You are mistaken: the Irish may be white now, but they weren't then! Whiteness evolved over time, it used to be exclusive for WASPs, and excludes the Irish, Italians, Jews, slavs, and other groups widely accepted as white today. Race is a sociological construct.
The 19th Century was full of anti-Catholic sentiment in the US. There was even a political party devoted to getting rid of Catholics who became known as "the know nothings".
The other immigrants from Catholic countries were also perceived as being "not white", which is why there was a lot of anti-Italian and anti-Spanish sentiment along with the anti-Irish folks. Along with the "they are not real Christians" sentiment (still held by many Evangelicals), they were perceived as "taking orders from Rome" much like (during the Cold War) communists were perceived as "taking orders from Moscow".
Yes, this isnt true. It's from a 1995 book and just invents a history.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 includes "white" as a legal category, quoting, "That any Alien being a free white person..." at that time, and in subsequent acts explicitly the "free white person" eligibility language included European immigrants.
The idea that "whiteness" is a mere sociological category is ahistorical invention of what was a fringe part of sociology, now "whiteness studies", and its mostly "not even pseudoscience". These "studies" speak passively of "what whiteness is" as if sociologists of this type are in some sort of telepathic mental conversation with the 18th century.
Foruntely, this particularly claim about irishness and whiteness has a factual interpretation, so its trivial to show it is false. The european diaspora into america was always "white", and this is trivial to show in 1790 let alone afterwards. "White" refers to the family of european ancestries which 'look white' and this is written into the text of early american law, let alone the ordinary meaning of the word
EDIT, since this is downvoted, here you go:
Irish naturalised throughout the late 18th, 19th centuries explicitly under this 1790 law which limited naturalization to "free white persons". QED. There's no actual debate here. This "irish werent white" idea is a mid-90s invention.
See, eg., at the heights of alleged anti-irish sentiment,
> United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923): ... The words of familiar speech, which were used by the original framers of the law, were intended to include only the type of man whom they knew as white. The immigration of that day was almost exclusively from the British Isles and Northwestern Europe, whence they and their forebears had come. When they extended the privilege of American citizenship to ‘any alien being a free white person,’ it was these immigrants — bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh — and their kind whom they must have had affirmatively in mind. The succeeding years brought immigrants from Eastern, Southern and Middle Europe, among them the Slavs and the dark-eyed, swarthy people of Alpine and Mediterranean stock, and these were received as unquestionably akin to those already here and readily amalgamated with them.
This is patently wrong. And just look at images from the time. There are many Italians, especially from the south which was the main immigration areas - Sicily, Sardegna, Lecce - who are less white than many Latinos.
What's wrong? I don't think i've made any non-empirical claims.
The 1790 law forbids naturalization of non-whites. Irish were naturalized. QED. There's no debate here.
The idea that "whiteness" was understood in 1790 as some kind of "social category of prestige" is mad, and patently ahistorical. It's also empirically demonstrably false. It should also be obviously false if you think about it for a few seconds: did 18th race-realists, basically all western people, who thought humans came in well-defined breeds of which 'white' was one, and 'black' another -- think that the irish weren't white?
You think the 18th race-"realists" (urgh), "who thought humans came in well-defined breeds of which 'white' was one", would stop there and not begin to divide white people between "good" white sub-races and "vile" white sub-races? You really think that those racists thought that once you're white, you're all good?
"I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw in Ireland. .. to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black, one would not feel it so much"
Benjamin Disraeli, 1836:
"[The Irish] hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood."
_The Spectator_ News magazine in 1882:
"The Tragedy at Maamtrasna, investigated this week in Dublin, almost unique as it is in the annals of the United Kingdom, brings out in strong relief two facts which Englishmen are too apt to forget. One is the existence in particular districts of Ireland of a class of peasants who are scarcely civilised beings, and approach far nearer to savages than any other white men; and the other is their extraordinary and exceptional gloominess of temper. In remote places of Ireland, especially in Connaught, on a few of the islands, and in one or two mountain districts, dwell cultivators who are in knowledge, in habits, and in the discipline of life no higher than Maories or other Polynesians."
H. P. Lovecraft (yes, the famous author), in 1921 (!):
"If the Irish had the 'right' to independence they would possess it. If they ever gain it, they will possess it – until they lose it again. England has the right to rule because she does ... It is not chance, but racial superiority, which has made the Briton supreme. Why have not the Irish conquered and colonized the earth if they be so deserving of regard? They are brainless canaille."
You are deeply uneducated on the topic. I would suggest you stop commenting on a subject you know nothing about and learn a thing or two before interacting again.
Right, so you agree that the Irish were classified as white. And that presumably, 'white' entails nor means as such 'white superiority' and presumably that 'white' all along was in reference to a european lineage and the american 'white' diasopara is a european one from the start.
Then you agree with me. And all US law which ever mentioned 'white'.
The people in the 90s who invented the idea that the "irish werent white" are trying to advance an theory of 'whteiness' which is completely contrary to these views. They are doing so because it allows them to equivocate whiteness with white supremacy, and to turn 'white' into a theory of superiority.
If you agree with me that the Irish were always white, and that white at the time and since is a theory of european lineage -- then you disagree with this 1990s revisionist history. You agree that 'white' is an ancestory, and that intra-white class and ethnic divisions exist, and that its common place for white people to have more contempt for other white people than often for black, and so on.
