Who said anything about infinite? I don't see anything wrong with importing labor if it's of net benefit to our society. If there was genuinely no citizen that wanted the job for any reasonable price then what's the harm in bringing in an educated outsider who contributes positively? It improves several metrics simultaneously without harming anyone.
You could also say that India is below replacement fertility. Which, if Indian history is anything to go by, will mean India will outlaw emigration to protect ultra-rich Indians.
China has already mostly made emigration illegal. The rest of the world will follow.
Depends what you mean. Communism loves bureaucracy and so there are 10 different system "totally not cooperating" to prevent leaving. In China you need permission to leave the country (or even your town), and so there is no law change. The big bureaucracies are referred to as "Hokou" (within China) and "Exit-entry administration" for international. So no direct announcement, everything is under direct control of Xi. You see, it was always illegal to go outside of the country without Xi's approval and those approvals have mostly stopped coming.
Houkou does not prevent a Chinese citizen from leaving a town. People move around all the time. Houkou is about registering to receive public services in the new city within China.
In any case Houkou doesn’t prevent a person from leaving the country. A passport does, but this is the same in all countries.
> You see, it was always illegal to go outside of the country without Xi's approval and those approvals have mostly stopped coming.
There are hundreds of millions of trips out of China every year. A good number of them to the US for work. That fact is hard to square with what you’re saying.
That would be "A distinction without a difference" ... a thing bureaucracies are positively excellent at.
There's an old Soviet joke: it's allowed! It's just that you haven't submitted your request, in triplicate, in our office in Siberia, open from 24:00 to 24:01 on Februari 30th every year! But it's allowed, with the proper permission. Just go get it!
Yeah sorry no that's not the same thing as "made emigration illegal". When you say that I think of Soviet Russia with its exit visas that people hardly ever got.
It kind of is. You try to leave, the police stops you. You go to court, the court decides against you. What's not "lawful" about that (aside from the very unjust nature of China's laws)
Every country has laws about who can get passports. In countries without proper rule of law this is often arbitrary. Does that mean all those countries have made emigration illegal?
> If the law also says you can't leave without passports, like Chinese law,
Other countries don't let you in without a passport. Even in the absence of a Chinese law, an airline would deny you boarding if you didn't have a passport.
It isn't anymore, but if you go back a decade or two, it really was that zealous. He really did used to blindly defend Apple (e.g. things like this: https://daringfireball.net/2006/09/open_challenge), but I think he's grown more skeptical of Apple lately.
I don't want to split hairs over what constitutes as overzealous, but I will say that Apple ~20 years ago earned more praise than Apple does today. This is probably reflected in the writing.
Instability just means that they don't naturally return to stable flight. Fighter jets benefit from this because when you want to make a maneuver, you're not fighting the plane's natural inclination to stay where it's pointing. You don't need particularly powerful hardware to do this kind of control, quadcopters are an even more obviously inherently unstable example, because any thrust imbalance will immediately make it roll. Quadcopter control loops only need to run at a few hundred hertz to achieve stability.
The total water usage of the largest concentration of datacenters in the world is only using 10% of the water consumption of the county, about half of which is non-potable reclaimed water that would otherwise be dumped into a river [1], and you think this is a bad thing?
> Those are contradictory. Either the code is extremely portable, or it can't support "obscure" platforms, but not both.
I think it's perfectly valid to call code 'extremely portable' without supporting every special snowflake architecture. There's a spectrum from assumptions that hold on everything that isn't some esoteric joke architecture or archaeology to something that I would probably consider required for 'extremely portable'.
I would personally consider something that failed to support anything on this list above big endian as still being extremely portable: you'll build for any serious modern architecture that isn't a DSP.
- non twos complement integers
- (int) nullptr != 0
- segmented addressing
- non-8 bit char
- big endian
- missing floating point
ARM's done a good job of making it so that you can't assume the traditional x86 assumptions of being able to access any pointer unaligned or having sequentially consistent semantics on memory ordering (with the help of compilers getting better at reordering resulting in you needing to have proper semantics on x86 as well).
It makes liberal use of u64 all over the place rather than a more appropriate, machine adaptive unsigned int or unsigned long. It isn't a good fit for anything "exotic" like non-64-bit platforms. I wouldn't consider that in the spirit of portability when it compiles into bloated code with unnecessarily large structs.
> This is why, for example, despite the existence of jumbo jets (which have a better mass:payload ration than smaller planes), most passenger flights are not on jumbo jets, because there's just not enough demand on most routes.
Airlines used to use a hub and spoke model where it would make sense to have larger planes between hubs and smaller ones to get to and from the hubs, but consumers strongly preferred direct routing, so it didn't work out. For orbital payloads, most payloads probably do not mind too much if it takes a month or more to boost/deboost themselves to their intended orbits.
> Because when people say “avoid politics” they usually mean it as a derogatory term for “all the disagreements that I dont personally care about” - and conveniently exclude the issues they care about from “politics”.
People use "politics" as shorthand for "things that are divisive issues that split your purported represented class". You're not going to get anyone to join your union if all you do is advocate for things that the vast majority of employees at best don't care about, or worse, disagree with.
reply