What are you saying, that because somebody can say, "I define this phrase to mean something different from common usage", that no web site should ever block said word?
Basically, yes. Let's think through what is happening today.
Suppose you work for Facebook. Country X wants you to block speech about a famous person in history. Country Y considers that person a hero. What do you do? Provide different sites based on the TLD? That's transparent, but too easy to get around. Implement geolocation and block it for country X? But then someone in Country Y sues you because your geolocation didn't work and it blocked the articles for them. In the meantime, Country Z thinks blocking these articles is a human rights violation so they sue you too. And while Country Z thinks blocking this person is a human rights violation, they want you to block articles about some other historical figure that they don't like. So Facebook hires a team of lawyers to navigate all these legal hassles, which are poorly defined and constantly changing. It's tough to block these articles anyway, because someone has to flag them, so you develop an algorithm. But then Country X's president posts an article about how this historical figure was awful, and you block that. Well that triggers more outrage, both because you blocked it but also because now they realize you are using an AI to do it. But then when you switch back to human beings, people get outraged that you have people on your staff who can access any article written by anyone, which is a privacy violation. Then one of those countries found out that the employees reviewing the material are in another country, which violates their data privacy laws! So now you are in trouble again!
If this sounds theoretical to you, lets' say the historical figure is "Hitler" and the other historical figure is "Robert E. Lee" and the countries are Germany, Poland, and the US. Or maybe we can pick "Stalin" or "Tiananmen Square Massacre." I didn't even get into Right to be Forgotten laws, the EU copyright directive, what happens after Brexit. The hassles in nations like Turkey or Russia will be even worse since you can't allow criticism of certain people.
We can repeat the above analysis with "fake" news as well. I just had a relative email me about how Facebook blocked some right-wing propaganda and how that was a violation of free speech, but then thought that unless they also blocked pro-ISIS posts that Facebook would be "aiding and abetting the enemy." *facepalm* This all boils down to: technology changes nothing. Technology can't solve socio-geo-political problems. Stop trying to make Facebook and friends the gatekeepers of speech.
This is one of the most poorly thought out posts I've seen on Slashdot in a very long time
Well now you know some of the thinking behind it. It is funny that your post is full of curse words and personal attacks, and you called MY post poorly thought-out.
I won't accept this horrible insult to nature unless is supports 4K resolution with HDMI support. I wanna play video games on a giant screen in the sky!!!!
Seriously though, reading the article is sounds more like a joke. But academically, I'd love to see how the science for this could work.
I am an EFF member, but they are wrong here. Internet web sites should not be enforcing how people use the site. We've been talking about this slippery slope since the late '90s, and the real implications we experience are worse than the ones we speculated about back then. Web sites shouldn't be taking down hate speech because it is defined differently in every municipality on the planet. They shouldn't be taking down fake accounts because everyone's definition of fake -vs- legitimate varies. Definitely don't interfere with law enforcement (or help them) since law enforcement varies around the world. We can't write an algorithm to determine if someone is a cop and if their actions are legal. Facebook should not preventing advertisers from targeting certain groups because then every group will have a complaint about the advertisers - it will never end.. Advertising laws vary in every country. Don't try to stop Russian election trolls because the trolls are almost indistinguishable from valid commentary. Free speech is free speech. If you subscribe to stupid stuff, you get what you asked for. What one person thinks is a troll is another person's legitimate opinion.
The computer is a tool and should be wielded just like a hammer or a typewriter or a pen. Stop trying to teach the computer morality, it won't work. Instead, teach the humans to use the tool correctly. They should read things on Facebook with the same skepticism that they read The National Enquirer. People need to stop blaming the tool when they are duped!
I usually don't find Linus to be a sage either, but I think he is right here. Too many applications fail in obvious ways that tech users overlook. Things like: does it install a shortcut for the user after installing? Too often basic things like this are missing. Of course, this comes up on Slashdot often, and there was excellent discussion quite recently on the limitations of desktop Linux.
