I’m a Scot living “Oop North” for over a decade, and very much aware of the attitudes round here.
Believe me, I was never a fan of provincialist Scotland and utterly despise the huge separatist chip on its shoulder and everything that stands for, so to see the English fall for the very same scam really jams in my craw.
Honestly, the sooner that Brits get to experience the same standard of living that Chinese factory workers now enjoy†, the sooner they’ll drink a big cup of STFU and realize just how unfairly blessed before now they really were.
No sympathies for them that got us into it; I only feel bad for t’kids.
--
† And, having come from grinding rural poverty, is still a step up for them.
You don't have to be dirt poor to have a cause for national sovereignty. The difference is Scotland has no sovereignty, the British/English do, inside the EU.
This is not illegal. It's just a different way to obtain a green card faster. By the way, I'm one of those people that's NOT gaming the system if there was any confusion. I've been waiting patiently for 9 years now. I'll have to wait for the foreseeable future or do something about this. Moving to Canada or back to India seems to be the only two options if I don't like waiting.
Are you a lawyer? What he suggested is about as "subversive" as using your 401k to lower your tax bill. The EB1-C program's explicit requirements are to work as a manager abroad, and that's exactly what the person above suggested.
401K is not “gaming the system.” The IRS explicitly treats it specially for the purposes of allowing hardworking seniors to retire in dignity. The immigration law does not make explicit allowances for people to game it. If less people gamed the system, it would be more fair for the rest of us who do things the right way without manipulating.
The original poster suggested applying for a different visa that has a lower wait time for green cards. What precisely about this proposition are you objecting to?
Brexit solves them not being a sovereign nation. Sovereignty from foreign rule is over what wars are fought, no rational actor would give it away without an existential threat.
That's a bit like saying that Britain wasn't sovereign during the time of the British empire. Britain, France and Germany ruled the EU, the UK designed many aspects of it.
Britain did not rule the EU, nor did it have sovereignty over the EU. The EU is a separate political entity from the UK, and had sovereignty over the government of the UK.
International law isn’t enforceable and doesn’t supersede sovereignty like the EU does. Plenty of countries violate international law (most of them) with nearly no repercussions.
> 327. In the High Court and the Court of Appeal NIHRC relied on a number of international treaties and judgments, decisions and general statements of treaty bodies. Horner J dealt with these in a section of his judgment entitled “International Law and Obligations”between paras 59 and 71. Again, I find myself in agreement with the judge in his observations and I do not repeat them. The Court of Appeal did not deal with these arguments.
> 328. Although the traditional and orthodox view is that courts do not apply unincorporated international treaties (JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418, per Lord Oliver at 499 and R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union[2018] AC 61), as Lord Hughes stated in R (SG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Child Poverty Action Group intervening)[2015] 1 WLR 1449, para 137, such treaties may be relevant in a number of ways. NIHRC relies on the third of these, namely, where the court is applying ECHR via the HRA. As Lord Hughes observed, the ECtHR has accepted that, in appropriate cases, the Convention “should be interpreted ... in the light of generally accepted international law in the same field”. Similar propositions are to be found in Convention jurisprudence, most notably, Demir v Turkey(2008) 48 EHRR 1272, para 69; Neulinger v Switzerland (2010) 54 EHRR31,para 131
Nothing you provided refuted my point. Governments are under no authoritative obligation to obey international law, they do so voluntarily.
The EU does have sovereignty over its member governments. EU statutes take precedence over member governments statutes in nearly every area of life that matters. The UK government cannot override any EU law except through leaving the EU altogether. A government that doesn’t have full control over policy in its own territory is not a sovereign government.
The EHCR is not a sovereign supernational political entity. It’s an agreement to which the UK govt. voluntarily conforms.
The UK merely being able to make voluntary agreements with other countries is not a loss of sovereignty. Being a member of the EU, however, cedes supreme lawmaking power to a higher political institution.
No, they're implying that there's been a failure by pro-leavers to acknowledge that many of these roles have been in the recent past been performed by immigrants from Europe.
Now with the UK's departure, employers may struggle to fill vacancies (and indeed it appears they have been - see link below), so the poster was sarcastically suggesting that they can't wait to see pro-leavers performing these tasks because it seems like in many cases UK nationals aren't willing to perform these types of roles.
The nature of the role is irrelevant and the poster wasn't suggesting that pro-leavers should be subject to degradation!
All we know is that UK nationals aren’t willing to do those jobs at the wages being offered. If employers raise wages to something liveable and decent then it’s reasonable to assume employment in those areas will increase.
And this is precisely why the "output per hour" is likely to go up post-Brexit for such jobs, although admittedly there are also plenty of high earners leaving the UK (though they'll eventually be replaced by qualified immigrants or locals).
Well I think he was hostile and resentful and that’s not cool. I also sincerely and in good faith can’t wait to see less people exploited for cheap labor and more of my fellow Britons employed with a decent wage for once.
Hostile no, but I can see the market still needing unskilled labour of course, and I genuinely hope for your sake that it doesnt just cause the prices to increase dramatically.
I'm not from nor living in the UK but I sure hope things work out.
My post was a dig at the idea that all the UK needs to allow into the country is highly skilled people. I don't buy that argument.. But lets see.
You’re right, a relatively large influx of foreign workers of any skill level is harmful to all people, but especially the local people if it causes a reduction in wages.
If the cost of goods increases, it won’t likely be severe since it serves the entire population while only a small percentage of the population produce the goods. Also changing prices affects demand independently from cost of production.
Big issue with Haskell adoption is the number of hoops you have to jump through to write efficient code in it. Haskell abstracts away the idea of a procedural VM implementing the code underneath, but you often need that exposed to finagle your code into a form that’s efficient.
