Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #108194 > unrolled thread

Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-05-05 14:59 -0400
    Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language beliavsky@aol.com - 2016-05-06 13:35 -0700
      Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-05-06 14:07 -0700
        Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language beliavsky@aol.com - 2016-05-06 14:45 -0700
          Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language alex wright <wrightalexw@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 18:20 -0400
      Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-07 13:33 +1000
        Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 14:04 +1000
        Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language John Wong <gokoproject@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 00:25 -0400
        Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-07 18:43 +1200
          Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 00:07 -0700
          Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Stephen Hansen <me+python@ixokai.io> - 2016-05-07 01:02 -0700
            Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-05-07 23:52 +1200
            Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language beliavsky@aol.com - 2016-05-08 03:22 -0700
              Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-09 02:27 +1000
                Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-08 10:34 -0700
          Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-07 11:50 +0300
            Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-08 01:16 +1000
              Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 01:38 +1000
                Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-07 18:57 +0300
                  Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-08 22:08 +1000
                    Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 08:09 -0700
                      Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-08 10:25 -0700
                      Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2016-05-08 12:48 -0500
                      Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 08:17 +1000
              Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-07 18:48 +0300
              Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-07 14:40 -0400
                Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-08 12:43 +1000
                  Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 13:15 +1000
                    Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-08 09:58 +0300
                      Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> - 2016-05-08 10:14 -0700
                  Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-05-07 23:40 -0400
                    Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-05-08 10:06 +0300
                    Re: Python is an Equal Opportunity Programming Language Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-05-08 19:07 +1000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#108359

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 5:38:18 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2016 01:57 am, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> 
> > A functional, enlightened, prosperous democracy is a very recent
> > historical anomaly. You don't want to jeopardize it naïvely.
> 
> Perhaps by implementing per-country limits on immigration?
> 
> *wink*

See:   
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/ivy-league-economist-interrogated-for-doing-math-on-american-airlines-flight/

Closing line: "In America today, the only thing more terrifying than foreigners is...math."


Wonder how close to terrorists pythonists are

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108375

On 5/8/2016 8:09 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> See:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/ivy-league-economist-interrogated-for-doing-math-on-american-airlines-flight/
>
> Closing line: "In America today, the only thing more terrifying than foreigners is...math."
>
>
> Wonder how close to terrorists pythonists are

I wonder how many Americans are aware that they use Hindu-Arabic 
numerals in daily transactions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system

Thank you,

Chris R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108378

On ⅯⅯⅩⅥ-Ⅴ-Ⅷ Ⅹ:ⅩⅩⅤ, Christopher Reimer wrote:
>> Closing line: "In America today, the only thing more terrifying
>> than foreigners is...math."
>> Wonder how close to terrorists pythonists are
> 
> I wonder how many Americans are aware that they use Hindu-Arabic 
> numerals in daily transactions?

There must be Ⅽ good reasons not to succumb to those "terrorist"
numerals.  I can name Ⅰ or Ⅱ other numeric systems that are just as
useful. ;-)

-tkc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108395

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:48 AM, Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> wrote:
> On ⅯⅯⅩⅥ-Ⅴ-Ⅷ Ⅹ:ⅩⅩⅤ, Christopher Reimer wrote:
>>> Closing line: "In America today, the only thing more terrifying
>>> than foreigners is...math."
>>> Wonder how close to terrorists pythonists are
>>
>> I wonder how many Americans are aware that they use Hindu-Arabic
>> numerals in daily transactions?
>
> There must be Ⅽ good reasons not to succumb to those "terrorist"
> numerals.  I can name Ⅰ or Ⅱ other numeric systems that are just as
> useful. ;-)

Hands up those of you who are fluent in Latin. *looks around* Hmm, a
couple! More than I thought.

Hands up those of you who've written Python scripts. Yep, good, good,
now I know you're all awake, at least.

Now, hands up those who've used Latin script.

Hmm, curious.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108272

Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info>:

> On Sat, 7 May 2016 06:50 pm, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Indian and Chinese H1B holders are getting screwed, which is of course
>> the whole objective of the country limits.
>
> The *whole* objective? You don't think that *part* of the objective
> may be to ensure that citizens of countries other than India and China
> can get green cards too? Given that there are only a limited number of
> green cards available overall, without per country limits it is
> conceivable that they would all go to people from one or two
> countries.

