Uh huh.

I thought this would have some decent insight as to memory usage or something.

Nope. It's just clinically stupid.

His first example is pretty much the same either way. I would say the "better" way is a little more involved to read. But it's nothing either way.

His second example makes unnecessary chains. He filters, then maps. When he could just use find and get the name like he does in the "steps" version.

Maybe we need fewerthingssmitty

Until it starts actually affecting their bottom line, how is it a misstep?

You yourself just admitted that you still use their products often.

Let's not ignore the fact that Jones's lawyers also completely messed up the discovery process by providing the prosecution with everything, including correspondence they had with Jones essentially admitting everything.

The prosecution even told them that they had completely fucked up and did they intend to send everything, and the defense said "Yes". Then when these messages were brought up in court, the defense tried to say that they couldn't be allowed because they were private correspondence between them and their client. To which the prosecution supplied their conversation with the defense showing that tried to make them aware and gave them a chance to correct their error.

It was a monumental fuck up.

An opinion would be something like "I think it's good that those kids were shot".

You could say that all day and people would not like you, but no one could do anything about it.

What Alex Jones did was deny reality. He suggested that the victims did not exist. He suggested the event did not happen and the grieving parents were government-hired actors. He riled up his listeners and effectively sent them after people. He did this in spite of knowing what he was saying on his show was not true. That was a large part of things, that Alex Jones was aware he was spreading misinformation.

Let's not pretend Alex Jones was doing was voicing a "difference of opinion".

What do you feel would be an appropriate punishment?

You've done a lot of whinging about how you feel the $1B is too much but that you do feel Alex Jones should be punished. Try staking out a position on what you think should happen instead of this continual "yes but not that" mess.

Honestly, I'm not sure about the $1B number, but it needed to at the very least be the amount he made from slandering them on InfoWars, otherwise he'd still have profited off it. That would probably bankrupt him either way.

The Onion also owns Clickhole

Used to. Sold to Cards Against Humanity.

Oh shit, was not aware.

If Jackson signed a three-year contract, then the Browns would be paying him for three years regardless. Even if they fired him. Then he could go work for another team and get paid by both teams.

Regardless, a coach is given some leeway their first season. They were coming off a 3-13 season, so 1-15 isn't that much of a drop. Jackson could make the case that he needed another season to build his ideal roster.

Then after going 0-16, they were on track to get Mayfield. He could have made the case that if he can't win with Mayfield, then maybe he just can't win.

Then he didn't win with Mayfield.

So, the car puts itself in a situation it can't resolve, then just abdicates responsibility at the last moment.

That's still not a good look.

And it does mean that FSD isn't to be as trusted as it is because if the car is putting itself in unresolvable situations, that's still a problem with FSD even if it isn't in direct control at the moment of impact.

Lincoln died in 1865. If you were born in the 50s, there’s a chance. But most people don’t live to 90.

For me, that person would be 115 when I was born for our lives to overlap.

Yes, history is closer than we think, but it still moves on

I mean, seems fair.

If I'm applying for a work visa where the work I'm doing would require me to know Japanese, I should know Japanese.

The key thing is that the ESI category includes a lot of work which you don't need to know Japanese. For example, software engineering jobs in Japan are often at either larger multinational companies or companies with enough presence outside of Japan that they have teams which are in English.

Japan has been on a recent anti-immigration kick via making visas harder and more expensive to get while also blaming them for all of their problems which, isn't really gonna work out for multiple reasons.

> software engineering jobs in Japan are often at either larger multinational companies or companies with enough presence outside of Japan that they have teams which are in English.

Just because you work in a multinational company where they have English speaking teams does not mean that you should not know the language. It is weird to assume that just because your first job is with an English speaking team you will always work with those teams or in that company at all.

What about daily life? Communication is a fundamental part of your activity as a civilian imo. Not understanding what is going on in a country without using some device to translate for you is not acceptable. Whether in a train or during an earthquake you must always be able to communicate.

> Not understanding what is going on in a country without using some device to translate for you is not acceptable

I knew an American guy who worked for Yahoo Japan in Tokyo for 10 years, and still had zero desire to learn the language.

