cmonnow

There are few misconceptions about the recently enacted CAA, that need to be clarified.

Citizenship Amendment Act is a law to fast-track citizenship of 'persecuted religious minorities' in 3 neighboring countries Afghanistan/Pakistan/Bangladesh.

It is a case of positive discrimination (affirmative action for the Americans) towards Hindu/Christian/Sikh/Buddhist/Parsi refugees.

Here is the reddit thread explaining the Act's intricacies and FAQ - https://old.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/comments/e9qhvb/cab_in_...

It does not affect normal citizens of India. It is also NOT a case of negative discrimination against Muslim refugees, like most detractors claim it to be. Official tweet from India's Home Ministry clarifies this - https://twitter.com/PIBHomeAffairs/status/120730412196068556.... The usual waiting period of 11 years stays as it is for them. For minority refugees, it is reduced to 5 years. That's all.

Every country has a database of its citizens. India was lagging far behind in this. Due to enormous population, porous borders and poor living conditions, there are a lot more undocumented immigrants in India than probably any other country on earth. The National Register of Citizens is an attempt to set that right.

You don't really NEED food. You could choose to eat or you could choose to die. It's up to you. Take it or leave it.

No point in playing with semantics. Fear is subjective. It is caused by ignorance of whether you might lose a wanted thing, or obtain an unwanted thing.

By your logic, we can completely rid the dictionary of the word 'threat'. Name any 'threat' today, I can convert it into an 'offer'.

I have a smaller than average head. The 2 vertical side folds are too wide to prevent my head from sagging off to left/right, not to mention forward of course.

Lack of static head position is the biggest hindrance to sleeping seated. Back-Inclination, Leg-Space, Arm-Rest are all secondary. If you're tired enough, a head-harness is enough to catch a solid 4-hr nap.

Every technology has pros & cons, effects & residues.

Coal : Effect/Pros - Energy/Cheap. Residue/Cons - C02/GlobalWarming

Nuclear : Effect/Pros - Energy/Clean. Residue/Cons - RadioactiveWaste/Contamination.

Where do the nuclear byproducts go currently ? Into the earth? Rivers? Oceans?

30 years ago, we switched from paper based products to plastic, to save trees. Today, we want to switch from plastic based products to paper, to avoid pollution.

Every 'switch' will come with side-effects that the current generation is fine with, because they're not going to be ones dealing with it.

Every technology has pros & cons, effects & residues.

Coal : Effect/Pros - Energy/Cheap. Residue/Cons - C02/GlobalWarming

Nuclear : Effect/Pros - Energy/Clean. Residue/Cons - RadioactiveWaste/Contamination.

Where do the nuclear byproducts go currently ? Into the earth? Rivers? Oceans?

30 years ago, we switched from paper based products to plastic, to save trees. Today, we want to switch from plastic based products to paper, to avoid pollution.

Every 'switch' will come with side-effects that the current generation is fine with, because they're not going to be ones dealing with it.

It might stop them though. Can't say categorically that it doesn't.

If I am feeling down about not joining YC 15 years back, and someone says 'why don't you feel bad about not buying bitcoin 5 years back, or GOOG 20 years back, or AAPL 40 years back, or X Y years back', I'll soon realize a pattern that I can feel sad about ANYTHING if I put my mind to it

And since it's our natural state to feel happy, and not feel sad, above knowledge might stop me from acting 'human' (depressed) over inevitable/infinite things.

'AI' is not an adversary. It is simply a tool created by hundreds of humans coming together.

It's like watching 1-v-100 boxing match. Of course the 100 are going to win.

Enjoyable sport has always been about ~similarly matched opponents. When we have DeepMind AI Go vs. MindDeep AI Go, that's when things get interesting.

'AI' is not an adversary. It is simply a tool created by hundreds of humans coming together.

It's like watching 1-v-100 boxing match. Of course the 100 are going to win.

Enjoyable sport has always been about ~similarly matched opponents. When we have DeepMind AI Go vs. MindDeep AI Go, that's when things get interesting.

> India has committed some horrible atrocities in the area

Hah. Boiler plate blame-the-other-of-your-faults strategy.

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus

Ethnic cleansing of Hindus who were mass-exoded out of their homelands through threat of murder and rape via public loudspeakers in the 90s.

Innumerable terrorist attacks perpetrated by Pak ISI instigated and based agents ever since Independence, through Operation Gibraltar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar

Kashmir was divided in partition in 1947. Pakistan didn't like it. They invaded Kashmir. Indian army held them at current Line of Actual Control. Since then they've been attacking it.

