If what you say is true, wouldn't the same argument apply to practically every market these institutions are in? Oil, timber, steel, AI stuff, cars, you name it.
Every state has the right to regulate its labor supply. In fact, that is how society got better. Unions setup oligopolies to ensure workers were fairly compensated. Unlike other commodities, labor cannot be traded on a free market because if you can't sell your time you'll starve and become homeless. And if supply and demand is a thing, it seems that restricting supply favors the sellers.
The US has no shortage of labor. However, it is terribly allocated. Like "baggers" for groceries, old people (that should have retired long ago) working as "greeters", and thousands of Uber drivers working 12+ hours/day cause cities are so badly designed that you need taxis to get around. People whose only job is to put out cones on the street to force cars to slow down when the light is green... So much wasted labor. Why not try and "upgrade" these people through education (which tech companies should pay for in taxes) so that they can work more qualified jobs? Then the US wouldn't need to import qualified labor.
I ran a corporate networking team in the 2000s with two of the five network engineer team members, being two years out of retraining (they were welding specialists in the former local shipbuilding industry). Non-white collar supervisory and work ethic issues, but excellent work in general. Had an issue with the team on-call car getting bullet holes once (suspect some drug dealing on the side, long story!) but excellent colleagues in general.
I've worked with a lot of retrained and second-career people and I can't sing their praises enough.
"Optimized" string types are everywhere and I bet that multiple people have already created string types almost identical to German strings. But the memory savings are small and they are not more efficient than ordinary strings. For string comparison you compare the pointers, which is cheaper than comparing two pairs of registers. If the pointers mismatch you compare the (cached) hashes and only if they match do you need to compare characters. For the prefix query, starts_with(content, 'http'), just store a string of the four-character prefix. With immutable strings the overhead is just one pointer.
Do you have a pointer to real world data about the effectiveness of these optimizations? I learned about it (SSO, in std lib which is basically the same) in an article which really made it look as that would make anything in C++ blazing fast. In the codebases I worked, a couple of times, I did measure (what you shoud do before optimizing) and the results where between absolutely negligible to worst when active. But that were 3 data points. Mind you one in a real time database.
Extensive polling also showed Hillary Clinton crushing Donald Trump in the 2016 US election. Polls have been wrong before. I'm asking for evidence not anecdotes.
I have not ignored any evidence. I've discounted vague allegations made without presenting any proof. If you care about facts then you should ask yourself why you are so sure Maduro faked the election when you haven't seen any evidence.
We both know you are. You'll immediately dismiss anything people bring up no matter what it is and then follow up with another fake question.
You simply dont care what other people have to say. Which is fine. But stop phrasing it as a question. Just make your opinion known, say you disagree and think they are wrong and you don't care what they have to say, and leave it at that.
But the whole Q/A thing? Where you phrase a dismissal as a question pretending like you care about the answer? Its boring. Played out. Predictable.
I promise you that you'll be much happier with yourself if you just say your opinions with the full force of your true convictions instead of playing faux debate games with others.
You might even be able to convince some people, if you stop phrasing your opinions as fake questions. The fake Socratic method just gets annoying after a while, once people see through it.
Oh I very much have a lot of facts. I'm just not going to waste my time writing a multi paragraph response when we both know that you don't care what the answer is.
Feel free to go ask ChatGPT for some answers if you like though.
You can just say that you don't care. It's fine. Lots of people don't care about other people's opinions.
Not really, though? Most polls going almost as fat back as September were within the margin of error.
Clinton won the popular vote by 2% and she was on average 3-4% ahead in the polls..
In fact she she got more votes than predicted in early November since 3rd party candidates significantly underperformed relative to what they were polling.
Have a closer look at the article. I read it after posting here.
Argentine Foreign Minister Diana Mondino shared Mr Blinken's view, writing in a post on X, formerly Twitter: "We can all confirm, without a doubt, that the legitimate winner and President-elect is Edmundo González."
Ecuador, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Peru have also recognised Mr González as the president-elect...
[Machado] claimed her party's candidate, Mr Gonzalez, won by a landslide and Ms Machado said she could prove this because she had receipts from more than 80% of polling stations.
Ms Machado appealed for help, saying it was now up to the international community to decide whether to tolerate what she called an illegitimate government.
I gather that the Nobel Prize does not convey a tendency for honesty.
"[Machado] claimed her party's candidate, Mr Gonzalez, won by a landslide and Ms Machado said she could prove this because she had receipts from more than 80% of polling stations."
Yes, the opposition claimed that it had proof. However, it has not allowed any independent third parties to verify said proof. That she won a peace prize is inconsequential. They gave one to Henry Kissinger too.
And even if we accept that, the US has declared effectively that the US takeover, while removing the supposed false winner, will also not restore the actual winner that called for help, but that the US will run the country directly, while seizing its oil resources (contrast with the 1990 invasion of Panama, where we also deposed and arrested a leader we accused of illegally holding power, and charged him with US crimes, but openly stated and followed through on intent to restore the government we described as having won, and did not declare that we would run the country or seize its resources, and did not, in fact, do that.)
Any HN comment is a finite expression, so it's impossible for me to specify a particular one. But the number of finite expressions is countable, and the number of reals is vastly more than a countable number, so most reals cannot be described in any human sense.
I think (I am not a mathematician) that depends on whether you accept non-constructive proofs as valid. Normally you reason that any mapping from natural numbers onto the reals is incomplete (eg Cantor's argument), and that the sets of computable or describable numbers are countable, and therefore there exist indescribable real numbers. But if you don't like that last step, you do have company:
There are more infinite sequences than finite ones.
So not all infinite sequences can be uniquely specified by a finite description.
Like √2 is a finite description, so is the definition of π, but since there is no way to map the abstract set of "finite description" surjectively to the set of infinite sequences you find that any one approach will leave holes.
But doesn't this assume what you intend to show? Of course you can't specify an infinite and non-repeating sequence, but how do you know that is a number?
Slightly longer answer decimal numbers between 0 and 1 can be written as the sum of a_0*10^0 + a_1*10^1 + a_2*10^2 + ... + a_i*10^i + ... where a_i is one of 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. for series in this shape you can prove that the sum of two series is the same iff and only if the sequence of digits are all the same (up to the slight complication of 0.09999999 = 0.1 and similar)
You can't know. However, it is a consequence of the axiom of choice (AC). You can't know if AC is true either; but mathematics without it is really really hard, so it usually assumed.
Not much. The book mostly covers theory and not platform-specific details. The explanations on various real-time gc algorithms are very thorough though.
reply