learc83

Did you miss this part:

>1) a websocket-based HTML sync layer, basically shipping over the smallest amounts of render state from the back-end. This is as close as you get to having, essentially, a server-side rendered page that is then updated in real time.

Also it's not like you have to load the runtime more than once. So it's not that it's a non-starter for anything performance sensitive--it's a non-starter for anything that can't download a 2MB file up front (I believe their goal is to get it down to half that size) if you want to use the WASM version of Blazor instead of the websocket-based HTML sync layer version.

There’s more too it that that. There are advantages to wealth that go beyond encouraging children to study instead of partying. Things like going to a good school, not having to work through high school, not dealing with money stress in general.

And I don’t know that we necessarily want to encourage people to “sacrifice their teenage years” by rewarding people who do so. I did well on the SAT, and I didn’t spend all my time partying. But I definitely don’t feel like I sacrificed my teenage years.

I certainly don’t want my children to look back on their childhood like that.

That’s the point of the entire argument. Elite schools don’t go by scores and grades alone.

Parents who sent their kids to cram school, or tutoring or whatever, and kids with perfect scores are mad that schools aren’t basing admissions solely on scores and grades.

What it boils down to is that Asian American kids are outperforming most other groups on the SAT for whatever reason. Elite colleges don’t want student bodies that are 70% Asian American.

Specifically 1-3 hours a week for a few months isn’t enough to dramatically improve the average score.

That’s all the referenced studies show.

That doesn’t mean that the SAT isn’t “coachable” with much intensive efforts, or that more minimal efforts don’t result in large improvements for some subset of test takers.

1. The results you list are just average. There could be a bimodal distribution.

2. What those studies call coaching isn’t remotely comparable to years of 20 hour a week cram school.

3. Of course the SAT is coachable. How do you think you learn the math techniques and vocabulary in the first place?

If it’s not possible to increase your vocabulary, how do people learn new languages?

4. The percentage of students who make a perfect score on a similar test, the ACT, has increased by 5x in the last five years while the average score has only risen slightly.

Clearly a subset of test takers has figured out a way to reliably prep for the test.

I'm sure that makes a small difference, but I doubt it's enough to meaningfully change the conclusion.

1. The BLS knows this, so they get their data from multiple services--not just government agencies.

2. The IRS knows this, so are more likely to audit people who work in industries that receive tip income.

3. If the BLS numbers were vastly underestimating bartender income because of unreported cash tips, you would expect bartender income to have risen much faster than other similar low wage jobs over the last 20 years as cash has become less common. This hasn't happened.

Tipping isn't going away just because waitstaff make minimum wage. It's too ingrained in the culture. As evidence tipping still exists and hasn't declined in the areas where those laws are already in effect.

I'm sure there are bartenders making 6 figures, but according to the BLS, the 90th percentile make $40k with tips.

The median pay is $10. That's lower than minimum wage in a lot of places, so I doubt that many bartenders are against minimum wage before tips (none of the ones I know are).

I don't like the concept of tipping in the first place (although I make an effort to tip well anyway), but I definitely do not want tipping expanded any further than it already is.

If restaurant owners can create an even more opaque pricing structure that shifts the rest of their employee costs onto customers they will.

The OP said production internet services. If you write desktop software that only runs locally it tends not to require someone being on cal 24/7.

It’s completely insane that your location decided to close all the trails. We took a 4,000 mile hiking road trip (up the east coast of the US and back down more inland) a few months ago and we never ran into a closed hiking trail.

Maybe not every train, but an individual train route could easily significantly change in frequency for a few hours a day, or more likely the train schedule could get worse to the point where you can’t leave until later.

Or the office could move, you could move, your office could change the time of the last meeting of the day etc...

Relying on the granularity of the train schedule to enforce work life balance is brittle at best, and it’s a terrible argument against WFH.

But a hiking group primarily socializes while hiking. A small group, social distancing outside is a very low risk activity that should allowed in most of the world outside periods of strict lockdowns.

Maybe in the OP’s case it’s the kind of thing where you take a group bus to a trail, and that’s the problem.

In your specific case the problem was exacerbated by WFH. But if your boss doesn’t have a problem with making people work from 7am to 6pm, the problem is the boss.

They could have at any time decided to do the same thing in the office, and many offices do work that way.

If you wouldn’t stay at your company if they required you to be in office 12 hours a day, why would you stay around if they require 12 hour WFH?

Relying on something like train timings to enforce your work life balance isn’t a reliable strategy.

What if the trains started running every 5 minutes? Or what if you moved a little closer and you could walk?

If you don’t want to use willpower to stop working you could add some structured activity (after COVID) like a workout class after work. Or you could generally just make more deliberate plans for you after work time.

Or my personal favorite. Start a hobby you like more than work.

I’ve been the principal engineer for my company, remotely for the past 4 years. I’ve never had a problem with it.

There are tradeoffs, but just the fact that nearly every single one of our conversations are documented and searchable is worth it alone.