Rape is a blotch to be condemned. It's been a unfortunate side effect of every war ever fought, by both sides. WWII - Germany vs Russia, and Russia vs Germany, for example.

Taken from Human Rights Watch Report - "Rape in Kashmir: A Crime of War" 1993: "In some cases, women have been raped by militant forces as a way of punishing other family members believed to be informers or suspected of opposing the militants. In other cases, members of armed militant groups have abducted women and raped them after threatening or murdering other members of the family."

Terrorism is a huge infestation problem, especially in Kashmir Every country has to deal with it strong-handedly as a duty. Every country since the beginning of time has introduced curfews and curbed liberty for security (TSA screenings hello?) for peace keeping. It's no secret the benefits outweigh the risks for the majority of peaceful population.

..cos he couldn't receive dp's anymore ?

Maybe my numbers are wrong. But my point was to say that each system has its advantage/disadvantages

Anycase, I'm in favor of the bank-bank Indian UPI & German SEPA system.

I've updated the answer again with hopefully clearer examples.

You're getting stuck because you're used to only 1-level resolution/replacements for pronouns, because that's what we're used to in daily speak.

But I've given a concrete 2-level example, where you will question your own stance of "that's the end of the recursive process", and help you expand the logic to 3-levels deep, 4-levels, 5... to infinity.

I've given clearer examples in updated answer here - https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3437700/725808

Basically, OP has not provided a base case for his recursive question. As a result, it goes on infinitely, ending up in stackoverflow.

There are middle men in bitcoin. In fact, there are a million middle men. But you trust those million men, rather than the 10 who run the bank.

Anyways, it's about how much money you're willing to spend for trust/safety/risk-mitigation/speed.

Cost of item - $100

$100.05 - pay via Bitcoin. In case of fraud, suck it up.

$102 - pay via Bank. In case of fraud, complain to bank, who are slow to resolve it.

$105 - pay via CC, (and pay them via Bank). In case of fraud, complain to CC company, who are faster in resolving it.

Both Bank and CC are basically an escrow service. One provides a bit more security than other, and correspondingly charges more for it.

If you're OK with not needing that security, cut out the middle men.

Going along your analogy lines, cut out even the Bitcoin middle man, or any kind of currency, and directly barter/trade goods.

I'm not saying that 'this' doesn't resolve to anything.

Of course it does. It's like pointing to something and asking 'what's this?'. Of course the act of pointing, or the act of standing in a city resolves 'this' to something else.

But the point is where 'this' resolves to something which has meaning.

A question makes sense, if it is understandable and answerable.

Q1: //TODO

Q2: what's the population of this city ?

Q3: what's the location of this city ?

...

Q22: what's the altitude of this city?

Q23: what's the weather in this city ?

Suppose I ask you "What is the answer to Question 23?".

You'll respond "what is Question 23?" (trying to resolve/concrete 'Q 23').

I'll reply "Question 23 is - 'What's the weather in this city?' ".

You'll respond "well, what does 'this' refer to in Question 23?" (trying to resolve/concrete pronoun 'this')

I'll reply "this refers to the city in Question 22"

You'll respond "well, what is Question 22?' (again trying to resolve/concrete 'Q 23')

I'll reply "Question 22 is - 'What's the weather in this city?' "

You'll respond "well, what does 'this' refer to in Question 22?" (again trying to resolve/concrete pronoun 'this')

So-on, so-forth.. until we reach Question 2, referring to Question 1.

Now, If I define question 1 to be - 'What is the capital of USA?'. Then, by chaining, you can answer Question 23.

But if it do not define question 1, you can't answer Question 23, because I have not given you enough information to resolve pronoun 'this' in 'this city'.

That is the case with OP's question. In order to answer a question, the question must be answerable. In order for a question to be answerable, it must be understandable. In order for a question to be understandable, all pronouns in it must be resolvable to a valid question.

Do you agree that the question 'what is his height?' - is unanswerable IF the asker is not pointing to anyone, or there is no one else in the room, or there is no prior context - because the pronoun 'this' is unresolved ?

answer - https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3437700/725808

The question displays a lack of understanding of language, especially the relation between a word and its meaning. More specifically, the relation between a noun and its pronoun.

Suppose Question 1 was:

> "What day is it today?"

And suppose Question 2 was:

> "Which answer in this list is the correct answer to this question? > Friday, Saturday, Sunday"

If someone asks, 'What question is the pronoun "this" in Question 2 referring to?'

