That is a total lie, the 14th amendment is absolutely clear and it was passed after the Civil War with the explicit point of granting citizenship to black slaves who, you'll notice, did not have citizen parents:
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
If illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," it's not possible to arrest them for a crime--that's what the phrase means.
The language excludes diplomats, foreign soldiers on US soil while they're fighting a war with the US, and (given the context of when the amendment was passed) Native Americans who hadn't yet been told that they were subjects of the US.
Yes, under current law, almost every baby born in the United States or its territories automatically becomes a US citizen at birth, regardless of the parents’ immigration status, except for certain children of foreign diplomats or enemy forces in hostile occupation.
Even if you're here without permission, you can be tried in our courts, and are subject to our jurisdiction. I'm willing to be swayed, but it has to be compelling. Diplomatic immunity or maybe recognized tribal member on recognized reservation when they were being disenfranchised are the only times I'm aware of where people are physically within the States and DC and not subject to the jurrisdiction thereof. Perhaps if a child is born in an internation vessel at port, or in a duty free shop or a customs free trade zone. Territories and such get squishy, it's usually not clearly stated when the term United States is meant to include those portions of the country that are not a State; but the 14th ammendment is understood not to apply to territories. Citizenship at birth is granted in some territories (at least Puerto Rico) by federal legislation.
That said, upthread you claimed:
> this is only true if your parents were citizens
And now you claim something about illegal aliens. There's a whole range of circumstances, some of which would have been uncontemplatable at the time of the 14th ammendment. If you are born in the US. You claim citizenship only if parentS are citizens. But if only one parent is a citizen, or both parents are permanent residents, or the parents are authorized visitors. For the historically impossible situation, what if the child is carried by a surrogate with authorized presence and the parents are non-citizens not present at birth ... that child is a US citizen by birth, and not included in your statement above.
You imply in your argument that finance mainly makes money from HFT("it's hard to me to see how market trading activity that provides a price for equities to the second") but this is simply not true, HFT and quants make up a very small portion of financial staff or profits.
My understanding is that the majority of big finance's income is from private equity or debt deals (pairing companies who need money with investors who have money), not from trading (there's very few people who we can confidently say are net winning traders and they don't scale).
No I didn't mean to draw attention to HFTs specifically, I understand they aren't big. I said 'second' instead of 'subsecond' because humans are also capable of reacting within seconds. But you are right that all those day traders losing money even things out and I was concentrating on the wrong thing. Investing and trading on longer time scales is certainly profitable.
That article could be reduced to one phrase: "banks off-load mortgage risk by selling that debt to investors".
But that doesn't drive clicks or strike the fear of corporations into your soul.
Or they could be referring to the Wintel monopoly (Windows+Intel), or the x86 duopoly (Intel+AMD), or the FPGA duopoly (Altera=>Intel + Xilinx=>AMD)...
Global Foundries sent their EUV machine back (and paid a fat restocking fee to do it), they've stopped trying to compete at the leading edge of logic processes.
SMIC has a DUV multi-patterning 7 nm node which is already economically uncompetitive with EUV 7 nm nodes (except for PRC subsidies) and the economics of DUV only get worse further down, but at least they're trying and will certainly be the first client to use the Chinese EUV machines, whenever those come online.
This is a total red herring, x86 has over 30 years of backwards compatability and the same goes for the basic peripherals.
The real reason for software churn isn't hardware churn, but hardware expansion. It's well known that software expands to use all available hardware resources (or even more, according to Wirth's law).
30 years ago, right before Windows 95 came out, Windows was a 16-bit OS and the modern versions of Windows no longer support 16-bit programs. PCIe came out only in 2003, and I don't know that PCIe slots can support PCI. SATA is also from 2003. Even USB originally came out in 1996, and the only pre-USB connector slot I have on my computer is a PS/2 port (which honestly surprises me). For monitor connections, VGA and DVI (1999!) have died off, and their successors (HDMI, DisplayPort) are only in the 2000's.
So pretty much none of the peripherals--including things like system memory and disk drives, do note--from a computer in 1995 can talk using any of the protocols a modern computer supports (save maybe a mouse and keyboard) and require compatibility adapters to connect, while also pretty much none of the software works without going through custom compatibility layers. And based on my experience trying to get a 31-year old Win16 application running on a modern computer, those compatibility layers have some issues.
PCIe is mostly backwards compatible with PCI, and bridge chips used to be quite common. ISA to PCI is harder, but not unheard of.
"SATA" stands for "serial ATA", and has the same basic command set as the PATA from 1984 - bridge chips were widely used. And it all uses SCSI, which is also what USB Mass Storage Devices use. Or if you're feeling fancy, there's a whole SCSI-to-NVMe translation standard as well.
