. These are high skill jobs. It's somewhat similar to why the movie industry has to be in LA and finance industry has to concentrate in NYC. This is where you find the people with the skills/background/desire to work in this industry. You can try funding a surge of upstarts somewhere else, but until a critical mass is reached and outside funding for new projects funds the projects in the area, very few new projects will take off. It's not just the developers who are easier to find in SF. This causes a cycle. Startups have easier time getting funding if they are in SF. So more developers move there or stay there. And as long as housing laws are heavily favoring long-standing residents, new residents have very little political voice. It becomes a gold rush-type of situation. Too many prospectors and not enough territory. So the people who make the most money are the ones selling services to prospectors (a al Levi's to the actual gold prospectors during the Gold Rush). The current real estate owners have nothing to gain by allowing more construction and everything to gain by making sure that newly arriving people don't have any political power for as long as possible. The problem may (and this is by no means a direct cause-and-effect scenario) be exaggerated by the H1B's. If H1B's were abolished and simply replaced with what foreign tech workers should be getting (Permanent Resident Alien cards, aka "green cards"), the increased social problems due to having a large class of well-paid workers without political representation would resolve itself faster.
Buh... I think I have to correct the correction.... or just shut because it's late and I might get it wrong again. But the ratio in San Francisco is the "bad one". The one which puts more people into the city without allowing for more housing to be built because of the NIMBYs. And, yeah, I deserve all the crap I'll get for messing up the wording and the ratio, etc., etc. But this ratio is still a fact and it's still the primary reason for people not having places to live in SF.
Any medium sized company can easily play shell games
As long as no one is looking into it, it can. But entering into a contract solely with the purpose of side-stepping the law can be made illegal (and in many cases it is already illegal). Just as IRS gets to decide on whether tax dodging schemes are a go or no go, other departments can be empowered to regulate trade policy. We've had a long period of time of attempting as loose a trade policy as possible, but if regulatory mandate changes, that may no longer be the case.
so it's going to be damn hard to even figure out how to charge such a tariff.
We do have a Department of State which has some jurisdiction over regulating borders. They can dedicate resources to making such a determination at a President's behest. The law would not be targeting a company. It would be targeting a category of companies. Which is perfectly legal. The State Department (maybe together with Labor Department?) would only be making determination which companies meet the criteria.
And second, that 35% is an import duty.
Not true. Their bill of sale of services is generated in the US and it is for a product manufactured abroad (almost all cruise ships are not registered in the US).
In this case, there are no goods crossing the border.
No tangible goods. But it's an offer of services to be performed. And since the ships are not registered in the US, the services are performed abroad.
Of course it's still bullshit
You may very well be right. But given how extensive the regulatory powers have become, it would be hard to fathom that the executive branch can't carve out this power given a willing legislature.
Slashdot Mirror
You are probably right. The move is most likely motivated by politics than by any desire to do the right thing. An agency filing a suit 2 days before the head of the new boss comes in? That seems more like loosening the screws in all the chairs in the office. If Trump's FCC drops the suit, Democrats get to yell that he is favoring bad business practices. If he allows it to continue, Democrats get to roll their eyes claiming that the suit was filed under Obama and Trump is just trying to take credit.
Since you have been involved with 2 lauded languages, you are in a good position to answer the following question: "are modern languages forced to rely on language run-time to compensate for the facilities lacking in modern operating systems?" In other words, have the languages tried to compensate for the fact that there are no new OS-level light-weight paradigms to take advantage of multi-core processors?
Uhm... there is nothing to prevent them from being sold and shipped from China or Canada directly. Are you planning to extend US tort laws to China?
Security needs to be designed into the protocols from the start.
That's almost too cute. Except they need to be secure enough to be usable by consumers and not have en masse exposure to criminals who can come in physical contact with them. What protocols do you use to secure them during physical access?
It probably does if it needs to know about a hurricane coming your way.
Why not $.25? Offer $25 million and you might get an answer. Actually, you'll get a lot of answers. Isn't this what the patent office should be doing instead of whatever it is doing? Making sure that inventors get paid?
As long as your process does jump from core to core, there is no cache invalidation, so GIL will not hinder you (because it will work as if it was running on a single-core machine).
should have been
" As long as your process does not jump from core to core, there is no cache invalidation, so GIL will not hinder you (because it will work as if it was running on a single-core machine)."
But, as always, you cannot edit a Slashdot comment after it's published.
*Only* using multiprocessing is hard, too, for two reasons: not having threads makes async programming difficult (think GUIs). It makes I/O or event driven applications much harder.