You can’t just walk over to talk to someone anytime the notion strikes you, but you shouldn’t have been doing that anyway. I love to talk, and I love to think out loud. But every time I do that, I’m asking someone else to divert there attention to me.

Being remote allows people to turn off the majority of the interruptions and get work done when they need to.

And it forces me to spend more time thinking about my communications. Instead of just constantly walking over to people the moment an idea pops into my head.

All of those are 100% true, but they are very specific to the pandemic (for most people for most of the year), not something relevant in the more generalized discussion of WFH.

You can’t go hiking where you live? Hiking is a very low risk activity.

Plenty of people love Star Trek Discovery. It’s successful enough that it’s already been renewed for a 4th season by CBS.

Do you think that systemic racism exists? That is do you believe Black people when they tell you their life is harder because they are Black. Do you believe that job interviewers discriminate against Black sounding names? Do you believe that Black people receive harsher prison sentences all else being equal? Do you believe that Black people have a harder time renting homes? Because there's hard evidence to back up every single one of those claims.

All of those issues and more combine to create a reinforcing feedback loop that creates a permanent lower class within our society, that erodes trust in institutions, increases crime and, directly impacts our economic development.

What specifically do you propose we do to end that feedback loop?

2. This isn't about blame. It's about ameliorating an issue that harms all of us. And it's only indirectly about our ancestors. There are people alive today who were directly harmed by the laws that were put in place by the municipalities, states, and the country they live in today. People who were never compensated for that harm.

3. Pretending that you "don't see color" is an absurd response. Of course you do. Everyone does and everyone has implicit biases. The key is to recognize those biases, and sometimes to consciously correct for them.

4. > The system is nothing but laws.

That is naïve to the point of absurdity. I'm sure if you think about it you can come up with a few counter examples.

5. If anecdotes are useless, why do you keep brining them up?

> The travel ban is not what you claim it was, but perhaps you should look at how members of that religion handle racism first.

The travel ban that Trump called for during the campaign that won him votes was much more expansive than what was actually enacted. He also suggested that we should register all Muslims.

A survey in 2016 said that 40% of Americans called for a registry of Muslims, the results were heavily correlated with party affiliation. I'm going to give you 1 guess on which party favored registering Muslims.

>but perhaps you should look at how members of that religion handle racism first. You won't find any multiculturalism there, that's for sure.

What happened to treating people as individuals not as part of a group?

6. >It's unique to only the US and Canada, not the norm, and repealing it would solve many problems.

I thought the US was an amazing unique melting pot? There are many conservative and liberal argument for how the melting pot is helped by birthright citizenship.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/birthright-citi...

7. You really need to read a bit more history if you think this is true. Look up the 1965 immigration act.

> America is a melting pot and has been for centuries.

The Chinese exclusion act, and country based immigration quotas favoring European countries were the norm through most of that time.

>there are no serious attempts to stop it.

Here's a conversation between Steven Bannon and Stephen Miller (Trump's current lead advisor on immigration) --------------------------------- “Isn’t the beating heart of this problem, the real beating heart of it, of what we gotta get sorted here, not illegal immigration?” Bannon asked Miller. “As horrific as that is, and it’s horrific, don’t we have a problem? We’ve looked the other way on this legal immigration that’s kinda overwhelmed the country?”

Bannon goes on to decry the “oligarchs” of Silicon Valley and Washington and call the number of immigrants in the United States “scary.”

Miller’s response is affirmation: “The history of America is that an immigration-on period is followed by an immigration-off period,” he said. -----------------------------------

Bannon and Miller are both obsessed with preserving "western"(European) culture. If you aren't from a European country, you very likely would not have been allowed here had Steven Miller been in power when you immigrated.

That’s an interesting debate tactic you have there. Walk into a discussion full of smugness and unearned confidence. Resolutely make generalizations about hundreds of millions of people with no more evidence than “you have some internet friends”. And clutch your pearls like a self satisfied concern troll when you get called an asshole.

You really sound a lot like your imagined liberal bogeymen with your patronizing concern my friend.

1. The person I'm replying to has never lived here so they have no idea what they're talking about.

2. Group A systematically robbed and cheated Group B for centuries. Now that Group B has some political power and legal protections, Group A wants to pretend that "they can't see color."

Despite the fact that Group B has 1/10th the household wealth of Group A, are more likely to be arrested for committing the same crimes, receive harsher sentences for the same convictions, are much less likely to receive callbacks for job interviews, less likely to be hired for jobs they are equally qualified for, less likely to be approved for mortgages, less likely to be rented to, their dialect is considered linguistically inferior to Group A's, they are less likely to be picked up by a cab, and their children are even disciplined more harshly in fricking kindergarten.

Can you not understand how Group B isn't thrilled with the status quo with Group A's insistence that "they can't see color."

>something that you're accusing the "rednecks" of attempting to do.

