A lot of Western hard left is basically in love with Putin (and Assad, and they also loved Gaddafi), on the basis that, since they all are in opposition to "Western imperialism", they're the good guys. So no surprise here.
See. I've seen derogatory news stories and articles about Musk like this before... except they weren't in English. They were in Russian, and actively shared on LiveJournal and VKontakte. They started actively floating around about 2 years ago, and there have been several spikes since.
Make of it what you will, but keep in mind that oil-producing countries have the most to lose if the West is to switch to electric cars sooner rather than later. Especially those oil-producing countries that don't really have other significant sources of revenue, and are in financial dire straights already...
Not disputing that FRC is icky, but I wouldn't quote SPLC on anything these days, given that they have decreed Maajid Nawaz (who is actually a Muslim himself) to be an "anti-Muslim extremist"; and among the reasons given for that designation was this response of his to the whole "depiction of Muhammad" controversy.
A lot of liberals have recently realized that "small federal government" is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, it took someone like Jeff Sessions to do so, and we'll see if it sticks. Especially given how Republicans are now suddenly fond of big government and deficit spending as well, now that they fully control the government.
I think both sides would ultimately benefit from a more "states' rights" approach, with different states pursuing different overall agendas, with good ones succeeding and becoming models, while bad ones failing without affecting the entire country. The trick is convincing people to stick to it at the time when they have the opportunity to wield federal government as a club to beat their opposition into submission. It's really hard, because you know the other side also wants to do it, and so one obvious strategy is to beat them so hard [while you can], that they can't fight back much when it's their turn. The flaw, of course, is that if you beat them hard, but not "hard enough", they have a strong motivation to up the ante when they get a chance.
If the "prevailing wage" requirement for those visas was properly enforced, that alone would take care of 80% of their abuse right there.
Better yet, tax it extra - and make it a fixed tax, not percentage of income. That way, immigrants inherently "cost" more to their employers, and the cheaper their actual labor is, the greater the overhead. Then you'll see companies actually using the visa for the purpose it is intended for. And as for the money that is collected in that manner, use it to fund education for citizens in the field for which the visa was issued. Then you have a self-regulating system with negative feedback - the more visas there are for a given industry, the more money flows into educating more citizens to fill roles in that industry, reducing the need for visas.
Second, make it easier to switch jobs while on the visa. Obviously you still want to check that all the bars are met, but it should be a process that provides enough time for a transition, and does not require one leaving the country. This would reduce the leverage that employees have over their H-1B employees via threat of firing them.
Third, to further reduce that leverage, make it easier to apply for a green card when on H-1B. Currently, that requires employer sponsorship; worse yet, if you switch employers while in progress, unless you're at the final stage of it, you have to start all over. The sponsorship requirement doesn't really make any sense - if someone could find a job like that despite all the bars, they would be able to find another job in that industry once they're permanent residents. It should be something that a worker can just do by themselves, without involving the company at all, after they've been in the country long enough to prove eligibility (and this is how it works in e.g. Canada).
If anything, Britain is actually much more of a democracy than US, because of how much power the elected Parliament has, and how subordinate the other branches of government are to it. Yes, I know, there's a bunch of unwritten stuff that's "constitution-like" by convention and customs...but, well, the thing about conventions is that wiping your ass with them is less symbolic than doing it with a written constitution.
I'm not sure that it's actually true. I'm a liberal in US, but I dabble in some hobbies that have a very strong conservative bias among its adherents (guns), and so I talk to these guys a lot, and, more importantly, hear them talk between each other. And their picture has been decidedly doom & gloom for a while now, even when "their" politicians are in office - they do acknowledge the reality of the demographic change, for example, and understand that it'll shift votes not in their favor long term. They're definitely more optimistic now with Trump in office, but I wouldn't say that it changed their long-term outlook much. They still see it as inevitable slope downwards to "socialism", with the only thing they can really do is putting up an occasional roadblock, like they did this year.
I never disputed that. C# was always a "better Java". Back when it was at 1.0, the differences were largely syntactical. But C# improved much faster than Java did, mainly because the design team is less conservative, and also because it wasn't quite as much mired in backwards compatibility. So by now, it has a great many features that Java doesn't have or only recently got (and as a consequence, the C# ecosystem has been using those features for a long time - there aren't many Java libraries designed around lambdas, for example, but in C# they've been around for 8 years now), and for those features that both languages do have, C# implementation of them is generally better.
