No, there isn't. Caucasus is a place that exists now, and people who live there now have more basis to be called that. Some of them are White, some aren't. There's many ethnicities there, but they have a ton of cultural things on common. In the Russian-speaking parts of the world "Caucasian" refers to those cultural features, just like you may use the words "Asian" or "European".
You can only use Caucasian as white if you're completely uneducated about geography and unaware of life outside of US.
In Florida it wouldn’t be confusing to refer to someone from Hawaii as “Hawaiian,” but in Hawaii it means something much more specific about ancestry, and it’s considered rude and even offensive to misuse it.
In NYC they pronounce Oregon as “Ore-gone,” even though Oregonians pronounce it “Ore-gun.” In Portland, mispronunciation marks you as an ignorant outsider.
Every place has idiosyncratic misuses of terms that come from somewhere else. Of course you are correct about “Caucasian,” but wherever you are from, I’m sure you misuse some other term.
Labeling it as uneducated and unaware is a form of snobbery that you’re unlikely to be entitled to. None of us are.
We all have things we misuse, but I think those things may characterize us sometimes. For example, in Russian we often misuse the word Hindu to mean Indian. It may mean that the person is uneducated and maybe even unaware of the difference. A couple of my friends who've been to India or are nerds about other cultures, don't misuse the word, some even go around ranting about it.
I personally feel that the way Americans use "Caucasian" is a more blatant misuse than others, and maybe that's what made me react that way. Like what is exact idea one has to miss and be unaware of to use "Caucasian" for "white"? What adds to it is that, if I understand correctly, using "Caucasian" instead of "white" in English makes you sound more official and important. I guess I can see that it's being used due to legal tradition and that's hard to change.
I doubt they will benefit from that integration much. But I'm pretty sure the way there will hurt. Georgia's economy is tied to Russia at the moment, and as you said Westerners are not exactly lining up to travel to Georgia and order its wine (Russians are).
The narrative "people want EU (aka freedom and democracy), but bad dictators won't let them" is a populist one. And EU has been using it like carrot and stick to steer Georgia away from Russia, disregarding the cost of it for Georgia. That time when EU declared Georgian elections illegitimate (with no actual basis provided) to me was a violation of Georgia's sovereignty.
Elections in Georgia are very competitive. I've heard that government was slowly putting pressure on media, but I don't remember anything major. Georgia could be the most democratic of ex-USSR except Baltics today.
Let me guess, you think that Ukrainians also really want to be part of Russia and that they are just being manipulated by Westerners and that true Ukrainians wanna be part of Russian Empire? And that Russians are just liberating them.
Not sure where you got that. Sounds like trying to use tropes from a superficial Hollywood action movie in real life, not my thing.
I think that a Ukrainian in his sane mind would want to look at options he's dealt and pick the one that leads to most safety and prosperity to him and his family. At the same time the government ideologues are trying to indoctrinate him with nationalism to sacrifice it all for their goals. More or less the same for an average Russian in his sane mind.
I personally believe that 2014 (and not complying with Minsk 2) has set Ukraine on course that's much worse for the safety and prosperity of an average citizen (albeit better for the nationalist ideologues). Complying with Minsk 2 would give Russia a lot of control over Ukraine (pro-Russian East gets autonomy, but gets to vote on national elections), which would be bad for nationalists who are afraid (and rightfully so) of Ukraine's young statehood sink into oblivion. But would be alright for a citizen: no dramatic change, you keep gradually improving your life, no war, you don't die for nothing.
Do you think that it is meaningful to think about things being good or evil in a manner that is separate from what is "safe" or "prosperous"? If someone points a gun at you and demands all your money, the safe thing is to give it to them. Does that mean it's a good outcome for all?
I do believe that the discussion of good and evil is a meaningful one, but it's nuanced and we must be extremely careful with definitions and not to confuse ethics debate with irrational emotions.
If someone points a gun at me, I give the money. If life is a strategy game, then this is the moment where you need to sacrifice a piece in order for the game to even continue. And money is usually a pawn in the big picture of life. I may feel it's unfair or that my ego/honor is hurt, but I'd work though that with my therapist, analyze it philosophically and decide what to do next instead of responding emotionally.