No one is talking about using only multiprocessing. Threads should always be for IO blocking while processes should be for CPU bound contexts. This is done to avoid the expensive context switch when scheduling waiting on IO while going off to do other work. And each process should be bound (as much as possible) to one core.
Unfortunately, the GIL does not only inhibit performance scaling with threads, it causes performance to scale *negatively* on multicore systems. Don't believe me? Try to run a threaded code on a single core system, and then on multicore systems (`cpusets` come in handy for this test).
A python process is always using one core at a time (not always the same core because it can block and then get scheduled to run on a different core). If you find a way to bind your Python process to a single core, all your Python threads will be IO bound threads and GIL will not hinder performance. People are just bitching about having to think through the manager/workers pipeline, but any design which wants to take advantage of multiple cores should do that anyway. Multiple cores are best thought of as multiple single-core machines joined by a really, really fast network. And then run multiple Python processes (each bound to a single core). Then each one of them will have its own GIL and when you do want to share data between cores, you'd use system's shared memory. This works both in Windows and in Linux. As long as your process does jump from core to core, there is no cache invalidation, so GIL will not hinder you (because it will work as if it was running on a single-core machine).
You apparently believe he will rewrite the entire federal code in 2 weeks.
No, he probably believes that he will appoint a new head of the Labor Department. And he is right about that.
IRS database to figure it out,
If it were legal for IRS to release this data to the Labor department. But if that would require changing the law, then it would take require cooperation from the Republican Congress (which is not likely to give IRS or Labor Department any extra powers).
Ok, so there is a law suit. But I am fairly sure it will fail. I don't work for Google, but I do know a number of people who do. And, as I mentioned, most of them joined the company mid-career. And quite a few of them were past 50 when they joined. So I have problems believing what the suit alleges. It hasn't been resolved yet. Anyone can file a law suit in the US in the hopes that the company would settle to avoid the cost of litigation, but there isn't even news of that in your link. There is only a statement that a suit was files in 2014. Ok. Maybe statistically the suit does have merit. In my personal observation it does not. Until I see evidence to the contrary I am choosing to trust my personal observations.
Most people I know who found jobs at Google did so mid-career (so they were past the 40-years-of-age starting point of qualifying for age-discrimination protections). You must have Google confused with Facebook. It was Facebook's CEO who famously claimed that "young people are just smarter."
Grow up, you silly child.
Fuck you, you silly cunt.
gerrymandering would serve as an explanation if they didn't win 39 governships. Or if the popular vote victory would be more spread across the country. The won in the California outlier and the fact the Democrats actually lost the popular vote without the California outlier only proves the gerrymandering claim wrong.
California would not have tilted the election even if it had 50% more electoral votes than it currently does. I am suggesting that electoral college is a good system for putting a check on cluster fuck or group think or whatever else you want to call it. Obviously, the people in California are woefully misinformed and completely isolated from the opinions outside of those prevalent in that state. Having a place like that have such a huge impact on the rest of the country would be a gross step away from democracy.
Yes, I guess the first thing I should learn is that when you try to pose as an insider, it helps if there is a mechanism to post anonymously, AC. Thanks. That was such a valuable lesson. Too bad calling someone a troll has become so cliche that it's almost trolling in itself. It could have been a very appropriate way to categorize your post.
And if you still don't think "let's find some Russians to blame" is the modus operandi for handling elections loss in the DNC, just recall this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chapman
They rounded up some RF nationals who worked in finance (not even in government) and expelled them ON JULY 4th in the year when they were trying to stem the tide of the upcomming losses which were to come from the Tea Party surge in the mid-term elections. Their "espionage" consisted of advising RF government in financial matters... imagine that. Some finance guys advising foreign government in financial matters. Don't take me wrong. I am a very vocal critic of Putin's government. And I usually find myself on the side of vehemently mocking RF apologists. RF could not sway Ukrainian election (which is why they had to resort to open warfare with Ukraine). But now we are supposed to believe that they can sway US elections? Why? Because there is a few RF citizens engaging in some credit card fraud? So Russians are these super hackers all of a sudden? But only when DNC losses the election. When the RF manages to get a glance at some military data, that's not news because that's on Obama's watch. I call bull shit.
That's because the DNC had a lot more secrets exposed.
