pandaman

Don't know about boomers, but I knew a guy with MS from Stanford who worked at a Bay Area Fry's in late 1990s. That was when the dotcom was spinning up in full force and anyone who could tell Perl from HTML could aim for a CTO at some lavishly funded startup. So nothing much changed in the past 30 years: a prestigious degree is not a golden ticket, you need to make connections while getting that degree and then use them productively. It also severely hinders your ability to get most of the jobs (like the article's protagonist applying for a food prep had any chance) - that guy only got Fry's job because all of the people who normally would be selling Gateways and eMachines to soccer moms had been already writing CGI for dotcoms at the time.

>I wonder if there is some kind of city tax on these robots.

No, it's the state law that permits these robots. The operator obtains a permit from the state and as far as I can tell, if there are any costs they are in the permit itself, not in taxes on each unit.

[flagged]

Not so quickly. The shader cores were a breakthrough from early 2000s. First consumer GPUs were built as same as the 1980s GPUs but everything had been integrated in a single chip.

It is the sheer amount of compute and memory bandwidth that mogs a CPU but the parallel processing doesn't help much, at least in realistic 3D: an 8 core AVX-512 march CPU has an order of magnitude more SIMD lanes than something like RSX in PS3 yet it still wouldn't be able to match its performance in rendering textured z-buffered triangles. 3D graphics can really go wide only on wireframe/points, z-buffer forces sequencing between polys so the parallelism there is very limited.

>I'm all for signing up for a contract if it can turn a runtime error into a compile time error.

You can get compile-time errors with static code analysis tools with it but the main goal is to direct the compiler towards optimizations for restricted case, IMHO. If you know beforehand the kind of values you are using then the only sure way to let the compiler know is to write code in such a way that the values you don't expect result in UB, which is not always possible or convenient. Contracts allow a regular way to do the same. It does not mean the compiler will use this knowledge but it will remain in your code and might be used eventually.

For example, if you want to align an integral value on x you can write something like ((value + x-1)/x)*x, however, if x is a power of 2 then you can do (value + x-1) & ~x, which is likely faster. As of now, gcc 16 does not do this optimization even with contracts, but if you recorded this in code, some future compiler might do this. Without contracts the chances for this are much lower.

1. Bank gives you $X to buy an asset and burdens you with debt of $Y, which is much more than $X as it includes interest.

2. Bank sells the debt at $Z because holding the debt is risky and the bank would rather have cash than debt. Its counterparty would rather have more cash over time and is fine with the risk but does not want to bother with the whole process of closing the loan. $X < $Z < $Y.

3. Profit! Bank spent $X to get $Z, which is greater than $X.

So, in other words, no lawsuit, no indictment? Color me unsurprised.

You keep saying "case", "trial" as if there is an actual lawsuit or indictment being discussed here. Has MS lodged a lawsuit? If so, I'd love to see it and if not - what are you talking about?

Good, now you went from the "There is no such thing as a legal blanket ban. The executive does not have the authority to do any of this." to "MS will settle". It sure will, as all other targets of this action.

Again, I am not following, are you now saying that the debarment list for PERM does not exist or it's unlawful and will be overturned by courts any moment now, 19 years later? Well, as you said, nobody is going to debar you from smoking hopium and copium.

I believe you need to get a better textbook. The debarment program started in 2007 [1]

1. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/05/17/E7-9250...

FWIW this is rarely checked during PERM, e.g. in the DOJ statement posted in a sibling comment tree[1] they ran an investigation to find that Apple did not post their PERM jobs on their website. DOL happily approved those PERMS despite such an obvious conduct to limit the number of applicants for a job. And, when found, only Apple was slapped with a 25M settlement (which is profit Apple makes over couple of hours) - nobody in DOL who approved those PERMs had been punished.

1. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...

That's, like, your opinion, dude. For what it's worth, these bans are routine and had been issued many times before, none was declared "unlawful" by an actual court, nor it had been overturned. Usually what takes for the ban to be lifted is the company getting into compliance with the law and stopping the cute "nobody told us we should not ad in the Podunk Monthly Herald, we honestly thought this is the best place to source PMs!".

Okay, then I read you reply wrong and have no idea what are you trying to say. The law I quoted is about inadmissibility, PERM is a process to create an exception for an inadmissible alien as described in the law. Recall that the exception is created via DOL certifying that there are no sufficient able, qualified, willing and available workers. PERM is a way to conduct this certification. Read my first message you have responded, it has the link to the law. I am also not sure what you mean by this "They do not do that at the administrative level (by denying PERM) " because the news item you are commenting under is exactly about the blanket PERM denial.