I personally don't value nationalist sentiment. From a humanist perspective, associating yourself with one specific nation and making it your goal to serve the elites who actually control it is unjustifiable. There are things I'd consider good and evil, but they're much more universal and not tied to one's birthplace, taste or mood. Education, progress, science are good to me. So if something damages these, I may call it evil.
Ukraine is not one of these though, it is a conflict where principals are fighting for selfish interests, while working their propaganda machines very hard to convince us that their goals are actually universal and humanistic, to harvest us as a resource. Depending on which bucket you ate your slop from, you get one bias or another. As an average citizen, you should not fool yourself thinking that you're one with something great that you must sacrifice yourself for it, and don't full yourself thinking you're serving some great good.
> I think that a Ukrainian in his sane mind would want to look at options he's dealt and pick the one that leads to most safety and prosperity to him and his family.
They have done this back in 2010's and decided that EU is the safe and prosperous future they want. In response, Russian mass murderers invaded and started to kill them. That is indeed a great ad for safety and prosperity inside the Russian world: you will be miserable and we will kill you whenever we feel like it.
Stop oversimplifying the world to fit it into your infantile racist idea.
Russia's threat wasn't a big surprise. 2010 was already after Georgia 2008. So you your hypothetical Ukrainian couldn't see it coming in his analysis of decisions and outcomes, he's an idiot. If he saw it, but chose to ignore it, he's a naïve brainwashed activist.
This hardly generalizes to all Ukrainians. The society was split about this idea, and the sentiment varied from year to year. Look at Ukraine's government opinion polls on it. It just happened so that pro-EU ones were more vocal, more active and sometimes more militant. They did the 2014 coup instead of just waiting for the next election because election equally considers opinions of all, vocal or not, and they knew they had a good chance of losing.
There was no coup in Ukraine in 2014. It's one of those immediately revealing things like height of the chimneys in Auschwitz; just barely mention them and we all immediately know who you are.
Sure. And you keep babbling and restating your point instead of proving it because you've got an overwhelming proof, you're just too polite to share it with us.
> Elections in Georgia are very competitive. I've heard that government was slowly putting pressure on media, but I don't remember anything major.
The OCSE report on the 2024 election was that they were significantly biased[0]
> Reports of pressure on voters, particularly on public
sector employees, remained widespread in the campaign. This, coupled with extensive tracking of voters on election day, raised concerns about the ability of some voters to cast their vote without fear of
retribution. The legal framework provides an adequate basis for democratic elections, but recent frequent amendments marked a step backwards, raising concerns over its potential use for political gain.
Preparations for the elections were well-administered, including extensive voter education on the use of new voting technologies. A significant imbalance in financial resources and advantage of incumbency contributed to an already uneven playing field. The polarized media environment and instrumentalization of private outlets for political propaganda affected impartial news coverage, hindering voters’ ability to make an informed choice. Effectiveness of campaign finance oversight was undermined by limited enforcement, and concerns over the impartiality and political instrumentalization
of the oversight body.
And in 2025, OSCE again complained about the democratic limitations to protest[1]
> “Peaceful protesters in Georgia continue to be detained, sentenced, and fined for exercising their rights. The authorities have an obligation to implement their OSCE human rights commitments and international obligations, including respect for the right to peaceful assembly”, said Maria Telalian, ODIHR Director. “I would like to urge once again the Georgian authorities to ensure that civil society and human rights defenders are not targeted and that their voices are heard, as their work is crucial in fostering a vibrant democratic society.”
We can agree this is still a western-oriented view, but I think it's pretty undisputable that Georgia in 2026 is a less open society than Georgia in 2016.
I don't like using "western-oriented" as synonym for free/democratic/good, but otherwise I agree it's gotten worse. Your use of the word "backsliding", I think, was appropriate.
Are we talking about EU spokesperson calling Georgian elections illegitimate? If so, I believe your quotes show that there's no basis for that claim. The OSCE specifically says that, despite a bunch of concerns, Georgia's legal framework is "adequate". To me, that reads as "it passes the bar".
I've been to Georgia 10 years ago and there were a lot of tourists from Germany and France. Both the buses with organized trips for retired people and youngsters renting AirBnbs for cheap.
The problem we faced was with the inconsistency in price/quality in restaurants and services. Some places are really cheap - a huge dinner for two in a "I want this, this and this and two bottles of wine" manner costed 25EUR, while a 15 minute transfer could cost 50EUR. This inconsistency is something that leaves a bad aftertaste for many tourists, who would otherwise want to go there again and again to enjoy the beautiful nature, food, wine. And the tap water is literally Evian. That was in Kutaisi.
