You're free to present crazy-sounding arguments in day-to-day conversation, but a journal isn't the place to present crazy arguments. Journals are where you present overwhelming evidence or replicate/falsify existing results.
Journals are where scientists present any sort of evidence that is backed by sound reasoning, meta-studies are where overwhelming evidence tends to be presented.
If it were any other way, then where would scientists publish underwhelming evidence that is crucial for accumulation in order for overwhelming evidence to appear?
To be fair, small fast messenger 2020 is "better" (aka more features / millisecond of cold start) than small fast messenger 2016. The cycle doesn't always go up monotonically, even if developers pretend it does. But it is possible to go "full-circle" through the loop and wind up in a better place than you started, and it's even possible for each stage of the loop to be truly justified given product needs.
indeed, it could be rational business needs. at a time when it's more expensive to hire devs, maybe it looks better to have a single codebase. at a time when performance is more valued, maybe it's better to rewrite in native.
Still no. If an iOS app is using your microphone while backgrounded, your phone's taskbar at the top of the screen will be red. iOS does not allow apps to use the microphone while the screen is off. The microphone thing is a myth fueled by paranoia and confirmation bias. FB already has plenty of data on you and doesn't need to run NLP on everything you say in order to show you relevant ads.
You wrote this in English? What kind of comment-writer are you? English has so many spelling inconsistencies and homonyms it's a wonder that anyone can understand anyone else. Everyone knows that real authors write in Spanish. Neruda, Borges, Márquez. Spanish's clear pronunciation rules, elegant conjugations, and separation of mutable state (`estar`) from immutable state (`ser`) ensure you'll never run into any dangerous misunderstandings. Consider this sentence:
"¡Hola, mundo!"
Note that the sentence is one character shorter than the corresponding phrase in english (`"Hello, world!"`) - this kind of efficiency is quite common when you write in Spanish. Also note that the extra space won by removing a character was then used to add a pre-exclamation flag (`¡`). This flag is a neat optimization to ensure that the interpreter knows to prepare for an exclamation ahead of time.
Better interpretation, pronunciation, efficiency. Why are you not writing Spanish today?
There's a really simple explanation for this: it's because the Indians and Chinese who weren't good at STEM weren't even allowed in the country in the first place.
Have you got any evidence for this, STEM tests at the border?
And why would not the same effect play out with hispanics?
And why do 2nd and 3rd generation asians so utterly dominate STEM subjects at elite US universities that there are de-facto quotas to limit asians?
But most of all, how did those Indians and Chinese acquire those superior STEM skills without access to the educational resources that are given to all US citizens?
So, I have a long response to each question, but all you really need is this. The groups you singled out as doing well are Indians and Chinese. The two most populous ethnic groups in the world are Chinese and Indians. Do you think that's a coincidence, or do you think maybe we're in a nation that's skimming from the top of two very very large populations?
Now the specifics:
> STEM tests at the border?
You don't need STEM tests to cause this filtering effect, you just need to make immigration contingent on an employer or university wanting you to be in this country. That's what H1-B and student visas do.
> why would not the same effect play out with hispanics?
1. The H1-B and student visa program isn't what brought them into the country.
2. There are fewer of them in the world.
> why do 2nd and 3rd generation asians so utterly dominate STEM subjects at elite US universities that there are de-facto quotas to limit asians?
STEM proficiency is inherited, and the 2nd and 3rd generation Asians are the children of 1st and 2nd generation Asians.
> But most of all, how did those Indians and Chinese acquire those superior STEM skills without access to the educational resources that are given to all US citizens?
Most US citizens do not get a good STEM education. Most Indians and Chinese also do not get a good STEM education, but we don't see the ones who don't.
Well, there are quotas and limits on Chinese and Indian immigration, and thousands of miles of ocean in the way. Mexico has a long, relatively porous border with the the US. In one case, you need to hit the visa jackpot to get over here, in the other you cough up a few hundred bucks to a coyote and take a walk through the desert.