You claimed that government does not successfully prosecute this, implying it prosecutes and fails. If you wanted to say it does not prosecute then you should just said so when I asked what prosecution did you mean. Also what are you arguing here? We both agree that inadmissibility does not require prosecution, so what's your point again?

You are not giving the links to the prosecutions you claimed the government lost.

What prosecutions of the 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i) do you mean? It's a clause that says that aliens looking for a job are inadmissible unless there are no qualified, willing and available workers as certified by DOL. It is not prosecuted, aliens are just not admitted. But if you have seen it being prosecuted somehow I am still waiting for a link.

Which cases? What prosecutions? Are you seriously saying that there are no qualified, willing and available workers for random PM or front end jobs and only this particular Indian person, who just graduated from an American college a few years ago is the only one who is able to do the job? I'd love to see a single case like this, got any links?

>It doesn't say anywhere that it cannot be advertised in a small town.

It does say in the law [1]: "there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor".

The rules of DOL are just guidelines how they are going to determine this but they are not the law. I will argue that if you are planning to publish your job ads in a small town newspaper you do not believe yourself that there are no "able, willing, qualified and available" Americans for your job.

1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

The article is lying by omission, it's not just Microsoft, which got suspended from PERM, FT has a list of few other companies (it's paywalled by searching for the article title and clicking the result link works [1]). Also, this is not something extraordinary: big companies get suspended from PERM all the time.

1. https://www.ft.com/content/5cfecbba-69ed-42d0-98fd-3ae019144...

You don't like common patterns and thus hire a taylor to design pants in some unique patterns you call "jeans"? Okay. One thing which is still a mystery is this: if you don't like common patterns then why call your designs after them?

Oh, I see. Hundreds of thousands of various bureaucrats, secretaries, and other kinds of "active troops", who "serve" 9 to 5 in an air conditioned office is what going to change the balance on the front. Go for it, I hope you succeed in persuading your government to send those.

>Never did I say I used "zero energy"

Indeed, you said this instead:

>There are a plethora of conditions that cause your body and to not use energy

Now, grammatically it makes no sense, but I thought "and" was just a typo and then sentence read as: "There are a plethora of conditions that cause your body to not use energy" to witch I responded.

If you didn't use energy, you would not need to breath: breath is driven by the CO2 accumulation and the CO2 is a byproduct of the body extracting energy from organic matter. And if you believe you use energy but very little compared to the lucky individuals with god-like metabolism then you would be able to breath very infrequently (and your heart rate would also be low) compared to them.

Came out in 2012 with SRAM MB group (XX1). The main invention was the narrow-wide chainring, before that there was no any advantage in 1x as you still needed a chain retainer in the front in lieu of the front derailleur. So it's fairly recent but not 8 y.o. 1x12 is already 10 y.o.

>But you can also have your jeans tailor made.

The result of this process would vary widely based on what you call "jeans". If it's any denim pants then sure, you can just use the same cut as suit trousers and get well fit "jeans". Some people call "jeans" only pants cut in a fashion similar to Levi's 501. Those don't have darts or pleats so even if a taylor hand stitched such a cut it simply doesn't have as many "knobs" to fit one's legs shape as well as suit trousers.

Same principle applies to any other garment. They are all made from flat pieces of fabric stitched together. The fewer pieces and fewer stitches there are, the harder it is to fit to the body shape.

>France, Germany, UK alone have 500k

You seem to believe that the entire armed forces consists of combat troops. This explains your ideas very well.

You'd need the US and Turkey to send troops to get anywhere close to 500k. EU and UK might get 200k if they sent everyone capable.

> the calculation of attrition would be in ukraines favor.

I thought it already is, has not Zelensky recently said that Russia lost 1.6M vs Ukraine's 450k (and 700k vs 50k dead)?

>If Ukraine and russia can bare the losses there is no reason why NATO cant.

Very profound. I wonder if you can find not 500k but 5k NATO troops who could draw the borders of Ukraine or Russia on a map. Yet they will find no reason not to die over it? Okay.

Is not the whole plan to put troops as meat shields and hope that Russia will be afraid to attack them? So yeah, Putin won't nuke countries that deployed troops but those troops are going to become targets as same as Ukrainian troops and mercenaries are now. And then what? Send more troops? More of the same result. Retaliatory strike on Russia? Nuke.

I figure this is to support the faith that Russia is running out of ordnance, which holds strong since the spring of 2022, when it was first proclaimed [1]. So Russia has to use Iranian drones and missiles, Korean shells, and even some tyres off Alibaba on their vehicles [2].

1. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1573535/russia-running-out-of-...

2. https://www.tyrepress.com/2022/03/are-tyre-issues-hampering-...