If it wasn't for the sudden grab of power fueled by Russian money and the influx of people fleeing from Russia because of war, give Georgia another 10-20 years, and the living standards would rise dramatically. Similar to how it happened in early 2000s.
What did the ratio of European tourists to Russian look like?
Not sure what grab of power you're referring to.
The inflow of Russians was a boost for Georgia. These are whole IT companies that moved with workers, high-paying jobs and taxes. Many of pro-Western views and European expectations of living standards (because they're from Moscow and St. Petersburg). Check specialty cafes in Tbilisi today and see when they opened. These are the white people with guilt syndrome who will sign up to Georgian language classes to show respect to the local culture. Hell, I'm sure you can see a change in people's average views on LGBT rights since 2022, since Georgia is known to be quite patriarchal homophobic.
There were not a whole lot of Russian tourists 10 years ago because the memories from Russian invasion of 2008 were still fresh.
I'm not saying that inflow of Russians is particularly bad, it just raised the prices of everything very significantly, and together with the pro-Russian government and reversal in pro-European development, the European tourist influx is stagnant at best.
Oh sure, I can believe that. It still seems to me like a sign of Georgia's economy strengthening. Many people with buying capabilities which actually settle, not just come occasionally for cheap stuff. (Looking at the thread's context broadly) plus one for closer ties with Russia.
> The narrative "people want EU (aka freedom and democracy), but bad dictators won't let them" is a populist one.
Former eastern block members that are currently in the EU beg to differ.
It's no accident that there's such a developmental gap between those of the former communist states which turned to the west vs those who remained in Russia's sphere of influence.
> It's no accident that there's such a developmental gap between those of the former communist states which turned to the west
You've established a link between the two, but you've not shown which of the two is causing the other if any. Put aside your fatalist racist "Russia bad" for a moment and think. Maybe the reason is not that EU magically turns everything it touches into gold (while Russian orcs turn it to crap, obviously), but that EU is carefully choosing who joins and doesn't let the bad prospects in? EU countries are all close to each other, were already connected historically with logistics and culture, this reduces integration's overhead and makes it super beneficial.
Georgia, on the other hand, is surrounded by non-EU countries its cultural and economic ties have historically been outside of EU. Not all of Georgian population today is happy about EU. Georgia is super patriarchal and conservative, I won't be surprised if it's more anti-LGBT than Poland. Georgia exited USSR poorer and less industrialized than Eastern Europe, keep that in mind when you try to stretch your "Russia bad" to explain its trajectory.
> Former eastern block members that are currently in the EU beg to differ.
Also, mind that flirting with EU is not the same as entering it. Sometimes EU may use the prospect of someone entering it to gain leverage and cause instability to its rivals and sway its allies. To answer the quote: Ukraine begs to differ. Ukraine is much worse than it was before 2014, and is arguably much worse that it would have been without the 2014 revolution/coup if Yanukovich kept his course towards Russia. Almost any option would be better than what is now.
> Maybe the reason is not that EU magically turns everything it touches into gold (while Russian orcs turn it to crap, obviously), but that EU is carefully choosing who joins and doesn't let the bad prospects in?
The EU gives certain conditions and it's up to the elites in a given country to meet them, as that necessarily means reining in corruption - to an extent. Fortunately for me, the ones in my mine decided that this is the best course of action and we all benefited.
Also when you look at the examples of Greece or Orban's Hungary, occasionally a member will go off the rails. But again, it's the elites that let this happen.
Meanwhile corruption is an inherent feature of the Russian system, which is why doing business with them is broadly speaking a bad idea. Also it's a rather small economy producing largely low value products despite vast natural resources - there's no benefit in associating with them in this day and age. The cheap gas is not worth it.
> Also it's a rather small economy producing largely low value products despite vast natural resources - there's no benefit in associating with them in this day and age. The cheap gas is not worth it.
Why it's not worth it? I don't see how the quote would imply it. I don't see why they wouldn't encourage Russia to join EU too given what you wrote. In the worst case you'll get one more Hungary.
