coolplants

Stop gaming our system, stop recommending others game our system.

Nothing you provided refuted my point. Governments are under no authoritative obligation to obey international law, they do so voluntarily.

The EU does have sovereignty over its member governments. EU statutes take precedence over member governments statutes in nearly every area of life that matters. The UK government cannot override any EU law except through leaving the EU altogether. A government that doesn’t have full control over policy in its own territory is not a sovereign government.

The EHCR is not a sovereign supernational political entity. It’s an agreement to which the UK govt. voluntarily conforms.

The UK merely being able to make voluntary agreements with other countries is not a loss of sovereignty. Being a member of the EU, however, cedes supreme lawmaking power to a higher political institution.

I object to gaming our immigration system in order to get priority over people who aren’t gaming the system. Do you support gaming our system?

You’re right, a relatively large influx of foreign workers of any skill level is harmful to all people, but especially the local people if it causes a reduction in wages.

If the cost of goods increases, it won’t likely be severe since it serves the entire population while only a small percentage of the population produce the goods. Also changing prices affects demand independently from cost of production.

Dictate our own immigration quotas, dictate who can fish in our waters, not subsidize Southern Europe, etc.

Are you a Londoner? This does not sound at all in touch with people in the north.

Well I think he was hostile and resentful and that’s not cool. I also sincerely and in good faith can’t wait to see less people exploited for cheap labor and more of my fellow Britons employed with a decent wage for once.

401K is not “gaming the system.” The IRS explicitly treats it specially for the purposes of allowing hardworking seniors to retire in dignity. The immigration law does not make explicit allowances for people to game it. If less people gamed the system, it would be more fair for the rest of us who do things the right way without manipulating.

All we know is that UK nationals aren’t willing to do those jobs at the wages being offered. If employers raise wages to something liveable and decent then it’s reasonable to assume employment in those areas will increase.

You’re not a lawyer. Are you defending gaming our immigration system?

Britain did not rule the EU, nor did it have sovereignty over the EU. The EU is a separate political entity from the UK, and had sovereignty over the government of the UK.

International law isn’t enforceable and doesn’t supersede sovereignty like the EU does. Plenty of countries violate international law (most of them) with nearly no repercussions.

> There's an easy way to game the system

Please stop subverting our laws, you’re making it worse for people who don’t break the law.

I think it’s a bit more disingenuous to compare the magnitudes of 2^64 and 23 for the sake of argument, as if 2^64 isn’t practically asymptotic.

Brexit solves them not being a sovereign nation. Sovereignty from foreign rule is over what wars are fought, no rational actor would give it away without an existential threat.

Why can’t you wait to see pro-brexit teams picking fruit, etc.? Are you implying that low-skill jobs are degrading/undignified?

Even if the standard required O(1) it would conform because the loop is bounded (<= 23), it’s not O(n)

In my experience that has not been the case. Either unacceptably slow computation or High memory usage.

It’s not a problem until it is, then it’s a pretty obnoxious problem.

IMO I’d rather just write idiomatic C++ then non-idiomatic ghc-specific Haskell code if performance is important, and it nearly always is.

Yes I have many many hours of experience with Haskell and familiarity with functional programming. I’m speaking from experience.

Optimizing Haskell code is a huge downer. The experience of having to throw away beautiful code and rewrite it in C++ or non-idiomatic Haskell purely for performance reasons is extremely disheartening. I don’t recommend it.

Big issue with Haskell adoption is the number of hoops you have to jump through to write efficient code in it. Haskell abstracts away the idea of a procedural VM implementing the code underneath, but you often need that exposed to finagle your code into a form that’s efficient.

Haskell programming ethos is opposed to that, the language wants people to focus on the semantics of computation not the method. Yet we must be able to specify computation method if we want our programs to operate efficiently.

The truth is that the Haskell compiler will never be able to automatically translate idiomatic Haskell code into something that’s competitive with C in the common case. once you start finagling your haskell code to compete with C you’ve negated the point of using Haskell to begin with.

Plants have had billions of years to evolve on Earth, if there were a more efficient way to photosynthesize, wouldn’t it have emerged by now through natural selection?

For instance, I would imagine that competition in the Amazon amongst plants is high enough to have driven a photosynthesis efficiency arms race. Do different plants differ significantly in their photosynthesis efficiency? If so I would study the genomes of plants in the Amazon, or similarly competitive environments.