No. Look at who backs Trump, who is himself of recent immigrant ancestry. His base is heavily composed of Germans in the Midwest, European Catholics, and Latinos. He reversed the trend of Vietnamese and Cuban voters away from the GOP and has been making huge inroads with recent immigrants from Latin America.
The death of the GOP and the rise of MAGA has more than a little to do with immigrants.
You’re both correct. The legal system has absolutely no idea how to handle the copyright issues around using content for AI training data. It’s a completely novel issue. At the same time, the tech companies have a lot more money to litigate favorable interpretations of the law than the content companies.
I don’t think it’s a skill issue. It’s that they’re really only useful with profile guided optimization—so you can have hints that reflect actual branch probabilities. But most developers don’t seem to bother to do that.
I wouldn't say that PGO is necessary to predict branches correctly. Lots of branches are exceptional control flow (error checks, bounds checks, etc.) and compilers will almost always correctly statically predict not taken for them. Any branch with a target that's postdominated by a throw or a process abort can basically be safely predicted not taken (after all, if you got it wrong, the penalty is going to be minuscule compared to the cost of the exception).
The hardware itself is already very good at predicting the direction. I think the point about PGO here is that you need it to find infrequently-occuring biased-taken branches.
When you encounter a biased-taken branch that isn't currently being tracked by the machine, you're always condemned to pay the cost of a misprediction because the default prediction is "not-taken". The hinting here is supposed to indicate "when encountering this branch, don't predict not-taken by default."
If memory serves, wasn't that a bit of a tool minefield back then, too? It’s been a while but I thought I remembered a few colleagues trying GCC’s version which involved building a new version of GCC, slowing down the builds a fair amount, and then seeing only a small benefit – far less than they got switching to the first AMD Opteron when it came out a year later.
To be clear, Fed Soc itself doesn’t take policy positions. (And it’s not clear to me what the “conservative” position on patent issues would be. Traditionally, plaintiff’s lawyers are liberals.)
> Hold these debtors to standards that aren't applied to other types of debtors
That’s because these loans are made using standards that aren’t applied to other loans. The government basically does not consider credit risk or traditional underwriting standards when making student loans.
South China Sea is just a name, not a cause for maritime irredentism, and that Sea also borders most countries in Southeast Asia, countries which consider themselves independent sovereign nations. So it’s international waters which an enormous amount of global trade flows through. Allowing the PRC to call it their sovereign territory is conceding that they have license to fuck with that trade at-will, since those ships which are currently going through international waters would instead be going through PRC jurisdiction.
The claim is not just the PRC's actually, as it predates it. It's "China's claim" and so the ROC/Taiwan has the same one. Obviously only the PRC is starting to reach the power to actually trying to enforce it.
The historical context, really, is that China has been weak in the last two centuries, a period during which Western powers divided the world among themselves and decided modern borders while China was majorly screwed.
In the South China Sea for instance all countries apart from Thailand have been colonies of Western countries.
I am aware of the historical context, but right now the ROC isn’t the major problematic entity proactively asserting claims in the South China Sea and building up its Navy with an eye towards enforcing them against independent and sovereign Southeast Asian nations and threatening the flow of international trade. If they become the problem, we can bring them into the conversation at that time.
They are disrupting the Western-established order. That is the issue, the rest is just rhetoric to sugar-coat that deeper truth. The most strategically impacted countries are actually the East Asian ones, Taiwan, Korea, Japan. That's an important point because they are almost de facto US protectorates on mainland China's doorsteps.
There is no right or wrong. There are competing interests as always. The US are trying to protect their control of the region, while China is trying to disrupt that and increase control of its own backyard and gain leverage in East Asia.
> They are disrupting the Western-established order.
Yes, this is the problem. That Western-established order sees a full third of global maritime shipping transiting the South China Sea.
> The most strategically impacted countries are actually the East Asian ones, Taiwan, Korea, Japan. That's an important point because they are almost de facto US protectorates on mainland China's doorsteps.
Speaking of rhetoric.
> There is no right or wrong.
No, there is very much a right and a hypothetical wrong here. Right is for both the sovereign territory of nations and international waters to be respected as such. Wrong would be for the PRC to be able to assert its most extremist position on what parts of the South China Sea it considers to be its territory as this line cuts through both the sovereign waters of other nations nearby and their land in some cases, allowing the PRC to put its thumb on the scale in one of the largest shipping channels in the world. Don’t forget, the State called the “People’s Republic of China” is by its own laws only an entity subordinate to the Communist Party of China. No country should have that much power over international shipping, but a totalitarian one even less so.
> both the sovereign waters of other nations nearby and their land in some cases
I would refer to my previous comment about what happened in the past two centuries. What is "sovereign water and land" depends on past agreements and use of force. In this case it is not even always clear because indeed most of the area is disputed.
What power a country should or should not have is relative to which side you're standing. The US have military control over the Panama Canal, should they have that much power? So far China has less that 1/10th of the power the US have on the international stage but it is growing. It is 'bad' if you are the US, it is 'good' if you are China.
Now, the political system in China is a red herring and irrelevant. It's only convenient for the US as it allows to build an anti-China narrative more easily ("freedom!"). But if China was a democracy nothing would change in the South China Sea or with respects to the issue the US have with China, which is that it is big and powerful and does not defer to them.
Are you referring to Taiwan as independent and sovereign? Had the PRC pursued ROC 70 years ago, this conversation wouldn’t be happening. China certainly sees Taiwan as belonging to it. It would be like saying Catalonia is not Spain (many there would like to).
The Chinese perspective is that Taiwan is China (and currently the UN agrees). Unfortunately, unless they peacefully fold back into China, a war for their independence is the most likely outcome.
> Are you referring to Taiwan as independent and sovereign?
You’re goddamned right I am and I will defer to no commies or their stooges on this subject. As of this moment in time, Taiwan is independent as the Republic of China.
You've written about this yourself in the past. If you want to provoke the thread, you should at least be forthright that you've changed your mind, rather than feigning bafflement that anyone would agree with what you yourself used to advocate.
It seems like a cop-out. The interesting part of real-world culture is how it reflects a community’s circumstances. For example, herding and pastoral cultures have sharp distinctions with subsistence farming cultures. In real societies, culture is a way to adapt groups of people to the world around them.
If you just have omniscient gods control society, then culture becomes meaningless. There is no reason to explore what cultural adaptations might arise in a spacefaring society.
An ironic statement, given the existence and enduring popularity of the series we are currently discussing, whose premise is just such an exploration of culture!
Can someone explain like I’m five why DRAM latency basically hasn’t improved in decades? I remember 60ns FPM SIMMs in our 486 back in the 1990s. Doesn’t seem any faster now.
Depends on where you are in the U.S. Some places have extreme renter protections. Tenants can refuse to pay rent for months before you can even start an eviction proceeding. Then it takes months more. E.g. New York. https://www.reddit.com/r/Landlord/comments/15nn6o0/landlordu.... Landlords may forgo six months of back rent just to get the tenant out of the unit.
Meanwhile in Alabama the only recourse you have against a landowner who rents you something not habitable is to move out. American law generally is very bad at compelling a party to uphold a contract.
reply