Oh sorry, I didn't get to see the rest of your comment since I was so distracted by the ad-homimem attack against me. But please go on to explain why a hologram disrespectful but a a television appearance is not.
NN is about free speech, a basic requirement of democracy. People already see news through the Facebook filter. I fear what happens to society when Comcast and Verizon become the gatekeepers of information and markets.
Most of the arguments over abortion emphasize unlikely and unrealistic scenarios just to polarize opinion.
I use OfficeSteam OS! It's great because it runs Microsoft Office and Steam, plus it has the best video driver support. The other OS's don't run these two killer apps nearly as well: Some don't run Microsoft Office at all, or their video drivers and Steam support aren't as good. The makers of this OS are such game fanatics that they named their Siri clone "Cortana!" I know the OS can run other things but I just use a browser for the rest.
This summary seems to imply that most people just use the streaming service. But the streaming catalog is very limited. I just randomly searched and find that the Marvel movies aren't there (I looked for Iron Man - no 1, 2, or 3), I can't find anything Disney. I just looked up my favorite 80's classics (Ghostbusters, Back to the Future) and 90's (The Matrix).
Are we seriously getting into an argument about whether Linus Torvalds initiated ad-hominem attacks or not? Because there is a loooong history of news articles and mailing list posts on this. Google seems to like this particular one you and I are talking about (probably because I am putting C++ in the search). But lots go back before that one. Here's one from 2004
In general, I'd say that anybody who designs his kernel modules for C++ is either
(a) looking for problems
(b) a C++ bigot that can't see what he is writing is really just C anyway
This is an attack not only against the language, but against the people who use it. I've seen the one you mentioned a bunch of times, but I can't seem to find the original post by Dmitry Kakurin. You imply that Dmitry Kakurin is the one who originally used the word "bullshit" but I only see Linus using it.
This topic is important because something pivotal is happening right now in the open-source community, and we need to understand why. Rewriting history now would blind us to the cause.
A lot of developers are pissed-off about the stupid post-meritocracy code-of-conduct political correctness. But we got here for a reason: many of the software "elites" were NOT running meritocracies. They claimed to do so, but in reality they were ostracizing smart capable people who didn't agree with them. To some degree, that's fine -- there needs to be a unifying philosophy in a project, and people who aren't on board are not going to be productive. But if you see leaders flaming people for having different opinions, that means those leaders are closing their mind to new ideas. That's also bad for a project. One can be open-minded without being an asshat.
The result of this is an overreaction, where "everyone is equal" and open discussion is no longer possible because people are walking on eggshells. Denying how we got here won't help. We need to acknowledge that posts like the ones Linus made are what fueled this revolt. And leaders today need to understand that they can be harsh, precise, and critical without being closed-minded or ostracizing. Linus probably knows this now. But don't pretend that he wasn't that way, or we risk this happening over and over again.
The founding fathers of the United States wrote many anonymous articles in newspapers, and even printed their own newspapers under pseudonyms. They believed that anonymity is a key feature of a democratic society.
A distinction with Linus is that generally he calls some piece of CODE ugly or stupid, not a -person-. In the vast majority of cases, anyway
The trouble is that he has made some very public ad-hominem attacks on not only individuals, but entire groups of people. Like when he said that C++ programmers are "brain dead" or that people who like certain commenting styles have "shit for brains."
While there are benefits to trademarking "arbitrary" terms, you can indeed trademark ordinary English words. An example of some English words that are trademarked are "Camel" (cigarettes) or Target (store) or Apple and Macintosh (computers). You can even trademark a single letter, like the letter R although that includes a design... here's a boring one: the word "seen".
I don't know what Grammarly is, but I do know that "Grammar" cannot be made into an adverb, therefore the word "Grammarly" it is bad grammar. What's next, a web-based spell checker called "spelChekkit?"
I can see how someone who has watched TV news their entire life, and never met anyone who owns a gun, might form the opinion that you have. The trade-off that you suppose does not exist: there is something else going on that I think most non-gun-owners just don't see. Let me try to help you bridge the gun culture gap that I see in America.
