Not really true. We have been asked to hire women in our team. Thankfully we found an amazing person. But other teams were not so lucky. It was pure nonsense.
Not true. Unless you learn Sanskrit, you cannot understand that the language can communicate multi[le dimensions of meanings. Ofcourse, it is not needed rudimentary things like physics, chemistry etc.
Ofcourse, Sanskrit can be used like English too. That is like using a super computer as a calculator.
> Even if you try to describe precise and scientific facts in Sanskrit, the nature of the language would enable multiple interpretations of it.
Sanskrit's high polysemy is restricted to a rather bounded set of words (see the नानार्थवर्गः in the अमरकोशः).
Stepping back, this claim and the others you have made in this thread are strange and at odds with my experience reading and speaking and teaching the language, specfically the claims that:
- "Sanskrit semantics is intentionally loosely defined"
- the Rigveda contains "words and idioms made up when the situation called for it" in some way that is different from the ordinary suffixation that is a standard part of Sanskrit grammar;
- the ISKCON interpretation of the Gita is "technically as valid as the literal interpretation" in some manner that is unique to Sanskrit.
I consider these claims extraordinary and request evidence that any of these problems are (a) real and (b) unique to Sanskrit.
> That is amazing if you want to have intellectual debates, but useless if you are trying to follow directions to build ..say.. a bridge.
We have the various Shilpa Shastras [1] as a clear example of this kind of instruction, so I eagerly await a concrete example of what you mean.
Panini codified Sanskrit because he felt the language was evolving too rapidly and knowledge and wisdom might be getting lost in translation.
> the ISKCON interpretation [...] unique to Sanskrit.
I concede that this problem is not unique to Sanskrit. It is unique to classical (and not vedic) Sanskrit literature though. My hypothesis is that it is a natural side effect of codifying a language strictly and trying to prevent change.
Other languages can (and has been) used to produce literature where interpretation is the key to understanding, but for Sanskrit it is the vast majority of the available literature, not a few oddballs here and there.
> We have the various Shilpa Shastras
Do you notice that these are heavily focused on art and crafts?
And the number of these is astonishingly low for a ~7000 year old civilization.
It's not surprising that a spiritual community highly invested in a fixed text can find new interpretations for it, see all of Christiany for illustration or [1] for a specific Christian example. The "kshetre kshetre dharma kuru" example, though, is especially naive -- sure, I guess you can make a new meaning if you totally ignore Sanskrit grammar. The author is clearly quite early on in their study.
> rigvedic sanskrit differs from modern sanskrit in the sense that vedic sanskrit is similar to all other languages
Sure, I agree that Vedic and Classical Sanskrit differ, largely in the same way that Homeric and Attic Greek differ. But this isn't the claim you made -- you said that the Rigveda contains "words and idioms made up when the situation called for it," which I reject.
> Panini codified Sanskrit because he felt the language was evolving too rapidly
Panini's intent is an open question, though your view is a reasonable one. The Ashtadhyayi is more descriptive than people give it credit for: it generally focuses on the भाषा, i.e. the contemporaneous usage of experts (शिष्ट), with a lesser emphasis on Vedic usage, and it further takes extensive notice of regional variation and different preferences among other grammarians of the time. Another possible interpretation is that just as the other parts of the ritual had been fully worked over and polished, it was thought that the language itself should be perfected (संस्कृत).
> for Sanskrit it is the vast majority of the available literature, not a few oddballs here and there.
This is an interesting observation that has other explanations -- see below.
> It is unique to classical (and not vedic) Sanskrit literature though
Again, I see no support for this.
> And the number of these is astonishingly low
Sure, I agree with this. But this isn't the claim you made -- you said that the nature of Sanskrit makes it useless for tasks like describing how to build a bridge, which I reject.
~~~
I'd like to conclude with two thoughts.
First, you are raising interesting questions. Why is it the case that so much of Sanskrit literature is commentary? Why does the number of Shilpa Shastras seem relatively low? Why does Sanskrit literature tend to have a culture of reinterpretation?
Assuming these observations are true, I believe that the answer is some combination of: India's oral memory culture and a concomitant deference to authority and preference for the spoken over the written; consequently, a preference for text forms that can be easily memorized (sutra and verse), which can be harder to parse and change; material constraints on manuscript preservation in the hot and humid Indian climate; strong deference to realized spiritual teachers, and by extension to all teachers; and extensive competition with local languages for intellectual territory.
But that's an armchair answer that needs further investigation. Note that none of these points have anything to do with Sanskrit as a language.
Second, Sanskrit and the tradition are far more exacting and precise than you give them credit for, and I encourage you to look into the matter more deeply before making extremely strong statements about it that have little basis in fact.