And if Russia is corrupt, you can still deal with them if you're ruled by foreign courts. Russia did comply with European Court of Human Rights IIRC right until the invasion. Something as minor as a politically partial court decision in Russia could be appealed in ECHR and Russia would pay a compensation to its citizen. If you're a business, I'm pretty sure you'll find a way to defend your interests in pre-2022 Russia.
EU enlargement largely paused after Bulgaria and Romania because there was a sense that those countries had been let in too early before they had dealt with their corruption issues. Most of the Balkans haven’t made much progress on their accession for this reason.
There has also traditionally been hesitation to let in countries with active border disputes since Cyprus has been a geopolitical headache, but that kind of went out the window with the invasion.
If it's that simple, why doesn't everyone "want in" and get those precious living standards? There must be a lot of stupid governments if they literally refuse free stuff. Or your statement is naive and overly simplistic. Guess which of the two is more likely?
Does Georgia "want in"? I'm not so sure what that means. The population has mixed feelings about it, as I understand from friends there. The current government who represents them doesn't want in.
> Just having access to the european free market
Again, do you think this just offers you free stuff? A marked doesn't just offer you "access", it assigns you a role you're going to be playing in it. And some roles are worse than the others, even if the marked is "good".
> There must be a lot of stupid governments if they literally refuse free stuff.
Yes? Why does that surprise you? Short-sighted politicians who prioritise immediate personal gain over long-term prosperity for their people exist everywhere.
> were already connected historically with logistics and culture
> Georgia, on the other hand, is surrounded by non-EU countries
> Georgia is super patriarchal and conservative
Greece at the time they entered had no land connection to the rest of EU, completely different language and alphabet etc., and also was "super patriarchal and conservative" FWIW.
But of course you have no interest in factual discourse, you are only here to spew mass-murderer propaganda.
It's terrible that people think like that, especially in Georgia where they are still not tied to the debt fueled pyramid scheme that is the EU.
They still think of Europe as how it was 20 years+ ago, they always only look at the surface and never if the whole concept really works out long term.
Russia is a tiny tiny economy built on corruption. Their whole economy is about selling energy. and right now their economy is failing. They're exporting less and less and less. They even have to import fuel because they can't produce enough for their own economy.
"They still think of Europe as how it was 20 years+ ago, they always only look at the surface and never if the whole concept really works out long term."
Poland today seems in a way better spot than in was 20 years ago, so it seems it worked out for them. Likewise all the other eastern EU members where I travelled around. As soon as I left EU territory, things looked way worse.
Oh, is the CIA at it again? brainwashing people to hate the good old Ruzzian empire and the tzar? If only those Georgians could travel to Ruzzia and Europe and make their own minds if they want to be like Ukraine and Belarus that sucked on Putin or they want to be like Poland or Romania ... /sarcasm
No idea dude why all this KGB attempts to pretend that Ruzzia is some kind of big nice brother to Georgia after they fucking invaded them and grabbed their lands , the big brother is a bit violent if he drinks too much and unfortunately he is always drunk on power and dreams of making the empire great again ?
That's such a user-hostile design decision. I can't fathom what justifies it (other than kinky taste).
Makes your commands unreadable without a manual, leaves a lot of room for errors that are quietly ignored. And forces you into using a shell that comes with its own set of gotchas, bash is not known to be a particularly good tool for security.
And to those who stay this adds flexibility: it doesn't. Those file descriptors are available under/dev/fd on linux, with named options you can do --pk /dev/fd/5. Or make a named pipe.
> Those file descriptors are available under/dev/fd on linux, with named options you can do --pk /dev/fd/5.
If you have a procfs mounted at /proc and the open syscall to use on it, sure (and even then, it’s wasteful and adds unnecessary failure paths). Even argument parsing is yet more code to audit.
It's 2025, dude. You can't be seriously telling me how difficult it is to parse arguments. It may be difficult in C, but then we're down another sick rabbit hole of justifying bad interface with bad language choice.
One open syscall in addition to dozens already made before your main function is started will have no observable effect whatsoever.
The context is what’s essentially a shell-accessible library for a minimal set of cryptographic primitives. It’s very reasonable to want it to be as lightweight, portable, and easy to audit as possible, and to want it to run in environments where (continuing on Linux for example) the open syscall to /dev/fd/n -> /proc/self/fd/n will not succeed for whatever reason, e.g. a restrictive sandbox.