I live in a suburb about 20 minutes outside of one of the most dangerous cities in America. When I moved here, I didn't realize how many people nearby me have guns. A bunch of my coworkers talk guns in the lunch room, and my team lead took me shooting. Apparently he likes modifying guns - adding sights, etc. He is a mechanical engineer and has a machine shop where wants to make his own barrels, which is apparently very difficult. He has some antique guns that his father gave him that still work well. They are geeks about guns the way I am a geek about video games. It's just their hobby, and the connection between guns and violence is actually strange to them. The lead analyst on my project is a gun safety instructor. He doesn't approve of me letting my kids use Nerf guns. He says no one should ever point a gun at themselves or another person, even a toy one. He would rather I buy them a BB gun and teach them to shoot than to give them a Nerf gun or a water gun.
Let me contrast this with gun ownership in that nearby city. An acquaintance of mine borrowed a gun from a neighbor, so he could scare off a group of thugs. One of these thugs was dating a girl, and treating her really badly. But she stayed with him because she had no money and no place to live. They are all heavy drug users so she probably gets her fix from her boyfriend and would go on withdrawal if she left him and lost her supply. This acquaintance of my was attracted to the girl, and he knew the thugs were poor and stupid. So he brought her food one night that he swiped from an alcoholics anonymous meeting, and he made sure the trio of thugs could see the gun, without him brandishing it. He thought it was hilarious - they treated him like he was a king, and they don't go by his house any more and if he wants to see the girl they don't give him a hard time.
Both of these places have a gun culture. But one of those places has more than 1 murder a day whereas the other one, well I guess I don't know but it isn't in the news every night that's for sure. This area where I live is is super safe. We don't lock our doors, our cars aren't broken into or stolen - to me it is what I would call "normal." If you make a map of America and you overlay "gun crime" and "gun ownership" you get very little correlation. Especially if you only count LEGAL gun ownership. That lack-of-correlation kinda follows throughout the world. When a cop pulls me over, he doesn't assume I have a gun, and he doesn't shoot me when I reach for my wallet in my pocket.
Oh, and here's a message to any NRA type who comes back with "guns don't cause increased violence" or "guns make schools safer" or any variant of that: shut the f*** up, grow a pair, and admit that your favorite toy comes with a blood price.
Your insults betray your lack of knowledge. The truth is the correlation isn't there. There are European countries where every male over 18 owns at least one gun and gets mandatory training at 18. Yet their gun crime rates match the lower rate throughout Europe. There are plenty of places in America that show this out too. There is a real question we should be asking here, but if you assume guns are evil then you can't see past your own bias to ask it.
The real question we should be asking is what *DOES* correlate with gun crime, if not gun ownership?? Good news: we have known the answer for decades! The answer is that it correlates negative with quality of education, standard of living, and stable home lives. The trouble is that violence correlates positively with violence, and gun crimes correlate positively with other gun crimes. So if your friend or family
The article mixes up bugs in the standard with bugs in software. Fuzzing is a technique used to attack specific software implementations not standards. It looks like they did both, but the article mixes up terms.
Okay, between your reply and Wikipedia I am swayed. That's pretty amazing. Still, be careful generalizing this to mean "No improvements can ever be made to AI learning algorithms."
No, it is you who misunderstand the theorem. It most certainly does not say that "no search algorithm out performs another." And it is mathematically false that "when averaged over all use cases no search algorithm out performs another." That is easily mathematically proven to be false. For any search algorithm, I can create an algorithm that is 200x slower and provides no benefit. Using a real-world example, selection sort's best case is n^2 but merge sort's worst-case is n*log(n). Therefore "when averaged over all use cases" merge-sort will outperform selection sort.
H1Bs are about dillute the labor pool in order to stagnate wages.
Well they aren't doing a very good job. On the east coast, H1-B workers are a small fraction of tech workers. In my current cube farm of >100 people, I think we have 2. Compare that to Silicon Valley, which has some of the highest wages -- H1-B visas are 3/4 of the workers. So if they are here to stagnate wages, it isn't working. Not to mention the cost of sponsoring them is rather high.