I have been reading and teaching Sanskrit for a long time, and in that time I have learned that while Sanskrit is special in many ways, it is still a language that can be used and learned like any other. Even so, I have seen extraordinary claims, both positive and negative, from people confidently asserting what Sanskrit is like without looking deeply into the matter. And while they are well-intentioned, they are -- to use your phrase -- "modern keyboard warriors who have not studied Sanskrit literature."
I have studied Sanskrit literature much more (15+ years with two mentors and on my own) than I have studied Sanskrit formally (3 years in high school). I love Sanskrit literature but not the modern culture of putting Sanskrit on a pedestal.
There is a reason the language has vanished from use and to a large extent not been used for passing on practical knowledge. These are potentially fixable issues, but to fix an issue a community should be able to admit that there exist issues.
As a citizen, if I get laid off, I get a severance package and support from the state. It is ok if I get laid off. Temporary inconvenience, but family doesn't need to suffer. It is not the case for H1B visa holders.
If H1B visa holder gets laid off, they need to find a job in 60 days. That is a lot of stress. Suppose they find a in different state, they need to move. This is stress for the family and children as well. In the worst case, they may need to leave the country. It is harder, because they need to sell all their properties, move the stuff and relocate the family in an extremely short period of time. I think the H1B rules are draconian.
IMHO, H1B must be reformed or abolished. In the current form, it only benefits big companies to hire great talent for cheap and keep under their control. Similar to bonded labour.
How EXACTLY does it work for someone laid off from Twitter, for example? Does the 60 day clock begin the moment they were "laid off" or the moment severance runs out? Does it matter if the company puts them on garden leave instead of immediate lay-off?
The thing that grinds my gears (I'm a H1B holder) is that no one really knows the answer to this question, including immigration lawyers who post on linkedin). The general advice is to start the clock the day you are laid off.
I suspect that is true in general - but in the particular of Twitter I wonder if it legally counts as "garden leave" to get around the WARN act, meaning that those people are still "employed" by Twitter for the purposes of the H1B.
It'd be kinda annoying if they could have it one way for the WARN act and it was another way for the H1B.
> How EXACTLY does it work for someone laid off from Twitter, for example? Does the 60 day clock begin the moment they were “laid off” or the moment severance runs out? Does it matter if the company puts them on garden leave instead of immediate lay-off?
EDIT: This apparently is wrong, see downthread; the original text below is preserved for context
When they are no longer legally employed, with legal employment including any terminal leave. (But not extended by severance, even if that is calculated based on pay for a particular time period.)
Anecdata : 20+ yrs ago I worked in US on a H1B. My employer was almost bust due to the telecoms bubble bursting and I got laid off. Got 3 weeks severance pay for 1 yr service - seemed fair at the time given the situation , and dunno what people got when whole company collapsed few weeks later. Was assuming would get kicked out of the country in fairly short time if didn't find a new job. 60 days? Seem to think it used to be shorter than that. So, went to a job fair, did a few interviews. Decided to go and at least see Yellowstone before being kicked outta the country. Went to check email at the library (as one did before smartphones ;) ) There was a job offer, better location and better pay and it ultimately turned out far more enjoyable. Had to drive non-stop all the way back to Seattle to sign paperwork. Then , it was actually a 3 month wait before I could start that new job due to the H1B transfer process being slow, which is kind of ridiculous. Couldn't go back to family in UK for xmas the year as not allowed in and out of country while they doing the paperwork, which was a downer. Wasn't getting paid during that time either. Did volunteer at Snoqualmie pass and went on the hill lots of days which was the silver lining. I have to say, this would be really bad if you have a spouse and kids. I was single at the time, wouldn't wanna put family through that. It also led to a feeling of limbo and ultimately I left the USA because what starts out as a fun adventure ends up after a few years being not so fun anymore having no permanent status. I think that once someone has worked and paid taxes in the US one ought to be treated a little bit kinder. Perhaps the longer you've worked, the longer you should be allowed to stay after being laid off? They should make allowances for people with kids for sure, its wrong to treat kids lie that, must cause a lot of stress for families.
Especially when you consider that because of natal citizenship, you could have come over with a young wife, had a kid, and then been laid off - and your kid is a US citizen!
Hadn't thought of that! That's a massive issue. Arguably the parents should be allowed permanent status then but of course then people will claim there's an incentive for people to come to US and have kid(s). But in a sense, if you've let people in on a highly skilled visa, they're at the age of having a family, they're pretty much guaranteed to be a big net positive for US economy so what's the problem giving them permanent residency... But then one could argue it's unfair not to give the same thing to kids of Mexican parents that entered illegally. But if you did that , that really would be an incentive for half of Mexico to try to come to USA and have a kid. Personally I think that might be a net win for both USA and Mexico, and there's plenty of space in USA, but I guess a lot of Americans would disagree...
The only way to know for sure is to wait after severance runs out and file a transfer to the new company.
If USCIS denies your application, then the 60 day clock starts the moment you stopped working (for Twitter laid off folks, this has already started).
