I'm curious: why not just make an indexed database logging system on top of, rather than instead of, text logs? i.e. write out log entries in some structured but still text-only format in one file, and then maintain an efficient binary index of entries in a separate file. That way you get all the nice search etc, while still being able to grep the raw text if you really need to.
How can a huge organization expect to be successful with lower-than-market salaries?
How can a huge org expect to be paying lower-than-market value for the goods that it needs? Why, by being a non-profit. If we are being asked to basically give them money to do charitable stuff, why is it unreasonable to ask executives of that company to give their time for less than market compensation?
Poland was most certainly a Soviet state, since it was run by the party calling itself Marxist-Leninist. What it wasn't is a member republic of the USSR. In practice, the difference between the two for the purposes of this comparison is negligible.
According to the Constitution of Russia, the terms "Russia" and "Russian Federation" are synonyms. This is also true in vernacular - Russia is the entire country, Siberia is a geographic subregion. European part of Russia is called, surprisingly, "European Russia".
I can't speak about Facebook, but I can tell you that myself and all other H1Bs that I know - hired by companies such as Microsoft, Google and Amazon - were all universally sponsored for green cards by their employers as soon as they were eligible (in fact, they would ask this very question - whether one wants to immigrate permanently - as part of the hiring process, and answering "no" may well make them turn you down, because they're not interested in employees that will have to leave in 3-4 years).
H1B is a "dual intent" visa. Meaning that it's not necessarily an immigrant visa, but people who are on it in the country can apply for green card without immediately being kicked out (unlike, say, visitor visa).
In Canada, the moment you apply for permanent residency on your work visa (which can be done very soon, especially under the provincial nominee program), you get a blanket work permit not tying you to any particular employment, for both yourself and your spouse, that is valid for as long as they're reviewing your case.
PNP itself is a pretty good idea that I think US could use. Basically, the idea is that provinces sponsor immigration, with the stipulation that new immigrants are required to settle there, and usually also possess some qualities that this particular province thinks it needs more of. For example, most provinces have their own lists of labor shortages, and prioritize people with degrees and experience in the appropriate fields. Quebec also prioritizes knowledge of (or willingness to learn) French. In US, a similar scheme could be used to repopulate shitholes like Detroit, for example.
If you want the H1B, make yourself able to get the H1B.
Thing is, there's nothing that you can do that will guarantee you an H1B, because it is a quota system. No matter how qualified you are, it's a lottery.
I'll accept that argument the moment that I'm given the legal ability to purchase something from any nation on the planet, legally import it, and legally use it within the United States.
Would you also agree with an associated removal of any and all limits on worker migration into the USA? You know, free flow of goods and labor all around.
Exactly. So then, why is there a separate law criminalizing something the moment it becomes a commercial activity, if the actual dangers involved in that activity are already regulated by universally applicable laws?
Note that the law only prohibits this kind of thing when it's done for money. Which makes no sense if your rationale is valid, because hauling hazardous cargo is just as dangerous regardless of whether it's done by some guy that I've hired for $20, or my friend Joey who happens to have a pickup.
Well, family homes are not what is needed anymore. You have young single professionals looking for places to work, not young married couples looking for places to start a family.
Eh, there's plenty of both. The young single professionals don't stay single all that long.
The alternative is to expand the city ever outward, creating more suburbs.
This is also happening, it's not an either/or - it's just that it's happening outside of the Seattle city boundary, and hence not a target of the rant. But Amazon (and before it, Microsoft) has already had a profound effect on the Eastside - Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Sammamish, Issaquah - and more recently it's spilling over even further east into Snoqualmie (where they a huge ongoing project to build more housing specifically targeting this demographic), and even somewhat into North Bend, all the way out to the mountains.
There were (and are) plenty of people at Microsoft who want the same thing as those Amazon guys. It's just that for those who do, it makes much more sense to do so on the Eastside (and more recently, in Snoqualmie).
But political theater is exactly what "pit proponents of gun control and defenders of free speech against each other" is, so it sounds like you're actually in agreement.