I suppose the one way in which they do stagnate wages is when some company that hires nothing but H1-B workers comes in and offers to replace your whole staff for half the price. But then they move the work offshore and re-use those H1-B workers for the next scam.
The title implies that tech companies are not dealing with the immigration policies. The summary says that they are dealing with them, and dealing with them so well that they are hiring equal or greater numbers of foreign workers. Which is it?
Let's look at the article and see:
“Due to a shortage of green cards for workers, many employees find themselves stuck in an immigration process lasting more than a decade. These employees must repeatedly renew their temporary work visas..."
That problem has existed for >20 years. Much of the article reads the same way:
...there aren’t enough skilled Americans...
...US companies are hiring outside the US...
Most of this could have been written in 1995 and nothing would sound different.
But this is slightly different:
Recent immigration data shows the US is issuing fewer total visas to these types of workers than in previous years. This is a result of an executive order Trump issued...
This quote links to an article showing that only 75% of H-1B visa applications are being accepted. But that conflicts with the statement
Some GOOD news: Take a look at the chart in the article showing which companies are getting their Visa's rejected. Microsoft, Amazon, Google -- 99% acceptance. Tata consulting: 78%. Accenture: 69%. Good riddance! Companies like Tata and Accenture are the real abusers of H1-B. These firms just hire as many H1-B applicants as they possibly can, and then find jobs for them later by promising other companies they can do the same job for less, then offshoring the work later. That's a garbage business model and if that's the only companies having trouble than good riddance!
Slashdot Mirror
What are you saying, that because somebody can say, "I define this phrase to mean something different from common usage", that no web site should ever block said word?
Basically, yes. Let's think through what is happening today.
Suppose you work for Facebook. Country X wants you to block speech about a famous person in history. Country Y considers that person a hero. What do you do? Provide different sites based on the TLD? That's transparent, but too easy to get around. Implement geolocation and block it for country X? But then someone in Country Y sues you because your geolocation didn't work and it blocked the articles for them. In the meantime, Country Z thinks blocking these articles is a human rights violation so they sue you too. And while Country Z thinks blocking this person is a human rights violation, they want you to block articles about some other historical figure that they don't like. So Facebook hires a team of lawyers to navigate all these legal hassles, which are poorly defined and constantly changing. It's tough to block these articles anyway, because someone has to flag them, so you develop an algorithm. But then Country X's president posts an article about how this historical figure was awful, and you block that. Well that triggers more outrage, both because you blocked it but also because now they realize you are using an AI to do it. But then when you switch back to human beings, people get outraged that you have people on your staff who can access any article written by anyone, which is a privacy violation. Then one of those countries found out that the employees reviewing the material are in another country, which violates their data privacy laws! So now you are in trouble again!
If this sounds theoretical to you, lets' say the historical figure is "Hitler" and the other historical figure is "Robert E. Lee" and the countries are Germany, Poland, and the US. Or maybe we can pick "Stalin" or "Tiananmen Square Massacre." I didn't even get into Right to be Forgotten laws, the EU copyright directive, what happens after Brexit. The hassles in nations like Turkey or Russia will be even worse since you can't allow criticism of certain people.
We can repeat the above analysis with "fake" news as well. I just had a relative email me about how Facebook blocked some right-wing propaganda and how that was a violation of free speech, but then thought that unless they also blocked pro-ISIS posts that Facebook would be "aiding and abetting the enemy." *facepalm* This all boils down to: technology changes nothing. Technology can't solve socio-geo-political problems. Stop trying to make Facebook and friends the gatekeepers of speech.
This is one of the most poorly thought out posts I've seen on Slashdot in a very long time
Well now you know some of the thinking behind it. It is funny that your post is full of curse words and personal attacks, and you called MY post poorly thought-out.
I won't accept this horrible insult to nature unless is supports 4K resolution with HDMI support. I wanna play video games on a giant screen in the sky!!!!
Seriously though, reading the article is sounds more like a joke. But academically, I'd love to see how the science for this could work.