The pseudoscientific sociologists who lie about the history of race, and lend some stolen valour to american irish to burinsh their oppresion as 'racial' -- may seem to be on the side of someone, but they are not. They contrive a theory of race, and culture, which makes 'white' evil by making it mean a kind of cultural superiority and it is no coincidence why.
With this definition of 'whiteness' they then need to go back and pretend the irish were not white, because it would reveal the lie at the heart of their project. The irish were always white. 'White' does not mean, nor has it ever, "the mere supremacy of some particular group"
This is a bipartisan issue: as evidenced by farmers crying uncle in Arizona and Florida, resulting their respective Republican governments scaling back on enforcement after crops started to rot in the fields. The same thing happened with meatpackers in some ruby-red midwestern town after an immigration raid on a meatpacking plant. Unsurprisingly, Republican voters are down for "mass deportation now", but not in their backyards, or place of business.
Every issue affects the entire society directly or indirectly, but one party has lower illegal net migration numbers vs. the other having higher illegal net migration numbers
So if the premise is "business that sponsors politics loves the cheap labour, and there is no cheaper worker than one who will always fall in line out of fear of losing everything", then the logical conclusion is that the party with the higher illegal net migration is the one that the premise refers to, right?
TBF, booting any Arm board is a mess. Rpi gets my kudos for frequently updating kernel sources, unlike any other SBC I have tracked. I know which gauntlet I'd rather run to enable secure boot on an Arm SBC., despite the weird architecture.
> Which would make sense from a company that believes they can catch up once the expensive leg of the manufacturing/scaling research has been completed. Whether that bet is good or not, we'll see.
The article mentions CXMT has committed to 4F^2 server RDIMMs by end of 2026, and a linked article mentions that CXMT has halved the fab build time from the industry-standard 2 years to just 1. How would Micron catch up with that?
The memory triopoly is in the midst of a slow motion wreck because pumping the brakes will reduce profits; the incumbents are going to have their butts handed to them by CXMT in 2-5 years, and they'll all act like they didn't see it coming as they are bailed-out by the US or SK government, for "National Security."
Boiled down to its essence, your argument ("Everyone does it") reduces the quality of discussion. Part of it is stripping nuance, and also part whataboutism, and thought-terminating cliché.
If someone comments that "Qatar produces a high amount of greenhouse gases", a reply that says "Every country on Earth produces some greenhouse gases" is low quality; can we instead talk about CO2 production, compare trends, dig into why Qatar's per capita emissions are so damn high, and what can be done - if anything - to achieve the idealized version of the world with less climate change.
If you say so. Someone made a claim, suggesting that Israel is somehow the world leader in spyware. That's definitely not true. Seems worth clarifying!
You do Israel a big disservice honestly. If you are going to defend them, try to do it well. Israel has a PR problem right now, and it’s because discussions are shut down or subverted. Please don’t be a part of that.
> Cool demos, but does anybody else find it troubling that companies keep claiming this tech can train robots? It’s so obviously not representative of the real world.
A proprietary version of this technology is already training Waymo's robot cars. Waymo blogged about their DeepMind-provided world model a year ago.
> It’s so obviously not representative of the real world.
That entirely depends on the use-case and level of granularity needed, doesn't it?
Apologies for the incidindiary wording of my initial concluding question (which I immediately edited to be less flamey, and hopefully more cogent).
> Isn’t the Waymo version used for some small portion of the dataset to cover edge cases that they have no real data for?
The usecases in the blog post[1] paint a much more expansive picture of how Wayne used Genie 3: including enabling transfer learning to convert single-camera dashcam footage into simulated full-take sensor data (multi-camera and Lidar), which is extremely valuable.
> My basis is that I’m a real human and these videos look far more like bad video games than the real life I’ve experienced
1:1 fidelity isn't required for a lot of training tasks; for instance, computer vision can do a lot with 32x32 resolution images, which is trash quality to humans. I think the potential customers for this technology will constrain the model to fit their use cases.
And warfare of course, the stuff they won’t openly talk about but we might find out about months or years down the line when it’s used to destroy another school or hospital with people inside.
> Now i get to focus on the fun parts of software engineering
I enjoyed those parts too, for multiple reasons. Typos often forced me to ask a colleague for a fresh pair of eyes (who'd almost always spot the problem immediately. Humbling, and great for team cohesion) manually running git bisect to isolate a problem helped me understand how different changesets interact, making me better at reviewing code. Debugging race conditions taught me resilience, and deepened my understanding of the code base, and the satisfaction from fixing a gnarly problem was fantastic. I also enjoyed gaining mastery and becoming the go-to person for a certain class of problem. These are all gone now, sacrificed on the altar of efficiency gains. Now it's "BTW, I noticed a subtle race condition while refactoring variable names, and fixed it. Review my 6,000 line diff now please."
The unexpected variety of activities gave texture to my working day, and was probably good for the brain. Does anyone actually achieve flow state while using agentic AI? I don't[1], and I hate it.
1. except occasionally during design, which isn't thr same. AI side quests inevitably overflow detailed mental models.
You are mistaken: the Irish may be white now, but they weren't then! Whiteness evolved over time, it used to be exclusive for WASPs, and excludes the Irish, Italians, Jews, slavs, and other groups widely accepted as white today. Race is a sociological construct.
reply