Yes. I'm just saying that the debate on gun control vs gun rights is not at all a new or recent thing. The only thing that's new about it is actually how polarized it is across party lines (much to my chagrin as a pro-gun liberal), and the fact that a large part of the debate these days is judicial / constitutional, rather than just whether some law is a good idea or not.
Some 239 years later "gun control" has become an issue that simply didn't exist during those years.
Go look up the gun laws in, say, Texas or Alabama as they were after Reconstruction and until the end of Jim Crow (or, in many cases, until early 90s even). Your "some 239 years later" figure is grossly out of proportion - gun control as a means of suppressing potential violent dissent has been a stable of American minority oppression politics since after the Civil War.
The US would have to accept their title for it to have any meaningful power, yes. Which of course they will never do, because the US Constitution requires all member states to have a "republican form of government", which is rather incompatible with a king. But that doesn't legally stop anyone from claiming to have the title, and having it recognized by other people.
Police, and authorities in general, did (and do) a lot of unconstitutional and even outright illegal shit. And remember that the period you're referring to is also the one where Jim Crow was very much a reality, and it would only be a few years before thousands of Japanese would be put in concentration camps solely on account of their ethnicity.
US Constitution is archaic because it's so hard to change (you need a 3/4 supermajority to amend - and that's 3/4 of the states, not 3/4 of the people, reflecting the original confederation-like arrangement). However, they did a pretty good job to begin with, and things that absolutely had to be changed were later changed (like dealing with slavery and women's suffrage).
I wholeheartedly agree that US government is very inefficient. I'm an immigrant in US, and before that I was one in Canada, and dealing with government services in two countries is night and day. Just to give a simple example: in Canada, I was issued a SIN (the local equivalent of SSN) on my second day of arriving to the country, and it was all done in about 2 hours in the local government office. In US, it took almost a month from request to issue, and two trips to the local SSA. And when I asked why, they told me that they needed to send a request to USCIS to confirm my visa validity etc, and that takes over a week - seriously? They actually push papers around, instead of having automated query handling directly against the database? This is a recurring theme, by the way... US seems to have a lot of government organizations, which are very much disjoint in how they operate, and whenever anything needs to cross the boundary between the two, there are copious amounts of red tape (and, I would imagine, the associated expenses).
But I think a big problem with the government in US is that people are kinda expecting it to fail to begin with, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even worse is the "starve the beast" crowd who are basically saying that because it is likely to fail, not only we should let it, but we should actively encourage that.
I think it would be more productive to operate from the assumption that government should be doing certain things, and that it should be doing them well (seeing how other governments are perfectly capable of doing so) - and if it doesn't, then it's the problem with this particular government rather than the general idea of having it do those things, and the fix should therefore be on the government side.
What if they give you a single thing, but that thing is actually better than all the options that you have today that you can realistically afford (now and for the foreseeable future)?
This "they fought for freedom" thing... you know, when e.g. Americans volunteered to "fight for freedom" in WW2, a hundred thousand of their fellow citizens were in concentration camps simply on account of their ethnicity, and it wasn't exactly secret knowledge - and popular sentiment was largely in favor of that. So it was part of the "freedom" that they fought for. Somehow, I don't think that they would have been outraged by the Patriot Act.
(Note, I'm not saying that it's a good thing - but don't seek moral approval in history when it's largely retconned.)
Have you actually read it yourself beyond the title? It doesn't permit the US government from granting anyone titles of nobility. It doesn't prevent anyone from holding or claiming such a title on other grounds.
I suspect that you're confusing it with the Titles of Nobility amendment, which went further by stripping citizenship from anyone who would accept a title from a foreign country (so even under it self-claimed titles wouldn't count) - but that amendment was never ratified and is not standing law. Some people claim that it "has actually been ratified", and hence is part of the Constitution "that the government doesn't want you to know about" - usually this is claimed by fringe right-wingers, the type of guys to the right of the Tea Party.
I'm not sure which numbers you're looking at. In October 2013, USA exported 7.7 million bpd per day, while importing 7.6 million bpd. That's net export.
