Spanish is the only language that I know of that has a fairly elegant solution: you can omit the pronoun and it is inferred from the conjugation and declination. So if you don't know the gender you can just omit the pronouns entirely ("Dijo que no sabia" translates as "He or she said that he or she didn't know").
Ironically, in Russian you can also omit the pronoun, but the catch is that gender is also reflected in adjectives and verbs. It's so pervasive in the language that it's practically impossible to construct a sequence in a way that would not imply it one way or the other.
You're talking about different things - grammar versus usage.
What's commonly referred to as "singular they" is grammatically plural - "they are..." etc. It is singular in a sense that it refers to a single person.
In a similar vein, while "you" is always grammatically plural in English, "singular you" is used to describe the case where "you" refers to a single person.
This does not replace gdb. It takes gdb - which is an extremely powerful, but also rather low-level debugger - and provides a high-level, simpler, but more convenient UI around it. Under the hood, it still talks to gdb.
This is similar to how VC++ native debugger relates to dbg/windbg. The former is more high-level and easier to use, but the latter is more powerful and lets you do crazy things.
You're missing it because you're considering it from your perspective. There are many C++ developers out there for whom the primary platform is Windows, but they increasingly need to also target OS X, Linux, Android etc. This makes it easy for them to continue using Visual Studio on their machines, while building, running and debugging code on those other systems.
Another feature like that is Windows Subsystem for Linux. You wouldn't care about it if you live in Linux land entirely, but if you have Windows code that you need to port, it's awesome.
Microsoft does have a different product that does target developers on Linux and OS X specifically: VSCode. It has C++ support, among many other things, and it's free and open source. It's also much more lightweight than Eclipse or NetBeans.
I don't see that happening in the Senate long-term.
IMO, Democrats will be running the House sooner rather than latter, for the simple reason that it's where seats are allocated proportionally to the populace - so large Democratic majorities in dense areas like the coasts do translate directly into seats there. But for Dems to take the Senate, in the age where party affiliation is the single most important question deciding whether the politician gets a vote or not, would require there to be more blue states than red states. Which, right now, means more urbanized states than rural states. And I don't think that's happening anytime soon.
You have described everything precisely. The only thing that I would add is that for the two different "castes" within the H1B system that you have identified, there's one other difference.
People who are working for Apple, Microsoft, Intel etc are using H1B as a gateway to a green card, and ultimately to citizenship - which they can do, because H1B is explicitly "dual intent", so you can apply for a green card without getting kicked out of the country; and because there's a specific process whereby employer sponsors the employee for a green card. This isn't to say that every single H1B working for these companies will do that - but the majority will. The companies in question are generally interested in retaining employees long-term, so they do sponsor any employee who asks for green card (in fact, they will proactively push you to apply if you don't do so yourself), and will provide lawyers to handle the application for you, pay various fees etc.
People who are working for Tata, Infosys etc are not there for citizenship. It's not that they wouldn't want to - it's that those companies will generally not sponsor them. So it's really just a gig to come work in US and earn a lot of money (comparatively to what they could earn at home), and then come back rich, and with a US job on your resume.
I am a former H-1B (now with a green card), who previously acquired Canadian permanent residency via skilled immigration program, so I had a chance to compare both. Canadian system wins hands down, and not just because it was easier for me personally. It just makes more sense in general, especially the overall points system, where the immigrants know what kinds of skills and traits maximize their chances, and citizens know that those getting visas and citizenship are actually screened to maximize benefits for their country.
H1Bs create both supply and demand. They create supply in the industry in which they work, but they create demand in numerous other industries - services, housing etc. For that matter, they also create demand in their own industry - they're still using those products (and higher wages mean that they can use more of them, being able to afford better devices, faster Internet connectivity etc).
I've calculated what kind of taxation it would take to provide UBI to the same amount as current federal minimum wage - $30,160 per household - to all adults in the USA, assuming the existing income distribution. If we're talking about a flat tax, with the UBI part of the income not taxed (which translates to an effective progressive tax on total income including UBI), we'd be talking about a 55% tax rate on non-UBI portion.
The effective total rate would range from 0% at the very bottom to 48% for people earning $200k, with a linear increase in between (my model assumes that there's no incomes above $200k, because I didn't find readily accessible information on income distribution above that number). All people getting ~$50k or less would receive more from the system than they'd be paying into it. Those earning $75k would see ~$12k of that taken by the system.
The courts can only say that something is illegal. But it's up to the executive to actually stop doing the thing that is illegal.
What happens if it doesn't?
Normally, courts enforce their orders via the court marshals. But marshals are mostly intended to deal with individuals, they certainly can't take on the federal government.
Then those specific people get locked up. It's not like this situation - "denying rights to people" - is specific to those coming in. Plenty of wannabe authoritarians right here in the country. Anti-abortionists etc.
Speaking as an immigrant: fuck you, asshole. I am not a slave to the country where I happened to be born. If they wanted to keep me, they should have said so, instead of telling me that my political views are wrong and borderline treasonous.
Slashdot Mirror
Spanish is the only language that I know of that has a fairly elegant solution: you can omit the pronoun and it is inferred from the conjugation and declination. So if you don't know the gender you can just omit the pronouns entirely ("Dijo que no sabia" translates as "He or she said that he or she didn't know").
Ironically, in Russian you can also omit the pronoun, but the catch is that gender is also reflected in adjectives and verbs. It's so pervasive in the language that it's practically impossible to construct a sequence in a way that would not imply it one way or the other.
The very fact that you used "is" rather than "are" in that sentence indicates that the word "everyone" is grammatically singular.
You're talking about different things - grammar versus usage.