And? If 40% of the humanity happens to live in China and India, they
should have a 40% chance at getting in if you were targeting some kind
of ethnic fairness.

However, the whole ethnic consideration is silly at best, cruel at
worst. You should only look at human beings as individuals.

> Perhaps the country limits are also in place, at least in part, to
> manage the rate at which new immigrants arrive in the country?

No, there's a separate annual total maximum.

> It's not that country limits act as a permanent barrier to getting a green
> card. It's a per year limit, and there is a first-come, first-served queue
> system in place. If an applicant is otherwise eligible for a green card,
> the country limit will only delay, not prevent, them from getting a green
> card.

If you do the math, the wait times grow without bounds. In the end, they
may grow longer than your lifetime.

>> How this relates to Python? Well, I bet thousands of Asian Python coders
>> in the United States are under the threat of deportation because of
>> country limits.
>
> I'm not sure why you think that "H1B holders" are at threat of
> deportation. So long as they meet the conditions of the work visa,
> they are entirely entitled to stay and work in the country.

An H1B is only good for 6 years max. From then on, you'll be out of
status. You might still get some kind of provision to stay while you
wait for your paperwork to be processed, but as far as I know, you are
not allowed to exit the United States while you wait.

I was an H1B holder. Because of an amusing bureaucratic adventure (the
INS lost my paperwork and would only lift a finger after a court found
the United States in contempt), I ran out of status and was subject to
deportation for a couple of years. Luckily, I was part of a special
legal provision that allowed you to get a green card as long as you had
started the process before a particular date. One of the final steps in
the process was to file the actual green card application. One of the
questions on the application form was: "Are you in the country legally?"
I answered, "No," and the form instructed me to add $1,000 to the
application fee.

My process took five years.

> There are good arguments for removing the H1B programme. It's used to
> flood the market with relatively cheap labour made up of people who
> are less likely to unionise and more likely to put up with bad
> treatment, and drive wages down for others in the same field. But the
> inequities of the H1B programme are not caused by the existence of
> country limits.

I don't think I ever ran into that phenomenon. It's of course difficult
to measure based on individual experiences alone.

What I can tell from the current labor market in Finland is that it is
very difficult to find any*body*, let alone any native, who'd *apply*
for decent, run-of-the-mill software development jobs. And Finland is in
a slump, with constant news of IT layoffs, especially considering the
ongoing Nokia/Microsoft implosion. It's really weird.

I have never run into a situation where the employer has decided to hire
a software developer based on a salary bidding competition. What
companies are doing is they are outsourcing whole projects or products
to, say, Latvian or Russian companies, but that has little to do with
guest worker policies.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108278

On Sat, May 7, 2016, at 11:16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Indian and Chinese H1B holders are getting screwed, which is of course
> > the whole objective of the country limits.
> 
> The *whole* objective? You don't think that *part* of the objective may
> be
> to ensure that citizens of countries other than India and China can get
> green cards too?

If not for the quotas, a citizen of some other country would have an
equal chance to get a green card as a citizen of India or China. This is
a much simpler question than Python convention attendees, since there
are *in fact* more Indian or Chinese people in actual existence than
citizens of any given other country, which can't be blamed on any form
of discrimination.

> Perhaps the country limits are also in place, at least in part, to manage
> the rate at which new immigrants arrive in the country?

That's immaterial, we're not talking about a limit on the total number
of visas.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108320

On Sun, 8 May 2016 04:40 am, Random832 wrote:

> On Sat, May 7, 2016, at 11:16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > Indian and Chinese H1B holders are getting screwed, which is of course
>> > the whole objective of the country limits.
>> 
>> The *whole* objective? You don't think that *part* of the objective may
>> be
>> to ensure that citizens of countries other than India and China can get
>> green cards too?
> 
> If not for the quotas, a citizen of some other country would have an
> equal chance to get a green card as a citizen of India or China. 