1. They don't need to change laws to take race into account, because the system already does that for them.

2. Every single Trump supporting "redneck" I know supported the Muslim ban. And nearly every single Trump supporting "redneck" I know supported requiring Muslims to register with the government for tracking. According to survey's about 10% of them don't approve of mixed race marriages. And I guarantee from personal experience that the real number is much higher than that.

The only reason they don't get to enact the laws they want to, and the only reason they are afraid to publicly espouse their racist beliefs is because of the hard work of those left leaning Americans you despise.

Those left leaning American's you hate so much are the only reason most non white immigrants are even allowed to be in this country in the first place. The majority of my family doesn't even support birthright citizenship and would remove any non white citizens who's parents haven't been in this country more than a few generations if they could.

Are you having a problem following the conversation, or do you just purposely respond to completely different points than those made in the thread you reply to?

>America, the land of opportunity, is an incredible place for all cultures, and the best of its kind in the world. If you're looking for utopia, you won't find it anywhere, but this is nowhere near the hell you claim it to be. I would advise you experience what racism really is like when it's the entire nation and government like in the Middle East or even countries like Japan. Maybe that perspective would help.

Stop trying argue with strawmen. No one is saying that America is more racist than the middle east. It is in fact possible to be less racist than Saudi Arabia and still have racist elements.

The context of this discussion is about comparative racism between different segments of the American population. It has nothing to do with America's international position on the racism scale.

Maybe because your entire argument boils down to “Actually the people that say they want to end racism are the real American racists. The straight up racists aren’t that bad. I know I really don’t have much experience to base that claim on but I know some American liberals on the internet.”

If you make claims like that, people on the internet who have experience with actual racists will call you on your shit. They will attack you because you are acting like a complete ass. And then you will sit around smugly using those attacks to build on your confirmation bias.

Ever wonder why you keep attracting liberal assholes? If you meet an asshole in the morning, you met an asshole. If you meet assholes all day long, you’re the asshole.

> Some "rednecks" in a small town is not indicative of the entire country,

Neither is some asshole liberal you ran into once. Nor is the caricature of "Liberal elites" you read about in the National Review.

>nor would you rather live in another country where that's the national norm.

Who said I'd rather live in another country. You seem to be having the argument you'd like to be having rather than actually participating in a conversation.

>The issue with immigration policy has been stopping illegal entry and ensuring the rest are valuable contributors to society.

I'm sorry but if you aren't considered part of the in group, White Trump supporters won't admit this to you, but as a group they are terrified by the demographic changes in the country. Fear that their culture is being erased is the primary impetus behind their call for decreased immigration. Law and order, and calling for a points base immigration system is simply more palatable than outright calling for only letting in Whites.

>Nobody is stopped because of their national origin, nor has that ever been proposed.

Trump has instituted Travel bans multiple times. During his campaign he called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." He also reportedly said "Haiti? Why do we want people from Haiti here? Why do we want these people from all these shithole countries here? We should have more people from places like Norway.”

His advisors and and multiple national Republican politicians have said they are afraid that White birth rates are lower than immigrant birth rates.

>The USA still continues its green card lottery system which gives out many free slots every year. Very few countries come anywhere close to matching the immigration strength or desire of the USA.

Again this isn't from lack of trying. Trump isn't a dictator, there are limits to what he could accomplish in 4 years.

I'm sorry but you still have no idea what you're talking about. 'I know some Americans' doesn't cut it. Unless you've lived in Trump country for a while there's no way you've met enough hard core Trump supporting rednecks to make any kind of accurate generalization about them.

>Your comment reinforce my point instead of refuting it.

I live in one of the reddest states in the nation and come from a family full of those Alabama rednecks you talk about, and I voted Republican in every election before 2016. If you think I represent the liberal elite, you're dead wrong.

Good luck trying to get along with the rednecks you're talking about. Most of them don't want you here, and if they had their preferred immigration policy you wouldn't be allowed in. Many of the family members I talked about wouldn't even allow you to marry a person outside your race, and they'd prefer if schools were still segregated. Though they'd never say that to an outsider's face. And the majority of them outright support requiring Muslims to register with the government so they can be tracked.

This has nothing to do with the South btw, it's more of an urban rural divide.

live in a bright red state and the Alabama red necks make up a large percentage of my family.

Believe me if you lived in a small town with them you’d change your mind about which type of racism you prefer pretty quickly.

> Ironically, living in America usually means you have no idea about the level of violence, racism and suffering around the world, and lack much of the perspective of immigrants who sacrifice so much to move here.

It’s interesting you bring that up because if you come from a “shit hole” country, you wouldn’t even be allowed to be here if those voters had their way.

>If I were to live in America, I think I would happier and more accepted among the "racist rednecks" in Idaho or Alabama that among the NY/SF liberal crowd.

Since you don’t live in America, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and you should stop talking like you do.

It’s in phase 3 now. I believe all of the above poster is mentioning happened in phase 3 as well.

My point is that there are plenty of electrical engineers, computer engineers etc... who never take the FE or PE exam.