What's commonly referred to as "singular they" is grammatically plural - "they are ..." etc. It is singular in a sense that it refers to a single person.
In a similar vein, while "you" is always grammatically plural in English, "singular you" is used to describe the case where "you" refers to a single person.
Because in many cases you don't actually know their gender.
"After the user opened the dialog, he sees ..."
That was the typical way to write that sentence. It also implies gender where it's neither warranted nor desirable.
"After the user opened the dialog, they see ..."
where it is very clear that there are strict rules and that the sub ALWAYS has the option to back out at ANY moment.
That's true for BDSM in general, but the problem with Gor is that they often skirt these rules with "implied consent", lack of safewords etc.
The books are fantasy, but people re-enact them in full seriousness.
This does not replace gdb. It takes gdb - which is an extremely powerful, but also rather low-level debugger - and provides a high-level, simpler, but more convenient UI around it. Under the hood, it still talks to gdb.
This is similar to how VC++ native debugger relates to dbg/windbg. The former is more high-level and easier to use, but the latter is more powerful and lets you do crazy things.
It does use gcc.
You're missing it because you're considering it from your perspective. There are many C++ developers out there for whom the primary platform is Windows, but they increasingly need to also target OS X, Linux, Android etc. This makes it easy for them to continue using Visual Studio on their machines, while building, running and debugging code on those other systems.
Another feature like that is Windows Subsystem for Linux. You wouldn't care about it if you live in Linux land entirely, but if you have Windows code that you need to port, it's awesome.
Microsoft does have a different product that does target developers on Linux and OS X specifically: VSCode. It has C++ support, among many other things, and it's free and open source. It's also much more lightweight than Eclipse or NetBeans.
If you only care about Linux, you're not the target audience.
The debugger code is open source:
https://github.com/Microsoft/M...
You don't win a war from the position of weakness, regardless of your strategy.
There is a country that does in a pretty similar way, complete with shall-issue concealed carry of handguns. It's Czech Republic.
Now look at its crime stats and compare to US.
Indians are Caucasian, by the way.
Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't see that happening in the Senate long-term.
IMO, Democrats will be running the House sooner rather than latter, for the simple reason that it's where seats are allocated proportionally to the populace - so large Democratic majorities in dense areas like the coasts do translate directly into seats there. But for Dems to take the Senate, in the age where party affiliation is the single most important question deciding whether the politician gets a vote or not, would require there to be more blue states than red states. Which, right now, means more urbanized states than rural states. And I don't think that's happening anytime soon.
Have you ever heard the expression "No true Scotsman"?
You have described everything precisely. The only thing that I would add is that for the two different "castes" within the H1B system that you have identified, there's one other difference.
People who are working for Apple, Microsoft, Intel etc are using H1B as a gateway to a green card, and ultimately to citizenship - which they can do, because H1B is explicitly "dual intent", so you can apply for a green card without getting kicked out of the country; and because there's a specific process whereby employer sponsors the employee for a green card. This isn't to say that every single H1B working for these companies will do that - but the majority will. The companies in question are generally interested in retaining employees long-term, so they do sponsor any employee who asks for green card (in fact, they will proactively push you to apply if you don't do so yourself), and will provide lawyers to handle the application for you, pay various fees etc.
People who are working for Tata, Infosys etc are not there for citizenship. It's not that they wouldn't want to - it's that those companies will generally not sponsor them. So it's really just a gig to come work in US and earn a lot of money (comparatively to what they could earn at home), and then come back rich, and with a US job on your resume.
Kill H-1B, and replace it with a proper skilled immigration track. Look at Canada for inspiration:
http://www.canadavisa.com/cana...
https://www.canadavisa.com/com...
I am a former H-1B (now with a green card), who previously acquired Canadian permanent residency via skilled immigration program, so I had a chance to compare both. Canadian system wins hands down, and not just because it was easier for me personally. It just makes more sense in general, especially the overall points system, where the immigrants know what kinds of skills and traits maximize their chances, and citizens know that those getting visas and citizenship are actually screened to maximize benefits for their country.
H1Bs create both supply and demand. They create supply in the industry in which they work, but they create demand in numerous other industries - services, housing etc. For that matter, they also create demand in their own industry - they're still using those products (and higher wages mean that they can use more of them, being able to afford better devices, faster Internet connectivity etc).
I've calculated what kind of taxation it would take to provide UBI to the same amount as current federal minimum wage - $30,160 per household - to all adults in the USA, assuming the existing income distribution. If we're talking about a flat tax, with the UBI part of the income not taxed (which translates to an effective progressive tax on total income including UBI), we'd be talking about a 55% tax rate on non-UBI portion.
The effective total rate would range from 0% at the very bottom to 48% for people earning $200k, with a linear increase in between (my model assumes that there's no incomes above $200k, because I didn't find readily accessible information on income distribution above that number). All people getting ~$50k or less would receive more from the system than they'd be paying into it. Those earning $75k would see ~$12k of that taken by the system.
The courts can only say that something is illegal. But it's up to the executive to actually stop doing the thing that is illegal.
What happens if it doesn't?
Normally, courts enforce their orders via the court marshals. But marshals are mostly intended to deal with individuals, they certainly can't take on the federal government.
Then those specific people get locked up. It's not like this situation - "denying rights to people" - is specific to those coming in. Plenty of wannabe authoritarians right here in the country. Anti-abortionists etc.
Speaking as an immigrant: fuck you, asshole. I am not a slave to the country where I happened to be born. If they wanted to keep me, they should have said so, instead of telling me that my political views are wrong and borderline treasonous.
Low-cost?
Microsoft does not rely on "H-1B slave labor", because it actually pays market prices to its H-1B employees.
https://www.axios.com/h1-b-sal...