My Slashdot username predates my current employment arrangement by about 5 years, I think. But, yeah. Back then I ran FreeBSD (which is where the name is from) on my servers, and Gentoo on my desktop. Things change:) (well, some of them; some of my home servers are still FreeBSD - ain't broken and all that...)
By now, though, it's not really all that surprising, given the amount of work specifically targeting other platforms (Linux among them) happening throughout the company. My team, for example, is actually specifically looking for people with a Linux background right now, because we're building a service running on it, using Docker containers for isolation.
In this particular case I just happen to know exactly what they were thinking when they were implementing this feature, because they are my colleagues (even if I don't work on the team that works on C++):) The list of features that they did was based on some specific libraries that they had most complaints about on Windows, and then filtered down further based on ease of implementation. If I remember correctly, one major beneficiary of those changes is supposed to be ffmpeg.
This all might make more sense if you remember that Office in some incarnation or the other now ships across three non-Windows platforms (OS X, iOS and Android), then there is the OneDrive client etc. Basically there's a whole bunch of stuff that has suddenly gone cross-plat in the past couple of years, and that's a lot of C++ code that now has to play ball with the libraries that are the de facto standard outside of the MS ecosystem. In many cases, once you start doing that, it makes sense to use the same library on Windows as well, but then you start running into those conformance issues with C99.
The other aspect is that we want people to write cross-platform C and C++ code, because it's the kind that, right now, is most easily portable between all mobile platforms - and seeing where Windows phones and tables are in terms of popularity relative to iOS and Android, MS has to encourage portability as a way to get more apps ported to Windows. You see things like Apache Cordova tools and Clang/LLDB support in VS 2015 for the same reason - they make it easier to write Android apps, for example, but more importantly, the way they encourage writing those apps just happens to be the one that emphasizes portable code. Now that is more geared towards C++, but the question of popular libraries written in C also comes up there.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious: why not just make an indexed database logging system on top of, rather than instead of, text logs? i.e. write out log entries in some structured but still text-only format in one file, and then maintain an efficient binary index of entries in a separate file. That way you get all the nice search etc, while still being able to grep the raw text if you really need to.
How can a huge organization expect to be successful with lower-than-market salaries?
How can a huge org expect to be paying lower-than-market value for the goods that it needs? Why, by being a non-profit. If we are being asked to basically give them money to do charitable stuff, why is it unreasonable to ask executives of that company to give their time for less than market compensation?
Poland was most certainly a Soviet state, since it was run by the party calling itself Marxist-Leninist. What it wasn't is a member republic of the USSR. In practice, the difference between the two for the purposes of this comparison is negligible.
According to the Constitution of Russia, the terms "Russia" and "Russian Federation" are synonyms. This is also true in vernacular - Russia is the entire country, Siberia is a geographic subregion. European part of Russia is called, surprisingly, "European Russia".
I can't speak about Facebook, but I can tell you that myself and all other H1Bs that I know - hired by companies such as Microsoft, Google and Amazon - were all universally sponsored for green cards by their employers as soon as they were eligible (in fact, they would ask this very question - whether one wants to immigrate permanently - as part of the hiring process, and answering "no" may well make them turn you down, because they're not interested in employees that will have to leave in 3-4 years).
H1B is a "dual intent" visa. Meaning that it's not necessarily an immigrant visa, but people who are on it in the country can apply for green card without immediately being kicked out (unlike, say, visitor visa).
In Canada, the moment you apply for permanent residency on your work visa (which can be done very soon, especially under the provincial nominee program), you get a blanket work permit not tying you to any particular employment, for both yourself and your spouse, that is valid for as long as they're reviewing your case.
PNP itself is a pretty good idea that I think US could use. Basically, the idea is that provinces sponsor immigration, with the stipulation that new immigrants are required to settle there, and usually also possess some qualities that this particular province thinks it needs more of. For example, most provinces have their own lists of labor shortages, and prioritize people with degrees and experience in the appropriate fields. Quebec also prioritizes knowledge of (or willingness to learn) French. In US, a similar scheme could be used to repopulate shitholes like Detroit, for example.