Haskell programming ethos is opposed to that, the language wants people to focus on the semantics of computation not the method. Yet we must be able to specify computation method if we want our programs to operate efficiently.
The truth is that the Haskell compiler will never be able to automatically translate idiomatic Haskell code into something that’s competitive with C in the common case. once you start finagling your haskell code to compete with C you’ve negated the point of using Haskell to begin with.
> The truth is that the Haskell compiler will never be able to automatically translate idiomatic Haskell code into something that’s competitive with C in the common case.
Is this something you have experience with, or are you just theorizing? I know there are pitfalls to Haskell development, but to assert that "the common case" has uncompetitive performance seems wrong to me.
My problem with this kind of assertions is that often -- not saying it's your case, that's why I'm asking -- they come from people who imagine how it must be (or read it in a blog), often coming from a place of never really having tried to solve something with the language, and this sadly percolates into popular wisdom ("Haskell is not good for this or that"). Something similar happened to Java's allegedly "poor" performance, way past the point Java software sometimes outperformed C in many areas.
I think it's a common problem with almost all, if not all, languages that come to us out of the 1990s that they are fundamentally built on the presumption that "someday" compilers may save us. Well, "someday" is pretty much here, and they've all failed, as far as I'm concerned. (If you're happy with 10x-slower-than-C and substantial memory eaten to get even that fast, YMMV, but it's not what was hoped for. No sarcasm on that, BTW; sometimes that's suitable, just like sometimes 50x-slower-than-C is suitable. But it's not what was hoped for.)
Haskell can do some pretty tricks with specific code if you tickle it right, but if you just write general, normal code, it's faster than Python (a low bar, Python qua Python is nearly the slowest language in anything like common use) but not a generally "fast" language. "Someday" is here; if it's not "generally C-fast" today, I see no particular reason to believe it will be in the future either, especially since GHC seems to have spent a great deal of its design budget.
It would be interesting to see someone's take on Haskell, but where they write the language from the very beginning to be a high-performance language. There's probably multiple points in this design space that would be possible. Arguably Rust is nearly one of them, and getting even closer in the next few years.
Yes I have many many hours of experience with Haskell and familiarity with functional programming. I’m speaking from experience.
Optimizing Haskell code is a huge downer. The experience of having to throw away beautiful code and rewrite it in C++ or non-idiomatic Haskell purely for performance reasons is extremely disheartening. I don’t recommend it.
Haskell actually does a great job when you do need to drop to C (or lower-level Haskell) for performance. It has a great FFI, a bunch of modules around low-level programming (raw ptrs w/arithmetic even), and things like the ST trick and (soon) LinearTypes to help you build interfaces that guarantee your impurity doesn't leak when called by pure code.
Haskell code tends to be pretty fast as-is, and tbh I don't see the problem with having to think about performance when you're writing performance sensitive code. When you do need to hand-optimize, Haskell does not get in your way or make it impossible.
Also, many extremely complex Haskell abstractions can be optimized away completely by GHC! Generics, lenses, and the state monad come to mind.
The thing is, like 20% of your program ends up being non-idiomatic, ghc-specific Haskell. I suppose for certain applications it could end up being the whole thing, but in general I'm thinking optimized Haskell is in that ballpark tops.
And idiomatic Haskell's performance is plenty acceptable for a variety of common use-cases (so not "nearly always is")
I've deployed plenty of web services & data processing jobs in Haskell and the RTS has never been a bottleneck or issue. So I'm guessing you weren't doing an IO-bound activity (where Haskell is quite good.)
You're right in that you don't spend time on Haskell thinking about how the code actually executes.
But I honestly don't think performance is the reason majority of the developers shy away from Haskell. Most often you achieve relatively good performance without giving it any thought. At least compared to its peers, I mean other high level languages you'd use to solve the same problem.
Plants have had billions of years to evolve on Earth, if there were a more efficient way to photosynthesize, wouldn’t it have emerged by now through natural selection?
For instance, I would imagine that competition in the Amazon amongst plants is high enough to have driven a photosynthesis efficiency arms race. Do different plants differ significantly in their photosynthesis efficiency? If so I would study the genomes of plants in the Amazon, or similarly competitive environments.
> wouldn’t it have emerged by now through natural selection?
It could very well be that more efficient photosynthesis is actually detrimental.
Making everything faster/stronger/lighter at all cost is a human thing, nature is about balancing thousands of variables, not optimising the shit out of a single aspect while ignoring the rest.
There already exist plants adapted for optimal yields at lower CO2 levels. They are classified as C4 plants and hit optimal photosynthesis at about modern levels. These include corn and sugarcane, but only make up a small fraction of overall plant species (about 5%).
C3 plants hit optimal levels at higher concentrations, usually 1100-1300 ppm (90% of plants fit this category). See link below for more details:
Now I don't know how the mechanics work. I don't know if you could genetically engineer a C3 plant to work as well as a C4 plant. I reckon there are significant tradeoffs there that nature already factored for.
I think that people tend to forget that CO2 levels have varied massively throughout Earth's history and that they were quite higher than they are now for a long time over plants' evolution, which might explain C3 v. C4 plants.
What humans consider optimal for agriculture and what is optimal in the wild can be different. And evolution is not a perfect optimizer, sometimes it has to maintain legacy structures because what it cannot do is huge refactorings, only incremental changes.
The article also mentions RuBisCO being partially synthesized from chloroplast DNA, which limits evolutionary speed.
Nature does evolve improvements (e.g. better rubisco in microorganisms, the C4 pathway in some higher plants) but other plants can't just download the updates from a central DNA package library.
If the current solution is unstable and relatively far away from other solutions, you shouldn't necessarily expect random perturbations to lead to a different solution.