Not involving argument parsing simplifies the interface regardless of how easy the implementation is, and the cost is just having to look up a digit in a manual that I certainly hope anyone doing raw ed25519 in shell is reading anyway.
Make a named pipe then. Shells have built-in primitives for that. I.e. <() and >() subshells in bash, or psub in fish. Or have an option to read either a file descriptor or a file.
I can't understand why you keep inflating the difficulty of simple commandline parsing, which the tool needs to do anyway — we shouldn't even be talking about it. Commandline parsing code is done once (and read once per audit) while a hostile user interface that bad commandline creates takes effort to use each time someone invokes the tool. If the tool has 1000 users, then bad interface's overhead has 1000× weight when we measure it against the overhead of implementing commandline parsing. This is preposterous.
> Not involving argument parsing simplifies the interface
From interface perspective, how is `5>secretkey` simpler than `--sk secretkey`? The latter is descriptive, searchable and allows bash completion. I'll type `ed25519-keypair`, hit tab and recall what the argument called.
You can't justify poorly made interface that is unusable without opening the manual side by side. Moreover, the simplest shell scripts that call this tool are unreadable (and thus unauditable) without the the manual.
ed25519-keypair 5>secretkey 9>publickey
You see this line in a shell script. What does it do? Even before asking some deeper crypto-specific questions, you need to know what's written in "secretkey" and "publickey" files. You will end up spending your time (even a minute) and context-switch to check the descriptor numbers instead of doing something actually useful.
It doesn’t. The tool has no command-line arguments.
Please learn how the various shell concepts you’re referencing (like <()) actually work and get back to me if you still need to after that.
In any case, I’m well aware of the readability benefit of named arguments, and was when I made the original comment. So as you can imagine, I maintain that it’s a more than reasonable tradeoff, and I’ve covered the reasons for that. If you have nothing (correct) to add beyond hammering on this point, save it.
You got me, it doesn't have arguments. Luckily, my argument did not critically rely on this bit, and it's still valid. Instead of occasional disconnected thoughts and vulgar attempts to insult, try to construct a complete, coherent argument for why you think your view is valid.
A suggestion on how you could approach it: try to make a table with 2-3 columns for the solutions you and I are comparing. And add a row for each aspect or characteristic you want to compare them with respect to; for example, usability, ease of implementation, room for error, you name it. In each cell, put either + or - if a solution is clearly managing that aspect well or badly, or a detailed comment. Try to express all of the things you're feeling and that are coming to your mind. My comments are written with a table like that in mind, they easily translate to one. Once you have made your table and established that we disagree on what some cell should contain or what rows/columns should be present, feel free to get back to have an actual discussion.
You’ve misrepresented or ignored all of my arguments, which are fairly complete as written. You can reformat them into a table for your personal use if it helps; I haven’t seen evidence that continuing into “an actual discussion” with you on this would have any value. (“It's 2025, dude. You can't be seriously telling me how difficult it is to parse arguments.” was a bad start, and while I’m on it: wrong and right, respectively.)
I honestly tried putting yours into a table and couldn't in a way that makes it look defensible. About 2025: I generally find a bit of cheeky tone appropriate for a dramatic effect, apologies if I offended you.
Yes, I’m aware of the readability benefit of named arguments, and made the original comment with that awareness too.
> Make a named pipe then. Shells have built-in primitives for that. I.e. <() and >() subshells in bash,
That’s /proc/self/fd again. But okay, you can make a named pipe to trade the procfs mount and corresponding open-for-read permission requirement for a named pipe open-for-write permission requirement without receiving the other benefits I listed of just passing a FD directly.
> I can't understand why you keep inflating the difficulty of simple commandline parsing
Not only have I not “kept inflating” this, I barely brought up the related concept of it being unnecessary complexity from an implementation side (which it is).
> which the tool needs to do anyway
It doesn’t. The tool has no command-line arguments.
> From interface perspective, how is `5>secretkey` simpler than `--sk secretkey`? The latter is descriptive, searchable and allows bash completion. I'll type `ed25519-keypair`, hit tab and recall what the argument called.