If you want the H1B, make yourself able to get the H1B.
Thing is, there's nothing that you can do that will guarantee you an H1B, because it is a quota system. No matter how qualified you are, it's a lottery.
The guy does sound like a douche, though.
I'll accept that argument the moment that I'm given the legal ability to purchase something from any nation on the planet, legally import it, and legally use it within the United States.
Would you also agree with an associated removal of any and all limits on worker migration into the USA? You know, free flow of goods and labor all around.
Exactly. So then, why is there a separate law criminalizing something the moment it becomes a commercial activity, if the actual dangers involved in that activity are already regulated by universally applicable laws?
Note that the law only prohibits this kind of thing when it's done for money. Which makes no sense if your rationale is valid, because hauling hazardous cargo is just as dangerous regardless of whether it's done by some guy that I've hired for $20, or my friend Joey who happens to have a pickup.
Well, family homes are not what is needed anymore. You have young single professionals looking for places to work, not young married couples looking for places to start a family.
Eh, there's plenty of both. The young single professionals don't stay single all that long.
The alternative is to expand the city ever outward, creating more suburbs.
This is also happening, it's not an either/or - it's just that it's happening outside of the Seattle city boundary, and hence not a target of the rant. But Amazon (and before it, Microsoft) has already had a profound effect on the Eastside - Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Sammamish, Issaquah - and more recently it's spilling over even further east into Snoqualmie (where they a huge ongoing project to build more housing specifically targeting this demographic), and even somewhat into North Bend, all the way out to the mountains.
There were (and are) plenty of people at Microsoft who want the same thing as those Amazon guys. It's just that for those who do, it makes much more sense to do so on the Eastside (and more recently, in Snoqualmie).
But political theater is exactly what "pit proponents of gun control and defenders of free speech against each other" is, so it sounds like you're actually in agreement.
Yes. I'm just saying that the debate on gun control vs gun rights is not at all a new or recent thing. The only thing that's new about it is actually how polarized it is across party lines (much to my chagrin as a pro-gun liberal), and the fact that a large part of the debate these days is judicial / constitutional, rather than just whether some law is a good idea or not.
Some 239 years later "gun control" has become an issue that simply didn't exist during those years.
Go look up the gun laws in, say, Texas or Alabama as they were after Reconstruction and until the end of Jim Crow (or, in many cases, until early 90s even). Your "some 239 years later" figure is grossly out of proportion - gun control as a means of suppressing potential violent dissent has been a stable of American minority oppression politics since after the Civil War.
Citizens, not subjects - US is not a monarchy.
The US would have to accept their title for it to have any meaningful power, yes. Which of course they will never do, because the US Constitution requires all member states to have a "republican form of government", which is rather incompatible with a king. But that doesn't legally stop anyone from claiming to have the title, and having it recognized by other people.
Police, and authorities in general, did (and do) a lot of unconstitutional and even outright illegal shit. And remember that the period you're referring to is also the one where Jim Crow was very much a reality, and it would only be a few years before thousands of Japanese would be put in concentration camps solely on account of their ethnicity.
US Constitution is archaic because it's so hard to change (you need a 3/4 supermajority to amend - and that's 3/4 of the states, not 3/4 of the people, reflecting the original confederation-like arrangement). However, they did a pretty good job to begin with, and things that absolutely had to be changed were later changed (like dealing with slavery and women's suffrage).
I wholeheartedly agree that US government is very inefficient. I'm an immigrant in US, and before that I was one in Canada, and dealing with government services in two countries is night and day. Just to give a simple example: in Canada, I was issued a SIN (the local equivalent of SSN) on my second day of arriving to the country, and it was all done in about 2 hours in the local government office. In US, it took almost a month from request to issue, and two trips to the local SSA. And when I asked why, they told me that they needed to send a request to USCIS to confirm my visa validity etc, and that takes over a week - seriously? They actually push papers around, instead of having automated query handling directly against the database? This is a recurring theme, by the way... US seems to have a lot of government organizations, which are very much disjoint in how they operate, and whenever anything needs to cross the boundary between the two, there are copious amounts of red tape (and, I would imagine, the associated expenses).