But the law doesn't apply to all ESI jobs, just a subset which (ostensibly) do need to know Japanese.

This is true that it primarily applies to jobs which say they need to know Japanese as an attempt to prevent fraud, but realistically it doesn't actually accomplish anything beyond punishing honest businesses. Companies will just lie about the language requirements, and visa holders will have no incentive to properly report the fraud because they run the risk of their visa being revoked and kicked out of the country.

There are smarter ways to implement a language requirement, and really this is part of a trend of Japan tightening up restrictions on foreigners to try and solve a perceived problem by a fraction of a fraction of individuals.

See, I would have figured the "Specialist in Humanities" part of it would not include software development.

I just looked up the definition/qualifications for it and I misunderstood the bit.

I thought it was sub categories. Engineers, who are Specialists in Humanities, who are doing International Services.

But it's more like three different categories. Engineers OR Specialists in Humanities OR International Services.

It seems like they could just move International Services to its own category. (Based on the information in this link: https://portal.jp-mirai.org/en/work/s/highly-skilled-hr/giji...)

Teaching English is humanities though, not IS, so that doesn't work. (To clarify, teaching at any sort of private company. A K12 school has a dedicated Instructor class that can't be used for anything else.) And translating (which requires proficiency) is IS in some cases I think?

I also initially read it as "this is an example of the type of category that would have the requirement". Which doesn't preclude other categories also needing the requirement.

Why do you need that requirement be validated by people and at a level not connection to the place of work?

Presumably 1. the "places of work" are not doing sufficient validation, and therefore 2. regulation is needed when the non-regulated path is failing.

Unless the places of work are vetted, setting up a company to offer a job, and collect fees for offering said "jobs", would seem to be a simple way of committing fraud in that case.

So either you vet the companies offering those jobs, or you vet the visa applicants.

Because the government is responsible for border control and immigration?

The alternative is that the company must provide evidence, but I don't see how this is better.

To prevent fraud. It's the same reason governments have driving tests and tax or grant audits. If the government deferred to applicants for everything, there'd be no point in the application process.

Sure, there's a libertarian argument against limiting visas, imposing taxes, and issuing grants, but if you are going to, it requires some amount of enforcement to prevent rampant fraud.

This assumes the government itself isn't the one doing the fraud.

Are you kidding?

One of the first things the Anglosphere did was enforce language customs. I think you should review a bit of the history here. Why do you think the standard language for flight is English? To the extent that language acquisition happens at the office, it comes at the expense of actually getting work done.

>If I'm applying for a work visa where the work I'm doing would require me to know Japanese, I should know Japanese.

the naturalization act of 1906 and the immigration act of 1917 , in the US, were some of the hardest fought-for and controversial laws ever put in place.

The immigration act got vetod by 3 different sitting presidents in different forms , and the naturalization act included a 'free white persons & natives' clause that screwed over a lot of people.

It was pretty widely seen as a method to minimize poor working people. Both laws were used a ton during the commie red scare against citizens, and the 1917 law is essentially held responsible for the separation of families / 'port of entry tragedies' that separated families based on things like language.

now : i'm not saying that Japan is walking in the same foot-steps, just pointing out that language/culture exclusivity within legal spheres usually ends poorly for the people.

Ok, but neither of those are about work visas.

If I'm applying for a work visa, it's because I expect to be in that country to work, not as a permanent resident.

Without knowing the numbers, I'd wager that the majority of work Visas worldwide are "dual-intent", to use the USCIS parlance. Restrictions might be higher or lower in different countries, but there's generaly a path dor moving from a work visa to permanent residency.

> I expect to be in that country to work, not as a permanent resident.

Aren't work visas basically the only realistic path to permanent residency for most people?

If i were working in a country for many years, I would make some effort to learn to communicate with the other people who live in that country, before becoming a permanent resident. I understand this is very difficult; I've been studying Spanish every day for almost 2 years and I am nowhere near fluent. However, I suspect I would be further along if I lived somewhere where people commonly spoke Spanish.

There is nothing unreasonable about if you want to live in a country you should learn the language. I said in another comment that I’m learning Spanish now because I plan to move to a Spanish speaking country for retirement.

What is unreasonable prevention?