I am an EFF member, but they are wrong here. Internet web sites should not be enforcing how people use the site. We've been talking about this slippery slope since the late '90s, and the real implications we experience are worse than the ones we speculated about back then. Web sites shouldn't be taking down hate speech because it is defined differently in every municipality on the planet. They shouldn't be taking down fake accounts because everyone's definition of fake -vs- legitimate varies. Definitely don't interfere with law enforcement (or help them) since law enforcement varies around the world. We can't write an algorithm to determine if someone is a cop and if their actions are legal. Facebook should not preventing advertisers from targeting certain groups because then every group will have a complaint about the advertisers - it will never end.. Advertising laws vary in every country. Don't try to stop Russian election trolls because the trolls are almost indistinguishable from valid commentary. Free speech is free speech. If you subscribe to stupid stuff, you get what you asked for. What one person thinks is a troll is another person's legitimate opinion.
The computer is a tool and should be wielded just like a hammer or a typewriter or a pen. Stop trying to teach the computer morality, it won't work. Instead, teach the humans to use the tool correctly. They should read things on Facebook with the same skepticism that they read The National Enquirer. People need to stop blaming the tool when they are duped!
I usually don't find Linus to be a sage either, but I think he is right here. Too many applications fail in obvious ways that tech users overlook. Things like: does it install a shortcut for the user after installing? Too often basic things like this are missing. Of course, this comes up on Slashdot often, and there was excellent discussion quite recently on the limitations of desktop Linux.
Only people who have no concept of 'respect' would say what you just said.
That's not all. I don't understand "what is going on in the news" and I'm not "likeable" and I don't "get along with people" and when I go to work I don't "make eye contact" and I don't "wear the latest clothes" and when I sweat I don't "shower" and I "make babies cry.".
Oh sorry, I didn't get to see the rest of your comment since I was so distracted by the ad-homimem attack against me. But please go on to explain why a hologram disrespectful but a a television appearance is not.
Only people who have never heard of "television" would make such an argument.
How did the monkeys die?
NN is about free speech, a basic requirement of democracy. People already see news through the Facebook filter. I fear what happens to society when Comcast and Verizon become the gatekeepers of information and markets.
Most of the arguments over abortion emphasize unlikely and unrealistic scenarios just to polarize opinion.
I use OfficeSteam OS! It's great because it runs Microsoft Office and Steam, plus it has the best video driver support. The other OS's don't run these two killer apps nearly as well: Some don't run Microsoft Office at all, or their video drivers and Steam support aren't as good. The makers of this OS are such game fanatics that they named their Siri clone "Cortana!" I know the OS can run other things but I just use a browser for the rest.
This summary seems to imply that most people just use the streaming service. But the streaming catalog is very limited. I just randomly searched and find that the Marvel movies aren't there (I looked for Iron Man - no 1, 2, or 3), I can't find anything Disney. I just looked up my favorite 80's classics (Ghostbusters, Back to the Future) and 90's (The Matrix).
Are we seriously getting into an argument about whether Linus Torvalds initiated ad-hominem attacks or not? Because there is a loooong history of news articles and mailing list posts on this. Google seems to like this particular one you and I are talking about (probably because I am putting C++ in the search). But lots go back before that one. Here's one from 2004
In general, I'd say that anybody who designs his kernel modules for C++ is either
(a) looking for problems
(b) a C++ bigot that can't see what he is writing is really just C anyway
This is an attack not only against the language, but against the people who use it. I've seen the one you mentioned a bunch of times, but I can't seem to find the original post by Dmitry Kakurin. You imply that Dmitry Kakurin is the one who originally used the word "bullshit" but I only see Linus using it.
This topic is important because something pivotal is happening right now in the open-source community, and we need to understand why. Rewriting history now would blind us to the cause.