If you have a big hat with 5,000,000 tickets marked "Indian", and 500
tickets marked "Finish", and you stick your hand in the hat and rummage
around and pick a random ticket, do you really think that you have an equal
chance of selecting an Indian ticket and a Finish ticket?


> This is 
> a much simpler question than Python convention attendees, since there
> are *in fact* more Indian or Chinese people in actual existence than
> citizens of any given other country, which can't be blamed on any form
> of discrimination.
> 
>> Perhaps the country limits are also in place, at least in part, to manage
>> the rate at which new immigrants arrive in the country?
> 
> That's immaterial, we're not talking about a limit on the total number
> of visas.

How is it immaterial? Regardless of the limit on the total number of visas,
per country limits put an upper limit how quickly new immigrants from any
one specific country can arrive.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108324

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2016 04:40 am, Random832 wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016, at 11:16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> > Indian and Chinese H1B holders are getting screwed, which is of course
>>> > the whole objective of the country limits.
>>>
>>> The *whole* objective? You don't think that *part* of the objective may
>>> be
>>> to ensure that citizens of countries other than India and China can get
>>> green cards too?
>>
>> If not for the quotas, a citizen of some other country would have an
>> equal chance to get a green card as a citizen of India or China.
>
> If you have a big hat with 5,000,000 tickets marked "Indian", and 500
> tickets marked "Finish", and you stick your hand in the hat and rummage
> around and pick a random ticket, do you really think that you have an equal
> chance of selecting an Indian ticket and a Finish ticket?

So the question is: Do we care about country equality or individual
equality? You can't have both. As soon as you divide a population up
into unequal parts, you have to figure out what you actually mean by
"equality". For instance, should the states in a country have equal
representation in federal government, or should their sway be affected
by the number of people in each state? In a Wikipedia article, how
much space should be given to a narrowly-held view compared to a
widely-held one? In a summary of a thousand people's comments, how
many favorable ones and how many unfavorable ones should be quoted? In
an extreme case of the latter, suppose you have room to post ten
comments, and of the thousand, only four were against. Do you post all
four, and restrict the other side to four to be "fair", or do you post
one of them against nine "yea" comments, or do you pick randomly from
the entire pool of questions (which would give you a 4% chance of
drawing even a single negative comment)? Which is "fairest"?

If two people both want to enter the country, it's *obviously* right
that they should have equal chance as individuals. And it's equally
obvious that it's not fair to let one highly populous country push out
every other country. Somewhere in there you need math and decisions.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108341

Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:

> So the question is: Do we care about country equality or individual
> equality? You can't have both.

That's why there's been a long-standing initiative to split California
into multiple states:

  <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias>

Each state gets two senate seats, and California, being the most
populous state, suffers.

The biggest analogous outrage in the world, though, is that of the
International Football Association Board (IFAB), where the [English]
Football Association, the Scottish Football Association, the Football
Association of Wales and the [Northern] Irish Football Association each
have a vote while the ROW (aka FIFA) has four votes.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108373

On 5/7/2016 11:58 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>
>> So the question is: Do we care about country equality or individual
>> equality? You can't have both.
> That's why there's been a long-standing initiative to split California
> into multiple states:
>
>    <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias>
>
> Each state gets two senate seats, and California, being the most
> populous state, suffers.

The Six Californias is a proposal to divide up the 54 electoral votes 
that California has in presidential elections, which is a solidly blue 
state for the Democrats. Half the population lives in the Los Angeles, 
San Francisco and Sacramento regions. Put these three regions into 
separate states, the other three regions will become solidly red states 
for the Republicans and tilt the presidential elections in their favor. 
The proposal is a solution for the underlying problem that the 
California Republican Party has more in common with the endangered 
spotted owl than one-tenth of the US population. It's easier to redraw 
the lines than compete for votes.