HDMI is fully compatible with single-land DVI-D, you can find passive adapters for a few bucks.
There's one port you forgot to mention: ethernet! A brand-new 10Gbps NIC will happily talk with an ancient 10Mbps NIC.
It might look different, but the pc world is filled with ancient technology remnants, and you can build some absolutely cursed adapter stacks. If anything, the limiting factor is Windows driver support.
Slight caveat that a lot of Ethernet PHYs > 1G don't go down to 10 Mb, my some don't go to 100 Mb, and some are only the speed they want to be (though luckily that's not very common). There exist 6-speed PHYs (10,100,1000,2500,5000,10000) but that doesn't mean everything will happily talk
The basic peripherals (keyboard and monitor) of today still present the same interface as they did back in the IBM PC era.
Everything else is due to massive hardware expansion, not hardware churn.
How often do you update your drivers compare to your typical internet connected app?
Software that handles the idiosyncrasies of the hardware (aka drivers) generally has a much longer lifespan than most other software; I don't see how you can reasonably say hardware breaking backwards compatibility is why software keeps changing.
Python programs run on an interpreter, which runs on an OS, which has drivers that run on a given piece of hardware. All of the layers of the stack need to be considered and constantly maintained in order for preservation to work.
I don’t think I can take that claim by itself as necessarily implying the cause is hardware. Consumer OSes were on the verge of getting protected memory at that time, as an example of where things were, so if I imagine “take an old application and try to run it” then I am immediately imagining software problems, and software bit rot is a well-known thing. If the claim is “try to run Windows 95 on bare metal”, then…well actually I installed win98 on a new PC about 10 years ago and it worked. When I try to imagine hardware changes since then that a kernel would have to worry about, I’m mostly coming up with PCI Express and some brave OEMs finally removing BIOS compatibility and leaving only UEFI. I’m not counting lack of drivers for modern hardware as “hardware still changes” because that feels like a natural consequence of having multiple vendors in the market, but maybe I could be convinced that is a fundamental change in and of itself…however even then, that state of things was extremely normalized by the 2000s.
Drivers make up a tiny portion of the software on our computer by any measure (memory or compute time) and they're far longer lasting than your average GUI app.
On the other hand, the main reason why Y2K happened was because a lot of major orgs would rather emulate software from the 60s forever than rewrite it. I'm talking like ancient IBM mainframe stuff, running on potentially multiple layers of emulation and virtualization.
We rewrite stuff for lots of reasons, but virtualization makes it easy enough to take our platforms with us even as hardware changes.
Pretty sure if I downloaded and compiled Tcl/Tk 7.6.x source code on a modern Linux box, it would run my Tcl/Tk 7.6.x "system monitor" code from 1995 or 1996 just fine.
Do you have any examples that aren't because of the OS (as in, not trying to run a 90's game on Windows 11) or specialized hardware (like an old Voodoo GPU or something)?
The program may work fine on its original OS, and the OS may work fine on its original hardware, but for someone trying to actually run their business or what have you on the software these facts are often not particularly helpful.
Backwards-compatibility in OSes is the exception, not the rule. IBM does pretty well here. Microsoft does okay. Linux is either fine or a disaster depending on who you ask. MacOS, iOS, and Android laugh at the idea. And even the OSes most dedicated to compatibility devote a ton of effort to ensuring it on new hardware.
> x86 doesn't have magical backwards compatibility powers.
I never said it did; other ISAs have similar if not longer periods of backwards compatability (IBM's Z systems architecture is backwards compatible with the System/360 released in 1964).
> The amazing backwards compatibility of Windows is purely due to the sheer continuous effort of Microsoft.
I never mentioned Windows but it's ridiculous to imply its backwards compatability is all on Microsoft.
Show me a single example of a backwards breaking change in x86 that Windows has to compensate for to maintain backwards compatability.
> The shift from 16-bit to 32-bit protected mode with the Intel 80386 processor that fundamentally altered how the processor managed memory.
I said x86 has "over 30 years of backwards compatibility".
The 80386 was released in 1985, 40 years ago :)
> Intel 80286 introduced a 24-bit address bus to support more memory, but this broke the address wraparound behavior of the 8086.
This is the only breaking change in x86 that I'm aware of and it's a rather light one as it only affected programs relying on an exactly 2^16 memory space.
And, again, that was over 40 years ago!
> The shift to x86-64 that Microsoft had to compensate with emulation and WOW64
No, I don't think so. A x86-64 CPU starts in 32 bit mode and then has to enter 64 bit mode (I'd know, I spent many weekends getting that transition right for my toy OS). This 32 bit mode is absolutely backwards compatible AFAIK.
WOW64 is merely a part of Microsoft's OS design to allow 32 bit programs to do syscalls to a 64 bit kernel, as I understand it.