And? It's a private organization. Hacking government facilities is far more worthy of official retaliation than hacking of a political party. Especially when the only thing which appears to have been exposed was the misdeeds by the DNC. The whole thing smells like a DNC cover up to blame a scapegoat de jour to distract the country from what Wikileaks actually exposed : system corruption within a party which is known for accusing others of "hypocrisy" whenever those others don't meet their own integrity criteria. Russia may have interfered with the US elections by allowing the US public know how the DNC unquestionably did interfere with the US primary election process (by using the Democratic Party resources to subvert one of the two leading primary candidates). If Russia was really in it to help Trump, where is the intelligence to show that RF hacked campaigns of all the other Republican primary candidates? If Trump is the Manchurian Candidate, where is any proof that he beat the other Republicans through Russian efforts? This is nothing but retaliation for exposure of how dirty the Democratic party has become. C'mon... they advertised on the most popular social network? And then made sure that the people they hired knew some programming languages? This is evidence of hacking elections? How dumb do you have to be to believe this? It seems to me more like "we lost the elections... round up the usual suspects" a la Casablanca.
So this wasn't news when they hacked into CIA and the White House. But it's news when they broke into DNC? Because Democrats lost election on all fronts. White House, both houses of Congress, 39 governerships. Oh, and that "popular vote lead" that Hillary got was entirely from the People's Republic of California. She won popular vote by 2.5 million, but she won the vote in California by 4 million (so without California she lost the popular vote 1-1.5 million). And I don't anyone can suggest that California reflects the values or viewpoints of the rest of the United States enough to be the only state which decides its elections. Just to sum up... they recruited "spies" by advertising jobs for RF military technology personal on the Russian clone (and that's what it is) of Facebook? And they promised not conscript them into "mandatory" military service? RF's ability to force young people to actually comply with conscription laws has been so abysmal that its military can pretty much be called voluntary. The only people who go through the "conscription" are the ones who can't think of anything better to do with their lives. Seriously though... spies? These sound like government contractors doing infrastructure work more than spies. You just don't recruit for clandestine operations out in the open. It's official NYT and Washington Post have both joined the ranks of fake news. They are about a year or two away from reporting UFO sightings.
NYT is fake news.
I don't get why super-concentrated jobs in one location are so awesome.
Unfortunately, when most jobs come from the same industry, but a large number of them is from different employers, then you have to concentrate them where the employees with these skills happen to be. These are high skill jobs. It's somewhat similar to why the movie industry has to be in LA and finance industry has to concentrate in NYC. This is where you find the people with the skills/background/desire to work in this industry. You can try funding a surge of upstarts somewhere else, but until a critical mass is reached and outside funding for new projects funds the projects in the area, very few new projects will take off. It's not just the developers who are easier to find in SF. This causes a cycle. Startups have easier time getting funding if they are in SF. So more developers move there or stay there. And as long as housing laws are heavily favoring long-standing residents, new residents have very little political voice. It becomes a gold rush-type of situation. Too many prospectors and not enough territory. So the people who make the most money are the ones selling services to prospectors (a al Levi's to the actual gold prospectors during the Gold Rush). The current real estate owners have nothing to gain by allowing more construction and everything to gain by making sure that newly arriving people don't have any political power for as long as possible. The problem may (and this is by no means a direct cause-and-effect scenario) be exaggerated by the H1B's. If H1B's were abolished and simply replaced with what foreign tech workers should be getting (Permanent Resident Alien cards, aka "green cards"), the increased social problems due to having a large class of well-paid workers without political representation would resolve itself faster.
Buh... I think I have to correct the correction.... or just shut because it's late and I might get it wrong again. But the ratio in San Francisco is the "bad one". The one which puts more people into the city without allowing for more housing to be built because of the NIMBYs. And, yeah, I deserve all the crap I'll get for messing up the wording and the ratio, etc., etc. But this ratio is still a fact and it's still the primary reason for people not having places to live in SF.
Any medium sized company can easily play shell games
As long as no one is looking into it, it can. But entering into a contract solely with the purpose of side-stepping the law can be made illegal (and in many cases it is already illegal). Just as IRS gets to decide on whether tax dodging schemes are a go or no go, other departments can be empowered to regulate trade policy. We've had a long period of time of attempting as loose a trade policy as possible, but if regulatory mandate changes, that may no longer be the case.
so it's going to be damn hard to even figure out how to charge such a tariff.
We do have a Department of State which has some jurisdiction over regulating borders. They can dedicate resources to making such a determination at a President's behest. The law would not be targeting a company. It would be targeting a category of companies. Which is perfectly legal. The State Department (maybe together with Labor Department?) would only be making determination which companies meet the criteria.
And second, that 35% is an import duty.
Not true. Their bill of sale of services is generated in the US and it is for a product manufactured abroad (almost all cruise ships are not registered in the US).
In this case, there are no goods crossing the border.
No tangible goods. But it's an offer of services to be performed. And since the ships are not registered in the US, the services are performed abroad.
Of course it's still bullshit
You may very well be right. But given how extensive the regulatory powers have become, it would be hard to fathom that the executive branch can't carve out this power given a willing legislature.