Thank you,

Chris R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108329

On Sat, May 7, 2016, at 22:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > If not for the quotas, a citizen of some other country would have an
> > equal chance to get a green card as a citizen of India or China. 
> 
> If you have a big hat with 5,000,000 tickets marked "Indian", and 500
> tickets marked "Finish", and you stick your hand in the hat and rummage
> around and pick a random ticket, do you really think that you have an
> equal
> chance of selecting an Indian ticket and a Finish ticket?

But that's not what it is. You would have, say, 1,000 tickets labeled
"green card" and 100,000 tickets labeled "no green card", and  (say)
12,000 Indian people and 50 Finnish people each get their turn drawing
from that same bucket. In your version, the Finnish people draw from a
bucket with 500 green card tickets and no "no green card" cards, and the
Indian people draw from a bucket with 500 green card tickets and 11,500
"no green card" tickets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108342

Random832 <random832@fastmail.com>:
> But that's not what it is. You would have, say, 1,000 tickets labeled
> "green card" and 100,000 tickets labeled "no green card", and (say)
> 12,000 Indian people and 50 Finnish people each get their turn drawing
> from that same bucket. In your version, the Finnish people draw from a
> bucket with 500 green card tickets and no "no green card" cards, and
> the Indian people draw from a bucket with 500 green card tickets and
> 11,500 "no green card" tickets.

Or:

   In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to
   sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

   <URL: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France>


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#108344

On Sunday 08 May 2016 13:40, Random832 wrote:

> On Sat, May 7, 2016, at 22:43, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > If not for the quotas, a citizen of some other country would have an
>> > equal chance to get a green card as a citizen of India or China.
>> 
>> If you have a big hat with 5,000,000 tickets marked "Indian", and 500
>> tickets marked "Finish", and you stick your hand in the hat and rummage
>> around and pick a random ticket, do you really think that you have an
>> equal
>> chance of selecting an Indian ticket and a Finish ticket?
> 
> But that's not what it is. You would have, say, 1,000 tickets labeled
> "green card" and 100,000 tickets labeled "no green card", and  (say)
> 12,000 Indian people and 50 Finnish people each get their turn drawing
> from that same bucket. In your version, the Finnish people draw from a
> bucket with 500 green card tickets and no "no green card" cards, and the
> Indian people draw from a bucket with 500 green card tickets and 11,500
> "no green card" tickets.


That's not how the green card works.

The US immigration system is pretty messed up in many ways, being the overly 
complex and confusing product of many competing and contradictory 
requirements[1], but there's nothing even vaguely analogous to being 
randomly denied entry by pure chance. There's no such thing as "No Green 
Card" tickets that you can draw -- in principle at least, if you are refused 
entry, it is because you do not meet the requirements for a visa. (E.g. you 
have AIDS, are a known trafficker or smuggler, a member of the Communist 
Party in certain countries, have lied to the immigration officer, have 
publicly called for the violent overthrow of the US government, or are 
unable to provide sufficient evidence that you will go back home when your 
visa expires.)

Aside: immigration officials have great power in deciding who meets the 
requirement for a visa, and the US government and courts are unable to over-
rule them except in a matter of the interpretation of the law. With one 
exception: the rules for banning terrorists can be over-ruled by the 
Attorney-General and the Secretary of State. In other words, of all the 
things which a person might do to render themselves ineligible for a visa 
into the USA, there is no higher power able to over-ride the immigration 
official, *except* that if you fail the "No Terrorists Allowed" rule, the A-
G and Sec of State, acting together, can choose to grant you an exemption.

Go figure.

(The intent, I presume, is that if somebody like General Pinochet of Chile 
is found guilty of crimes against humanity by the European courts, which 
would count as terrorism, the US could still grant him a visa.)



[1] Some businesses want easy immigration, so they can drive down the cost 
of skilled or unskilled labour; some people want to prohibit work visas, to 
keep wages high; some want to allow people of diverse nationalities into the 
melting pot, while others want to keep the national character as it is 
without being overrun by large numbers of foreigners with strange or 
terrible customs and practices like sati, female genital mutilation[2], or 
effective social safety nets.


[2] Apparently *male* genital mutilation is perfectly acceptable.


-- 
Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web