At this point, it makes a lot more sense to just leave Java be, and treat it like we treat COBOL - as a language that served its purpose well in its due time, and is on legacy support now due to all the code that was written in it, but which doesn't need to be evolved. And run with C# (or one of the other newer contenders, like Kotlin) for future evolution.
No, the performance is "not very fast". If that were the case, java.util.function namespace, and all those interfaces in it, wouldn't have existed. But it does, because perf sucks, and you need hacks like that to make it decent.
This has nothing to do with number crunching, by the way. This is more about memory pressure than CPU perf. If you box every integer on every lambda call, that's a lot for GC to clean up.
And all the things that you list for C# are also true for Java. Except C# generally has better versions of all of them.
Windows Server is still profitable. But there are plenty of Linux users out there, it's a huge market. It would be stupid for Microsoft to not cater to it on Azure. Furthermore, even the existing Windows customers need some Linux these days, and if you can't offer a package that can do both, they'll go to someone who can.
DoubleToIntFunction, LongToDouble function etc. All the permutations had to be written by hand, and if you write a library that uses lambdas, you'll have to do the same.
And why? Because that's the only way to define a function type that won't box its arguments (since generics are still type-erased, and will result in boxing). Which is what you normally want for the sake of performance.
In C#, there's just Action and Func generic delegates, for up to 16 parameter types.
In fact with a low latency VOIP connection you can even emulate a dialup connection today. 19.2-28.8k maximum connection same as attempting to connect over POTS on AT&T's network today.
Do you have any tips on setting this sort of thing up? There are plenty of tutorials on VoIP, but once you have the channel, how do you run a "virtual modem" over it?
No-one is disputing that member states still retain a lot of sovereignty. The question is whether they retain all sovereignty that they possessed prior to joining the EU, or not. And the answer is an unambiguous no: the mere existence an entity as ECJ indicates otherwise. It doesn't matter that EU law needs to be translated to national law in order to be effective, so long as a member state can ultimately be expelled for not doing so.
What EU member states possess is the ability to unilaterally restore their sovereignty by leaving EU - in other words, the transfer of sovereignty to EU bodies that occurs when joining is not permanent loss, as is the case with US states. However, if EU states are to be considered fully sovereign under those grounds, then so should be any subdivision of any country that provides a procedure for lawful secession. For example, in Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that provinces have the right to secede, so long as a certain framework is followed - does it make the provinces fully sovereign? Of course not.
The degree of sovereignty enjoyed by EU member states is, of course, far greater than that of constituent entities of any confederation. But it's still reduced compared to non-member states.
By definition, any restriction that EU imposes on its members is a limitation of their sovereignty. For example, a fully sovereign country can decide to use death penalty by establishing the appropriate legislation - but EU prohibits this for member states, so they don't possess sovereignty in this regard.
It depends on what the enabling legislation for the referendum says. The vote a few years ago to change the electoral system WAS binding because the bill that set up the referendum expressly said it was.
It's still the same concept of parliamentary sovereignty, just with an extra delegation step. The vote was binding because the Parliament, which is the sole entity vested with the power to change the system (or, really, do anything), delegated to the referendum voters the specific subset of that power, namely picking between the choices provided. So the referendum did not enact a law that made the changes - the law was enacted in advance, but in dormant state until triggered by referendum results. The Parliament could kill that law at any point, even as the votes were counted, and thus not accept the result.
Or it could wait for referendum to activate the law, and then immediately repeal it via another bill. Because "no Parliament can bind a future Parliament", there's effectively no such thing as a binding referendum in UK, since results of any referendum can be so reversed.
Only because there are few wars between powers that can afford large fighter (as opposed to bomber / CAS) fleets. But when it does happen, dogfights happen. Pretty much every time it gets serious between India and Pakistan, for example. Iran-Iraq war saw quite a few, and US shot down quite a few Iraqi planes in dogfights during Desert Storm.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of Western hard left is basically in love with Putin (and Assad, and they also loved Gaddafi), on the basis that, since they all are in opposition to "Western imperialism", they're the good guys. So no surprise here.
https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
I suspect it's not just "cowards".
See. I've seen derogatory news stories and articles about Musk like this before... except they weren't in English. They were in Russian, and actively shared on LiveJournal and VKontakte. They started actively floating around about 2 years ago, and there have been several spikes since.