Then you can reply - 'Question 1'

And then they can proceed to answer Question 2 as 'Saturday'

Suppose I just ask you out of the blue : 'what's his height?'

You will immediately respond : 'who are you talking about?'

A pronoun must come AFTER a noun has been established. If it comes before, the speaker must clarify the noun after.

In other words, you must be able to do a Ctrl-H Find & Replace in the original sentence, and change "this" to whatever it's referring to, and the new sentence should still make sense. That is the point of pronouns.

If I ask 'what is the weather in this city?'

Does that question make sense without mentioning the city's name either before or after? It might make sense grammatically, but practically, it is not answerable.

If you now come back and say - Just replace the pronoun "this" with the text of the question, then it becomes :

"Which answer in this list is the correct answer to "Which answer in this list is the correct answer to this question" question?

Is the question answerable now ? Still NO. Because there is still one unresolved "this". Ad-infinitum.

So, to answer your question:

> 'which question ?'

The question, as is, is not answerable. Because it does not make sense until you resolve what 'this' refers to. Until then, it is just a bunch of words without a corresponding meaning. It's not a paradox or a contradiction. Barber's 'paradox', 'This sentence is false' etc. all are basically just a poor understanding of language/pronouns.

You might as well ask :

> 'Which answer in this list is the correct answer to oogabooga question?'

answer - https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3437700/725808

The question displays a lack of understanding of language, especially the relation between a word and its meaning. More specifically, the relation between a noun and its pronoun.

Suppose Question 1 was:

> "What day is it today?"

And suppose Question 2 was:

> "Which answer in this list is the correct answer to this question? > Friday, Saturday, Sunday"

If someone asks, 'What question is the pronoun "this" in Question 2 referring to?'

Then you can reply - 'Question 1'

And then they can proceed to answer Question 2 as 'Saturday'

Suppose I just ask you out of the blue : 'what's his height?'

You will immediately respond : 'who are you talking about?'

A pronoun must come AFTER a noun has been established. If it comes before, the speaker must clarify the noun after.

In other words, you must be able to do a Ctrl-H Find & Replace in the original sentence, and change "this" to whatever it's referring to, and the new sentence should still make sense. That is the point of pronouns.

If I ask 'what is the weather in this city?'

Does that question make sense without mentioning the city's name either before or after? It might make sense grammatically, but practically, it is not answerable.

If you now come back and say - Just replace the pronoun "this" with the text of the question, then it becomes :

"Which answer in this list is the correct answer to "Which answer in this list is the correct answer to this question" question?

Is the question answerable now ? Still NO. Because there is still one unresolved "this". Ad-infinitum.

So, to answer your question:

> 'which question ?'

The question, as is, is not answerable. Because it does not make sense until you resolve what 'this' refers to. Until then, it is just a bunch of words without a corresponding meaning. It's not a paradox or a contradiction. Barber's 'paradox', 'This sentence is false' etc. all are basically just a poor understanding of language/pronouns.

You might as well ask :

> 'Which answer in this list is the correct answer to oogabooga question?'

answer - https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3437700/725808

The question displays a lack of understanding of language, especially the relation between a word and its meaning. More specifically, the relation between a noun and its pronoun.

Suppose Question 1 was:

> "What day is it today?"

And suppose Question 2 was:

> "Which answer in this list is the correct answer to this question? > Friday, Saturday, Sunday"

If someone asks, 'What question is the pronoun "this" in Question 2 referring to?'

Then you can reply - 'Question 1'

And then they can proceed to answer Question 2 as 'Saturday'

Suppose I just ask you out of the blue : 'what's his height?'

You will immediately respond : 'who are you talking about?'

A pronoun must come AFTER a noun has been established. If it comes before, the speaker must clarify the noun after.

In other words, you must be able to do a Ctrl-H Find & Replace in the original sentence, and change "this" to whatever it's referring to, and the new sentence should still make sense. That is the point of pronouns.

If I ask 'what is the weather in this city?'

Does that question make sense without mentioning the city's name either before or after? It might make sense grammatically, but practically, it is not answerable.

If you now come back and say - Just replace the pronoun "this" with the text of the question, then it becomes :

"Which answer in this list is the correct answer to "Which answer in this list is the correct answer to this question" question?

Is the question answerable now ? Still NO. Because there is still one unresolved "this". Ad-infinitum.

So, to answer your question:

> 'which question ?'

