I'm an Irish-American myself! That's not what I'm saying at all!
I'm pointing out that racism has existed towards Irish-Americans and that racism still does exist towards African-Americans (and essentially every ethnic group in the US).
For context, here is my original comment, since it is now censored by those who disagree:
"It will be very hard to tear down the walls of peaceful homogeneity, since Japan takes so many steps to preserve its culture.
Of the very few people who successfully naturalize as Japanese citizens, all of them have to legally take on a Japanese name. Japanese citizens are proud of their demographic and seek to maintain it.
This has worked very well for Japan. In all heterogeneous countries, you see strife for decades at a minimum---see the Irish immigrants in America in the 19th and 20th centuries---and centuries or eternity at a maximum---see African Americans.
There is a threshold of difference between ethnic groups where, if you cross this threshold, turmoil and hatred and discrimination will fester, no matter what. This can be seen in America, with its numerous, very distinct ethnic groups, and in Europe, with its massive influx of Middle Eastern and African immigrants. Regardless of how many want to get along, a large portion of both sides will inevitably hate each other, and will vote accordingly.
I'm not sure what the solution is to heterogeneous societies. I think it can be worked out. But it is insanity to claim multiculturalism works in its current state and homogeneity does not. All of the most peaceful, successful societies the world has seen so far have been largely homogeneous. Japan is a fantastic modern example."
If you are a black person looking sketchy in certain neighborhoods of Chicago, a cop is going to detain you. If you are a white person in certain neighborhoods, there is a very good chance you will be mugged or even killed because you are white.
If you deny this, you're denying that racism exists in the US.
I don't understand your point about women in Japan. Regardless, the issues you point out are essentially irrelevant when compared to the massive issues the US has seen because of multiculturalism. Do you hate Trump? Well, the only reason he's in power is because someone from a different culture than yours voted him in.
I'd much rather live in Japan as a Japanese person or in Switzerland as a "Swiss" than in a country where my demographic is being overrun by another.
I truly hope Japan keeps its doors shut to foreigners seeking to move there. Today, you can walk down any of the streets of Tokyo without batting an eyelash. Try doing the same in Chicago.
It will be very hard to tear down the walls of peaceful homogeneity, since Japan takes so many steps to preserve its culture.
Of the very few people who successfully naturalize as Japanese citizens, all of them have to legally take on a Japanese name. Japanese citizens are proud of their demographic and seek to maintain it.
This has worked very well for Japan. In all heterogeneous countries, you see strife for decades at a minimum---see the Irish immigrants in America in the 19th and 20th centuries---and centuries or eternity at a maximum---see African Americans.
There is a threshold of difference between ethnic groups where, if you cross this threshold, turmoil and hatred and discrimination will fester, no matter what. This can be seen in America, with its numerous, very distinct ethnic groups, and in Europe, with its massive influx of Middle Eastern and African immigrants. Regardless of how many want to get along, a large portion of both sides will inevitably hate each other, and will vote accordingly.
I'm not sure what the solution is to heterogeneous societies. I think it can be worked out. But it is insanity to claim multiculturalism works in its current state and homogeneity does not. All of the most peaceful, successful societies the world has seen so far have been largely homogeneous. Japan is a fantastic modern example.
>How a tiny country with high government spending bred a large number of vibrant young businesses
The article then goes on to attribute almost all of Sweden's success to deregulation and anti-monopoly laws---i.e., less government intervention ∝ more startup success.
>"Fat hatred" as an epidemic has largely disappeared since 2015, for example.
It doesn't really matter, though. The great thing about the "fat hatred" epidemic is that voicing an opinion about it doesn't change hard truths.
Fat people will still face the consequences---good and bad---of their lifestyle choices. They will die earlier than the rest; They will burden the health care system more than the rest. But they may live happier lives.
The more interesting thing to examine is areas of society which have more significant negative externalities. Things like politics and ethics. Censoring one political agenda and promoting another can cause widespread changes which affect even those who do not agree. Reverting those changes is either impossible, or will take decades.
For example, I can choose not to be fat. The marginal benefit of promoting a healthy lifestyle is distant and probably negligible: perhaps insurance premiums will drop slightly in the future because everyone is healthier on average.
But do I really care about that? No. The marginal benefit of actually living a healthy lifestyle is far greater for me than vocally promoting it.
On the other hand, passing laws which greatly increase immigration will absolutely affect me. The averaged values of a society will change dramatically. Once it has happened, I have no way to combat it, other than to move to a more homogeneous society which shares my values.
We can see this even in the "most multi-cultural" place in the US. The Bay Area essentially self-segregates into primarily Indian towns, primarily Asian towns, etc. We also see hoardes of people moving out, because they do not appreciate the culture promoted by the wave of others moving in.
I personally know multiple people who chose lower compensation at Salesforce over higher compensation elsewhere specifically because there are more Indians at Salesforce. I also know people who refuse to work there because there are so many Indians.
I believe that censoring "hatred" is more akin to ignoring your problems than to solving them.
A huge portion of the people I've met in tech are class-A douche bags. They are obsessed with salary, or the fact that they work for X instead of Y. They are extremely elitist.
All of my friends who went to high school in the Bay Area have classmates who killed themselves over (lack of) prestige.
You won't see any of that in Iowa. It is a much more honest place. People work hard but aren't obsessed with where you want to college or how much money you make.
I would be genuinely sad if Apple or Google opened a SWE location in Iowa. The culture is basically the antithesis of the old Midwest.
>lobbying(bribery), capital concentration, anti-union legislation, anti-small business legislation
We've learned through the decades---and especially through the bailouts in the late 2000s---that slapping big business on the wrist is not enough to stop cronyism and government-enabled monopoly. The only way to eliminate that is to cut the snake off at its head; if there is no power to dole out, lobbying wouldn't exist.
If the government can't choose who succeeds and who fails, then only those who provide value can succeed. The only way to grow a business without a monopoly is to employ people (whether directly, or indirectly by investing capital).
>Ten years later, in 2015, Expedia awarded him $90 million worth of stock options as part of a long-term employment agreement, stating he would stay until 2020.
I'm not saying that your implementation of Git is bad. I didn't look at your code at all; it could be perfect, for all I know.
What I'm saying is you are not using git effectively. It is much easier to read and understand merge requests the smaller they are. Someone who didn't write the code should be able to go through your merge request in one sitting and understand all of its implications.
You may have written a good "implementation of Git," but you have also demonstrated that you don't know how to use it effectively.
>Means no more downtime,
no possibilities of censorship, be it from states or from companies.
Wrong.
>historically, patch-based systems have been very simple to learn and use, but slow, whereas snapshot-based systems can be extremely fast, but are usually hard to use for more than simple operations. As an example, cherry-picking is not intuitive in git/mercurial
How is cherry-picking not intuitive?
>Category theory has certainly been an inspiration for Pijul, but categories are neither algorithms nor data structures in themselves. In order to get the semantics we wanted, especially the handling of multiple files, rollbacks and unrecords, designing and implementing new algorithms and data structures was at least as useful as learning theoretical stuff.
Yet another thing with relatively little practically use, but hey, it uses category theory! It must be good! Oh look, it's also functional!
All of that said, props to Pierre-Étienne for putting in the time and effort to make this. He probably learned a lot.