Make of it what you will, but keep in mind that oil-producing countries have the most to lose if the West is to switch to electric cars sooner rather than later. Especially those oil-producing countries that don't really have other significant sources of revenue, and are in financial dire straights already...
It is not. But then you're implying that said non-immunity matters specifically when discussing this one topic on which you disagree with them.
Kinda. You add many extraneous words to conceal the substance of your argument.
In other words, every scientist that says something you don't like becomes a politician, so that it's okay to disregard what he said.
Not disputing that FRC is icky, but I wouldn't quote SPLC on anything these days, given that they have decreed Maajid Nawaz (who is actually a Muslim himself) to be an "anti-Muslim extremist"; and among the reasons given for that designation was this response of his to the whole "depiction of Muhammad" controversy.
A lot of liberals have recently realized that "small federal government" is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, it took someone like Jeff Sessions to do so, and we'll see if it sticks. Especially given how Republicans are now suddenly fond of big government and deficit spending as well, now that they fully control the government.
I think both sides would ultimately benefit from a more "states' rights" approach, with different states pursuing different overall agendas, with good ones succeeding and becoming models, while bad ones failing without affecting the entire country. The trick is convincing people to stick to it at the time when they have the opportunity to wield federal government as a club to beat their opposition into submission. It's really hard, because you know the other side also wants to do it, and so one obvious strategy is to beat them so hard [while you can], that they can't fight back much when it's their turn. The flaw, of course, is that if you beat them hard, but not "hard enough", they have a strong motivation to up the ante when they get a chance.
You have to give him credit where credit is due: Mattis looks like a relatively sane and professional pick for SecDef.
But then again, it's one out of how many?
. I'm white so that means I don't have to worry about what Trump does.
That doesn't necessarily follow. They can just call you a "race traitor" if need be.
If the "prevailing wage" requirement for those visas was properly enforced, that alone would take care of 80% of their abuse right there.
Better yet, tax it extra - and make it a fixed tax, not percentage of income. That way, immigrants inherently "cost" more to their employers, and the cheaper their actual labor is, the greater the overhead. Then you'll see companies actually using the visa for the purpose it is intended for. And as for the money that is collected in that manner, use it to fund education for citizens in the field for which the visa was issued. Then you have a self-regulating system with negative feedback - the more visas there are for a given industry, the more money flows into educating more citizens to fill roles in that industry, reducing the need for visas.
Second, make it easier to switch jobs while on the visa. Obviously you still want to check that all the bars are met, but it should be a process that provides enough time for a transition, and does not require one leaving the country. This would reduce the leverage that employees have over their H-1B employees via threat of firing them.
Third, to further reduce that leverage, make it easier to apply for a green card when on H-1B. Currently, that requires employer sponsorship; worse yet, if you switch employers while in progress, unless you're at the final stage of it, you have to start all over. The sponsorship requirement doesn't really make any sense - if someone could find a job like that despite all the bars, they would be able to find another job in that industry once they're permanent residents. It should be something that a worker can just do by themselves, without involving the company at all, after they've been in the country long enough to prove eligibility (and this is how it works in e.g. Canada).
Full disclosure: I am a former H-1B worker.
If anything, Britain is actually much more of a democracy than US, because of how much power the elected Parliament has, and how subordinate the other branches of government are to it. Yes, I know, there's a bunch of unwritten stuff that's "constitution-like" by convention and customs...but, well, the thing about conventions is that wiping your ass with them is less symbolic than doing it with a written constitution.
I'm not sure that it's actually true. I'm a liberal in US, but I dabble in some hobbies that have a very strong conservative bias among its adherents (guns), and so I talk to these guys a lot, and, more importantly, hear them talk between each other. And their picture has been decidedly doom & gloom for a while now, even when "their" politicians are in office - they do acknowledge the reality of the demographic change, for example, and understand that it'll shift votes not in their favor long term. They're definitely more optimistic now with Trump in office, but I wouldn't say that it changed their long-term outlook much. They still see it as inevitable slope downwards to "socialism", with the only thing they can really do is putting up an occasional roadblock, like they did this year.
I never disputed that. C# was always a "better Java". Back when it was at 1.0, the differences were largely syntactical. But C# improved much faster than Java did, mainly because the design team is less conservative, and also because it wasn't quite as much mired in backwards compatibility. So by now, it has a great many features that Java doesn't have or only recently got (and as a consequence, the C# ecosystem has been using those features for a long time - there aren't many Java libraries designed around lambdas, for example, but in C# they've been around for 8 years now), and for those features that both languages do have, C# implementation of them is generally better.