The question, as is, is not answerable. Because it does not make sense until you resolve what 'this' refers to. Until then, it is just a bunch of words without a corresponding meaning. It's not a paradox or a contradiction. Barber's 'paradox', 'This sentence is false' etc. all are basically just a poor understanding of language/pronouns.

You might as well ask :

> 'Which answer in this list is the correct answer to oogabooga question?'

> have to integrate with one of India's banks

what you mention as a disadvantage is the biggest advantage. cut out the card men.

Banks' technical prowess will catch up. That is the solution. Not introducing a middle man just because he is technically better now.

I'm faintly surprised reddit's redesign didn't kill it, like Digg's did.

I was a database consultant at top-5 tech company. Called in for a 6-week project to help a client land a multi-million-dollar contract. They had tried to speed up their code for 2 years prior to this. But had reached a bottleneck they couldn't overcome.. and without which, they would go to a competitor (wink wink) platform.

Me & another consultant were brought it. Early on, the client decided to put me in lead. I tried some things for 2 weeks, with them watching my screen to 'learn'.. and nothing was progressing. One day, I told them I need to work alone, spent couple nights awake, until I got a light bulb moment to process queries in parallel instead of sequentially. Found sample code on internet, modified it to work on client codebase, prepared a demo, ignored writing a 'status report' (which pissed off the Project Manager), and did a demo to the clientele of 15 managers, directors & SVP - all in the span of 2 days (wed to fri).

Guess what had happened during those 2 days behind my back? The client, PM, and my manager had decided to replace me with a more senior architect starting Monday, and were ready to take me off on Fri at 3 pm. At 1 p.m I did my demo, which literally floored them. I then came to know about the machinations, and then the PM and my manager called me at 4 p.m apologizing, and saying they definitely wanted me on the project. I told them it was a perfect storm of mis-understanding, under-communication and over-reaction, which given the project's short & intense deadline, was just part of the game, and to forget about it and move on.

During my annual review, the Client/PM/Manager called me a 'cowboy' and gave a 'poor performance' rating. I told my manager that I accept the first part as a compliment and reject the second part as incorrect judgement.

I got fired. I left with a smile on my face.

Correct.

There is a way to remember your past lives, if you do a certain penance for 12 years - not impossible, not complex, very simple, but very hard - do not utter a lie for 12 years consecutively. There are no loopholes - if you are born dumb, or lose the ability to speak, that doesn't count. you must be able and willing to speak, but still not utter a lie.

Do it for 12 years without a single break continuously, and on year 13 day 1, you can remember your previous births. Some have done it (hence the claim), but not many in the western 'modern scientific' world care to verify it, and just pooh-pooh it. Of course, it's not a loss for those who made the claim. Whoever wants it can go after it.

There are pundits in remote villages in India, who can predict the exact timing of eclipses based just on a old almanac written thousands of years ago, with absolutely no modern scientific equipment (telescope) or knowledge (Galileo/Newton/Keppler). Indians have been doing astronomy and astrology (Yes, planetary positions do both indicate and affect your personality) for millenia. They still do it when matching horoscopes for marriage.

What you hear about 'astrology' in Western world, is just a half-baked misunderstood version. It's like CSI doing a science episode saying 'enhance', and hoping things work out.

Yes, however people who are not willing to do the test, simply call sour grapes.

For e.g., suppose you make a claim "strawberry tastes sweet", and I have never eaten strawberry before, I'll say "can you prove it?". You'll say "Sure, here just take a bite, and you'll know for yourself". And I respond "Nah, I don't want to do that. Can you still prove it? The burden of proof is on you".

No, the burden of proof doesn't always rest on the person making the claim. Once he outlines the method to verify it, his job is done. The burden of verifying the proof now rests on the skeptic.

you got an L6 without CS degree?

How many years have you been working in SW industry ?

GitLab something ? AFAIK the only company that is both remote and pay friendly.

literally is literally my favorite

> and I wouldn’t have even remembered it.

that's the point.

Do not make money in the sick room - Hippocrates

Can you name a single company that needs 'more than a few' 1 hr sessions ? Accepted definition of 'few' is at least 3 and usually between 3-5

Most companies have 4 sessions : 1 HR phone, 1 tech phone, 1 tech onsite, 1 HR onsite.

But bigger companies (i.e. bigger salary) increase the 'tech onsite' up to 4. Some companies replace one of the tech phone/onsites with a take-home challenge.

If you want more money, you gotta beat the other 100 people who also want more money. Simple case of demand and supply.