A lot of developers are pissed-off about the stupid post-meritocracy code-of-conduct political correctness. But we got here for a reason: many of the software "elites" were NOT running meritocracies. They claimed to do so, but in reality they were ostracizing smart capable people who didn't agree with them. To some degree, that's fine -- there needs to be a unifying philosophy in a project, and people who aren't on board are not going to be productive. But if you see leaders flaming people for having different opinions, that means those leaders are closing their mind to new ideas. That's also bad for a project. One can be open-minded without being an asshat.
The result of this is an overreaction, where "everyone is equal" and open discussion is no longer possible because people are walking on eggshells. Denying how we got here won't help. We need to acknowledge that posts like the ones Linus made are what fueled this revolt. And leaders today need to understand that they can be harsh, precise, and critical without being closed-minded or ostracizing. Linus probably knows this now. But don't pretend that he wasn't that way, or we risk this happening over and over again.
The founding fathers of the United States wrote many anonymous articles in newspapers, and even printed their own newspapers under pseudonyms. They believed that anonymity is a key feature of a democratic society.
A distinction with Linus is that generally he calls some piece of CODE ugly or stupid, not a -person-. In the vast majority of cases, anyway
The trouble is that he has made some very public ad-hominem attacks on not only individuals, but entire groups of people. Like when he said that C++ programmers are "brain dead" or that people who like certain commenting styles have "shit for brains."
iPad Mini Makes Two Common Repairs 'Unnecessarily Difficult,' Says iFixit
What a disappointment. If Steve jobs was still running the company, he would have made sure that *three* common repairs were unnecessarily difficult!
While there are benefits to trademarking "arbitrary" terms, you can indeed trademark ordinary English words. An example of some English words that are trademarked are "Camel" (cigarettes) or Target (store) or Apple and Macintosh (computers). You can even trademark a single letter, like the letter R although that includes a design... here's a boring one: the word "seen".
I don't know what Grammarly is, but I do know that "Grammar" cannot be made into an adverb, therefore the word "Grammarly" it is bad grammar. What's next, a web-based spell checker called "spelChekkit?"
have over 50,000 messages dating back 12 years, on which i critically rely for business
^^^ !!! Don't use free services who provide no service-level agreement and no contact information or tech support for mission critical operations!
I can see how someone who has watched TV news their entire life, and never met anyone who owns a gun, might form the opinion that you have. The trade-off that you suppose does not exist: there is something else going on that I think most non-gun-owners just don't see. Let me try to help you bridge the gun culture gap that I see in America.
I live in a suburb about 20 minutes outside of one of the most dangerous cities in America. When I moved here, I didn't realize how many people nearby me have guns. A bunch of my coworkers talk guns in the lunch room, and my team lead took me shooting. Apparently he likes modifying guns - adding sights, etc. He is a mechanical engineer and has a machine shop where wants to make his own barrels, which is apparently very difficult. He has some antique guns that his father gave him that still work well. They are geeks about guns the way I am a geek about video games. It's just their hobby, and the connection between guns and violence is actually strange to them. The lead analyst on my project is a gun safety instructor. He doesn't approve of me letting my kids use Nerf guns. He says no one should ever point a gun at themselves or another person, even a toy one. He would rather I buy them a BB gun and teach them to shoot than to give them a Nerf gun or a water gun.
Let me contrast this with gun ownership in that nearby city. An acquaintance of mine borrowed a gun from a neighbor, so he could scare off a group of thugs. One of these thugs was dating a girl, and treating her really badly. But she stayed with him because she had no money and no place to live. They are all heavy drug users so she probably gets her fix from her boyfriend and would go on withdrawal if she left him and lost her supply. This acquaintance of my was attracted to the girl, and he knew the thugs were poor and stupid. So he brought her food one night that he swiped from an alcoholics anonymous meeting, and he made sure the trio of thugs could see the gun, without him brandishing it. He thought it was hilarious - they treated him like he was a king, and they don't go by his house any more and if he wants to see the girl they don't give him a hard time.