If USCIS approves your application, then the 60 day clock begins the moment you stopped being an employee of the company (for Twitter laid off folks, this is January 4).
You know, maybe there's a way.. concurrent h1b. Maybe all the h1bs "unionize" in the sense that they get to work part time for another h1b sponsor (the h1b union). Call this the H1B union corp. That way if they lose their official job, the h1b union they can stay beyond the 60 days to look for work.
I dunno, this would need an immigration lawyer to weigh in on. There's a YC one who appears from time to time.. This could be something YC does which would make startups more attractive to h1bs.
Can't the Brits abolish royalty, how they abolished slavery?
We could. We won't, not yet.
I say this as a Brit in favour of an elected head of state. It's probably best we get out of the Brexit quagmire first, before we set off another political crisis that splits the country in two.
I used to be a staunch republican but I’m not so sure where I stand now. Look at what happened in America with Trump. The US came somewhat close to having a total takeover of the government by one party/individual e.g. a dictatorship.
In the UK, our Armed Forces actually pledge alliance to the monarch, not the government. And the monarch is meant to stay out of all politics. In theory, if a prime minister/government decided to go rogue and try to become a dictatorship, the monarch is a last line of defence that can stand in the way and restore order.
Of course one could argue that the monarch is in fact the dictator you’re trying to stop, or that there’s nothing to stop a monarch of bad moral character from becoming a dictator. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. But I no longer look as poorly at Constitutional Democracies as I once did or Republics as richly.
With a Republic you’re basically playing the “wisdom of numbers” card, and hoping that through the various votes, from party elections through to national elections, a person of decent enough moral character is elected into the highest position of power. With the British system, you’re putting faith that the strict rules, customs and ceremonies that dictate the education and behaviour of the Royal Family translate into monarchs that have the moral character to deal with the position. With Liz that worked out extraordinarily well. If it had been someone like Prince Andrew, probably not so much.
When seen through this lens, the pomp and ceremonies stop looking archaic and quaint and start to make a bit more sense. It’s why there’s such a massive divide between the Meghan/Harry camp and the Royal Family. Meghan and Harry see the strict protocols as constricting the individual and they’re completely right. However, that’s the whole point, the member of the royal family is meant to be constrained and molded into the function they’re meant to perform in service of the people as the individual instinct runs the greatest risk of turning the monarch into a dictator.
I would say this is the defining factor between US and UK culture and why there has always been a bit of confusion and misunderstanding of each other, going right back to the war of independence; America values that individual dream more than anything else whereas the Brits distrust it because of its potential dark side to tyranny. Brits gloss over the mental health issues (stiff upper lip) that accompany giving up your individual dreams in favour of slotting neatly into your allocated function in the class system and the Americans gloss over that chasing dreams can sometimes end up being purely self serving.
Based on current trends, the UK (and the world) is trending more towards the US way of things, driven primarily by technology and the internet. 30 years ago, if you wanted to watch anything on TV tonight your only option would have been coverage of the Queen’s death, which is mandated to run on all channels. This would have formed a pretty formidable “group mourning mentality” or “collective consciousness”. Today that is diluted somewhat by the fact that you can stream whatever you want whenever you want; the group no longer holds as much power over the individual.
It’s this ideological and psychological component that I actually think is an argument in favour of Republics or at least reforming the monarchy to enforce retirement at a certain age. Is it really fair to expect someone to dedicate their entire life in service of the people? Elizabeth did it from 25 to 96. She was literally performing duties 48 hours before her death. It’s an almost superhuman level of public service, like Frodo carrying the ring, and we shouldn’t really be asking anyone to do it for their entire lives. Even Sam had to carry it the final distance through Mordor. The woman deserved a rest. But then she loved doing it which is what made her such a great queen.
So, adding an update. It’s now 10 days later and the Queen’s funeral is on television as I type this. Whilst I still think she did a good job, it was just that: a job. The last ten days have been filled with incessant and insufferable media brainwashing, ceremonies which look like cosplays, protestors being arrested on flimsy charges, a stupid queue which could have been eliminated by technology and just general nonsense. It all feels very North Korean.
The whole experience has knocked me off the fence and placed me firmly in the republic camp. It has solidified my resolve to leave the UK and start afresh somewhere else which aligns with my philosophical values. I am of the belief that the UK (or more specifically England, I think Scotland and Northern Ireland might break free of this mess soon, not as sure on Wales) is so fixated on the past that it is going to end up eating itself, especially with the technology that’s coming down the pipeline. The mindset that allows this broken system to continue (group think, fixation on the past) is fundamentally opposed to that which technology represents (individual thought, focus on the future) on a deep, deep level. You’re beginning to see it now with stuff like Rees-Mogg’s ridiculous attempts to bring back imperial measurements. Change is the only constant in life. Trying to resist it can only end in tears as history has shown time and time again. Unfortunately, they seem to be the only parts of history royalists want to overlook.