At this point, it makes a lot more sense to just leave Java be, and treat it like we treat COBOL - as a language that served its purpose well in its due time, and is on legacy support now due to all the code that was written in it, but which doesn't need to be evolved. And run with C# (or one of the other newer contenders, like Kotlin) for future evolution.
No, the performance is "not very fast". If that were the case, java.util.function namespace, and all those interfaces in it, wouldn't have existed. But it does, because perf sucks, and you need hacks like that to make it decent.
This has nothing to do with number crunching, by the way. This is more about memory pressure than CPU perf. If you box every integer on every lambda call, that's a lot for GC to clean up.
And all the things that you list for C# are also true for Java. Except C# generally has better versions of all of them.
Windows Server is still profitable. But there are plenty of Linux users out there, it's a huge market. It would be stupid for Microsoft to not cater to it on Azure. Furthermore, even the existing Windows customers need some Linux these days, and if you can't offer a package that can do both, they'll go to someone who can.
Java did lambdas like it did generics - half-assed. Look at this crap:
https://docs.oracle.com/javase...
DoubleToIntFunction, LongToDouble function etc. All the permutations had to be written by hand, and if you write a library that uses lambdas, you'll have to do the same.
And why? Because that's the only way to define a function type that won't box its arguments (since generics are still type-erased, and will result in boxing). Which is what you normally want for the sake of performance.
In C#, there's just Action and Func generic delegates, for up to 16 parameter types.
But most of that ecosystem does not apply to Android.
Since this is basically rebranded Xamarin Studio, it doesn't really have much to do with VS. Or C++, for that matter.
In fact with a low latency VOIP connection you can even emulate a dialup connection today. 19.2-28.8k maximum connection same as attempting to connect over POTS on AT&T's network today.
Do you have any tips on setting this sort of thing up? There are plenty of tutorials on VoIP, but once you have the channel, how do you run a "virtual modem" over it?
No-one is disputing that member states still retain a lot of sovereignty. The question is whether they retain all sovereignty that they possessed prior to joining the EU, or not. And the answer is an unambiguous no: the mere existence an entity as ECJ indicates otherwise. It doesn't matter that EU law needs to be translated to national law in order to be effective, so long as a member state can ultimately be expelled for not doing so.
What EU member states possess is the ability to unilaterally restore their sovereignty by leaving EU - in other words, the transfer of sovereignty to EU bodies that occurs when joining is not permanent loss, as is the case with US states. However, if EU states are to be considered fully sovereign under those grounds, then so should be any subdivision of any country that provides a procedure for lawful secession. For example, in Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that provinces have the right to secede, so long as a certain framework is followed - does it make the provinces fully sovereign? Of course not.
The degree of sovereignty enjoyed by EU member states is, of course, far greater than that of constituent entities of any confederation. But it's still reduced compared to non-member states.
By definition, any restriction that EU imposes on its members is a limitation of their sovereignty. For example, a fully sovereign country can decide to use death penalty by establishing the appropriate legislation - but EU prohibits this for member states, so they don't possess sovereignty in this regard.
It depends on what the enabling legislation for the referendum says. The vote a few years ago to change the electoral system WAS binding because the bill that set up the referendum expressly said it was.
It's still the same concept of parliamentary sovereignty, just with an extra delegation step. The vote was binding because the Parliament, which is the sole entity vested with the power to change the system (or, really, do anything), delegated to the referendum voters the specific subset of that power, namely picking between the choices provided. So the referendum did not enact a law that made the changes - the law was enacted in advance, but in dormant state until triggered by referendum results. The Parliament could kill that law at any point, even as the votes were counted, and thus not accept the result.
Or it could wait for referendum to activate the law, and then immediately repeal it via another bill. Because "no Parliament can bind a future Parliament", there's effectively no such thing as a binding referendum in UK, since results of any referendum can be so reversed.
Only because there are few wars between powers that can afford large fighter (as opposed to bomber / CAS) fleets. But when it does happen, dogfights happen. Pretty much every time it gets serious between India and Pakistan, for example. Iran-Iraq war saw quite a few, and US shot down quite a few Iraqi planes in dogfights during Desert Storm.
The question wasn't whether you liked the Russians in general. The question was, why do you prefer Russian oligarchs to the American ones?