Not introducing More Than One Way To Do It after all (“Or have an option to read either a file descriptor or a file”) here is a good start, but it’s hard to beat passing a file descriptor for simplicity. If the program operates on a stream, the simplest interface passes the program a stream. (This program actually operates on something even simpler than a stream – a byte string – but Unix-likes, and shells especially, are terrible at passing those. And an FD isn’t just a stream, but the point is it’s closer.) A file path is another degree or more removed from that, and it’s up to the program if/how it’ll open that file path, or even how it’ll derive a file path from the string (does `-` mean stdin to this tool? does it write multiple files with different suffixes? what permissions does it set if the file is a new file – will it overwrite an existing file? is this parameter an input or an output?).
Your attached arguments seem to be about convenience during interactive use, rather than the kind of simplicity I was referring to. (Bonus minor point: tab completion is not necessarily any different.)
> Moreover, the simplest shell scripts that call this tool are unreadable (and thus unauditable) without the the manual.
That might be a stretch. But more importantly, who’s trying to audit use of these tools without the manual? You can be more sure of the program’s interpretation of `--sk secretkey` (well, maybe rather `--secret-key=./secretkey`) than `9>` if you know it runs successfully, but for anything beyond that, you do need to know how the program is intended to work.
Finally, something I probably should have mentioned earlier: it’s very easy to wrap the existing implementation in a shell function to give it a named-parameter filepath-based interface if you want, but the reverse is impossible.
I see, you are more focused on providing the core functionality in the simplest way possible from purely technical perspective, and less so on what kind of "language" or interface it provides the end user — assuming someone who wants an interface can make a wrapper. I can see that your points make sense from this perspective, the solution with FDs is indeed simpler from this viewpoint.
I, on the other hand, criticized it as a complete interface made with some workflow in mind that would need no wrappers, would help the user discover itself and avoid footguns. Your interpretation sounds like what the authors may have had in mind when they made it.
> who’s trying to audit use of these tools without the manual?
I'd try to work on different levels when understanding some system. Before getting into details, I'd try to understand the high-level components/steps and their dataflows, and then gradually keep refining the level of detail. If a tool has 2-3 descriptively named arguments and you have a high-level idea of what the tool is for, you can usually track the dataflows of its call quite well without manual. Say, understanding a command like
make -B -C ./somewhere -k
may require the manual if you haven't worked with make in some time and don't remember the options. But
make --always-make --directory=./somewhere --keep-going
gives you a pretty good idea. On the second read, where you're being pedantic with details, you may want to open the manual and check what those things exactly mean and guarantee, but it's not useless without the manual either.
It's not just encouraging, it's almost making it a necessity. Putting aside one's respect for law may be a matter of responsibility when your competitors are gaining advantage by not playing by the rules.
The reasons for doing something and public justification, aka casus belli, are different things. Casus belli makes it cheaper to execute, but reasons are what actually drives them.
The clowns and the reasons that drive them are the same for Middle East and Venezuela. Does it make it any better that they happened to have a casus belli that you or I may sympathesize with, given that the reasons not in line with our values? Even a broken clock is right once a day.
The difference between casus belly and a state of war is:
Casus Belli is a 1-time event, whereas
State of War means ongoing action that is bellicose in nature.
So i chose my words wrong.
I'd argue that a state of war already existed, well before the events in the gulf. It just didn't involve formal military movements.
> VHDL and Verilog are used because they are excellent languages to describe hardware.
Maybe they were in the 80. In 2025, language design has moved ahead quite a lot, you can't be saying that seriously.
Have a look at how clash-lang does it. It uses functional paradigm, which is much more suitable for circuits than pseudo-pricedural style of verilog. You can also parameterize modules by modules, not just by bitness. Take a functional programmer, hive him clash and he'll have no problems doing things in parallel.
Back when I was a systems programmer, I tried learning system verilog. Had zero conceptual difficulty, but I just couldn't justify to myself why I should spend my time on something so outdated and badly designed. Hardware designers at my company at the time were on the other hand ok with verilog because they haven't seen any programming languages other than C and Python, and had no expectations.
Btw, you can make quicksort deterministically O(n log n) if you pick the pivot point with linear median search algorithm. It's impressive how randomness lets you pick a balanced pivot, but even more impressive that you could do the same without randomness.
Then you reach derandomization and it hits you once again, it shows you that maybe you can "cheat" in the same way without randomness. Not for free, you usually trade randomness for a bit more running time, but your algorithms stay deterministic. Some believe all probabilistic algorithms can be derandomized (BPP = P), which would be a huge miracle if true.
You can only use Caucasian as white if you're completely uneducated about geography and unaware of life outside of US.
reply