I was thinking a ferrous shield would warp magnetic flux lines but I could be wrong. And guess you could mill the enclosure from brass, tho it's still not clear how would you get an RF ground up there.
It wouldn't, the only way to "shield" from magnetic fields is to get them to induce Eddy currents and but that requires more and more length and as the wavelength gets longer and essentially infinite for the Earth's field which is very slow moving.
> RF ground up there.
"ground" is relative and not at all required for a Faraday cage to work.
However that is still vulnerable to the microwaves. The issue is that this setup catches microwaves and while, yes, it prevents the waves from entering the electronics it does so by converting them to heat. So if this cage has caught 100J * volume (say 100W for slightly over 1.5 minutes), the electronics are above 100 degrees, and the solder joints are releasing.
The advantage of microwaves is that unlike lasers, kilowatt strong microwaves are easy to generate, it is an incredibly well studied problem, because that's how early radar systems worked. They are what secured the skies above London against the Nazi air force.
Israel seems to be trying another approach with lasers. They decided it doesn't matter if the laser is powerful, if you just have hundreds of 2W lasers aimed at the same target.
> This is an unintuitive aspect of go because it is different from virtually every other strategy game.
No, it isn't.
As a decent chess and go player I can tell you that they're both just tactics until you approach the master/dan level.
And what is strategy if not just a longer form of tactical play?
At the end of the day, strategic play is just play that sets up tactics later on.
Or, to quote Fischer:
"Tactics flow from a superior position"
The Fischer quote sounds like the opposite of what you're saying, i.e. it's a suggestion to prioritise macro over micro: "from good logistics, tactics will sort itself out".
You could read it both ways. I would say tactical opportunities flow from a better position. If you're a good enough player that exploiting your tactical opportunities is automatic - and this doesn't apply even to most grandmasters - then you can afford to spend all your energies on creating those opportunities. If you're not good enough, creating strategically better positions is of limited value.
> No, it isn't. As a decent chess and go player I can tell you that they're both just tactics until you approach the master/dan level. And what is strategy if not just a longer form of tactical play?
You cannot tenuki in Chess.
In Go, especially at the 15kyu to 10kyu double-digit dan level, the opponents are full of opening and middle-game mistakes. The best response is often to ignore your opponent and play the most powerful move elsewhere on the board.
Knowing when to tenuki (ie: ignore the last move, play elsewhere) is a HUGE point in Go strategy. Its exceptionally difficult to play sente / forcing moves. Playing a sente vs gote sequence is what separates the 1-dan (experts maybe 1800+ Elo equivalent players) from the rest of us mere mortals. But recgonizing that the last move was gote (non-forcing) is maybe a 10kyu / 1200-Elo kind of thing.
-------
Chess is almost all tactics. Go on the other hand, is Strategic, as the concept of sente/gote/tenuki allows you to validly ignore the opponent's plan and work out your own plan.
You still need a solid tactical basis in Go. You cannot just run away from the opponent forever. But you might be surprised at how "valid" tenuki moves are.
------
For me, the growth from 15kyu (maybe 1200 elo in Chess) to 9kyu was a strong focus on sente, gote, tenuki, strategy, joseki, direction of play, strong vs weak. All "strategic" play that often sacrifices local tactics for greater point gains elsewhere.
Indeed, "weak" play in Go (ex: a 2-point jump) is WEAKER in terms of tactics. You are explicitly making an area weaker and easier to kill in exchange for moving faster on the board. A 2-point jump will ALWAYS be the worse tactical choice than a 1-point jump or solid connection.
This isn't like in Chess where a sacrifice immediately becomes apparent either. It can take 50+ moves before a position is played out and the difference between strong-connected play vs a 2-point jump shows up.
In any case, even 20kyu beginners can improve their games if they play 2-point jumps (or other weak / loose patterns) appropriately. Yeah you need the basics of tactics there otherwise the 20kyu player just loses all their stones at all. But protecting your stones / strong play is actually very very weak and will trap you as a beginner. You MUST play faster (but weaker) connections if you want to break through double-digit-kyu. Players just get too strong by 9kyu or 8kyu to rely on tactics alone.
You absolutely can! If it's during a tactical sequence we might call it an intermezzo.
If it's not during a tactical sequence we don't usually have a name for it in chess but it happens all the time. The mainlines of the KID are famous for having theory where white goes for a queenside attack and largely ignores the kingside and vice-versa for black, just as one example.
> Chess is almost all tactics. Go on the other hand, is Strategic
I used to think so too but I think this is a meaningless and superficial comparison now.
Each go move is simpler by itself but to counter balance that you get a much bigger board and generally much longer games with much longer tactical sequences (I'm sure you've had games where you spend over 50 moves in a long tactical battle over a mojo, for example).
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
reply