Both of these places have a gun culture. But one of those places has more than 1 murder a day whereas the other one, well I guess I don't know but it isn't in the news every night that's for sure. This area where I live is is super safe. We don't lock our doors, our cars aren't broken into or stolen - to me it is what I would call "normal." If you make a map of America and you overlay "gun crime" and "gun ownership" you get very little correlation. Especially if you only count LEGAL gun ownership. That lack-of-correlation kinda follows throughout the world. When a cop pulls me over, he doesn't assume I have a gun, and he doesn't shoot me when I reach for my wallet in my pocket.
Oh, and here's a message to any NRA type who comes back with "guns don't cause increased violence" or "guns make schools safer" or any variant of that: shut the f*** up, grow a pair, and admit that your favorite toy comes with a blood price.
Your insults betray your lack of knowledge. The truth is the correlation isn't there. There are European countries where every male over 18 owns at least one gun and gets mandatory training at 18. Yet their gun crime rates match the lower rate throughout Europe. There are plenty of places in America that show this out too. There is a real question we should be asking here, but if you assume guns are evil then you can't see past your own bias to ask it.
The real question we should be asking is what *DOES* correlate with gun crime, if not gun ownership?? Good news: we have known the answer for decades! The answer is that it correlates negative with quality of education, standard of living, and stable home lives. The trouble is that violence correlates positively with violence, and gun crimes correlate positively with other gun crimes. So if your friend or family
The article mixes up bugs in the standard with bugs in software. Fuzzing is a technique used to attack specific software implementations not standards. It looks like they did both, but the article mixes up terms.
Okay, between your reply and Wikipedia I am swayed. That's pretty amazing. Still, be careful generalizing this to mean "No improvements can ever be made to AI learning algorithms."
Suppose the search algorithm is "sort then do a binary search." Goombah99's arguments are more worth replying to than.
No, it is you who misunderstand the theorem. It most certainly does not say that "no search algorithm out performs another." And it is mathematically false that "when averaged over all use cases no search algorithm out performs another." That is easily mathematically proven to be false. For any search algorithm, I can create an algorithm that is 200x slower and provides no benefit. Using a real-world example, selection sort's best case is n^2 but merge sort's worst-case is n*log(n). Therefore "when averaged over all use cases" merge-sort will outperform selection sort.
I stopped reading at "password manager" - no thanks.
H1Bs are about dillute the labor pool in order to stagnate wages.
Well they aren't doing a very good job. On the east coast, H1-B workers are a small fraction of tech workers. In my current cube farm of >100 people, I think we have 2. Compare that to Silicon Valley, which has some of the highest wages -- H1-B visas are 3/4 of the workers. So if they are here to stagnate wages, it isn't working. Not to mention the cost of sponsoring them is rather high.
I suppose the one way in which they do stagnate wages is when some company that hires nothing but H1-B workers comes in and offers to replace your whole staff for half the price. But then they move the work offshore and re-use those H1-B workers for the next scam.
The title implies that tech companies are not dealing with the immigration policies. The summary says that they are dealing with them, and dealing with them so well that they are hiring equal or greater numbers of foreign workers. Which is it?
Let's look at the article and see:
“Due to a shortage of green cards for workers, many employees find themselves stuck in an immigration process lasting more than a decade. These employees must repeatedly renew their temporary work visas..."
That problem has existed for >20 years. Much of the article reads the same way:
...there aren’t enough skilled Americans...
...US companies are hiring outside the US...
Most of this could have been written in 1995 and nothing would sound different.
But this is slightly different:
Recent immigration data shows the US is issuing fewer total visas to these types of workers than in previous years. This is a result of an executive order Trump issued...
This quote links to an article showing that only 75% of H-1B visa applications are being accepted. But that conflicts with the statement
Some GOOD news:
Take a look at the chart in the article showing which companies are getting their Visa's rejected. Microsoft, Amazon, Google -- 99% acceptance. Tata consulting: 78%. Accenture: 69%. Good riddance! Companies like Tata and Accenture are the real abusers of H1-B. These firms just hire as many H1-B applicants as they possibly can, and then find jobs for them later by promising other companies they can do the same job for less, then offshoring the work later. That's a garbage business model and if that's the only companies having trouble than good riddance!