But I think a big problem with the government in US is that people are kinda expecting it to fail to begin with, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even worse is the "starve the beast" crowd who are basically saying that because it is likely to fail, not only we should let it, but we should actively encourage that.
I think it would be more productive to operate from the assumption that government should be doing certain things, and that it should be doing them well (seeing how other governments are perfectly capable of doing so) - and if it doesn't, then it's the problem with this particular government rather than the general idea of having it do those things, and the fix should therefore be on the government side.
What if they give you a single thing, but that thing is actually better than all the options that you have today that you can realistically afford (now and for the foreseeable future)?
This "they fought for freedom" thing... you know, when e.g. Americans volunteered to "fight for freedom" in WW2, a hundred thousand of their fellow citizens were in concentration camps simply on account of their ethnicity, and it wasn't exactly secret knowledge - and popular sentiment was largely in favor of that. So it was part of the "freedom" that they fought for. Somehow, I don't think that they would have been outraged by the Patriot Act.
(Note, I'm not saying that it's a good thing - but don't seek moral approval in history when it's largely retconned.)
Have you actually read it yourself beyond the title? It doesn't permit the US government from granting anyone titles of nobility. It doesn't prevent anyone from holding or claiming such a title on other grounds.
I suspect that you're confusing it with the Titles of Nobility amendment, which went further by stripping citizenship from anyone who would accept a title from a foreign country (so even under it self-claimed titles wouldn't count) - but that amendment was never ratified and is not standing law. Some people claim that it "has actually been ratified", and hence is part of the Constitution "that the government doesn't want you to know about" - usually this is claimed by fringe right-wingers, the type of guys to the right of the Tea Party.
I'm not sure which numbers you're looking at. In October 2013, USA exported 7.7 million bpd per day, while importing 7.6 million bpd. That's net export.
Even if this is true, are you actually familiar with Paul's position on police abuses and militarization?
My Slashdot username predates my current employment arrangement by about 5 years, I think. But, yeah. Back then I ran FreeBSD (which is where the name is from) on my servers, and Gentoo on my desktop. Things change :) (well, some of them; some of my home servers are still FreeBSD - ain't broken and all that...)
By now, though, it's not really all that surprising, given the amount of work specifically targeting other platforms (Linux among them) happening throughout the company. My team, for example, is actually specifically looking for people with a Linux background right now, because we're building a service running on it, using Docker containers for isolation.
In this particular case I just happen to know exactly what they were thinking when they were implementing this feature, because they are my colleagues (even if I don't work on the team that works on C++) :) The list of features that they did was based on some specific libraries that they had most complaints about on Windows, and then filtered down further based on ease of implementation. If I remember correctly, one major beneficiary of those changes is supposed to be ffmpeg.
This all might make more sense if you remember that Office in some incarnation or the other now ships across three non-Windows platforms (OS X, iOS and Android), then there is the OneDrive client etc. Basically there's a whole bunch of stuff that has suddenly gone cross-plat in the past couple of years, and that's a lot of C++ code that now has to play ball with the libraries that are the de facto standard outside of the MS ecosystem. In many cases, once you start doing that, it makes sense to use the same library on Windows as well, but then you start running into those conformance issues with C99.
The other aspect is that we want people to write cross-platform C and C++ code, because it's the kind that, right now, is most easily portable between all mobile platforms - and seeing where Windows phones and tables are in terms of popularity relative to iOS and Android, MS has to encourage portability as a way to get more apps ported to Windows. You see things like Apache Cordova tools and Clang/LLDB support in VS 2015 for the same reason - they make it easier to write Android apps, for example, but more importantly, the way they encourage writing those apps just happens to be the one that emphasizes portable code. Now that is more geared towards C++, but the question of popular libraries written in C also comes up there.