It does not serve America's interests, or the Cuban people, to try to push Cuba toward collapse.

Why the heck not, exactly? The evil needs to be destroyed — both to end it, and to discourage future evil. If we don't have the stomach to end it with a (military) surgery, we should continue with therapy.

Simply pretending, there is no decease in the first place is stupid — and dangerous.

We are pushing Russia towards collapse today — which is a good thing, indeed. Why let Cuba off the hook?

So, how are you sure all the racism is imaginary?

I am not sure. It is just that all evidence of racism, that has been brought to my attention in the 20+ years since I moved to this country, was bullshit.

treating different races differently is the essence of racism

Is that so? Is saying, that Blacks have more melanin in their skin, "racism"? No, you'll probably agree, that it is not.

How about saying, that a Black American is 4 times more likely to have grown up without father, than an Asian American? "Warmer", is not it — but still perfect truth...

The best way to see what exists is to change people's race and nothing else about them, and observe how things go.

Ah, but we do know other things about them — the likelihood of them to have grown-up fatherless is much higher. Which, in turn, makes them far more likely to be not right in the head... And this knowledge explains the first reaction to such strangers — until we do learn more about them.

The proposed experiment may show increased negativity towards "painted" characters, which will be interpreted as racism — incorrectly. Because to a racist anyone of the "inferior" race is inferior — even after they do get to know the individual, they'll still be thinking less of him, because of his race. But the initial reaction to skin color is not necessarily evidence of racism. Not at all.

He sees Asians doing "so well" and concludes that it must be some unfair racial advantage

No, I say nothing of the kind. I bring up the Asians' success in this still predominantly-White country as evidence, that the dominant race — the Whites — are not in fact racist. Or, if they are, it is not to the extent, that would explain the Blacks' high incarceration rates and low incomes.

so it is perfectly acceptable if they get deducted points for identifying as "Asian".

No, it is not at all acceptable — you pulled words out of thin air and are trying to attribute them to me. I don't think, it is acceptable in the slightest — but it is nonetheless done by the very people, who pretend to "fight racism"...

it is imaginary racism, cause Blacks SIMPLY ARE MORE PRONE TO CRIME.

You really are good with strawmen, aren't you? No, it is not because "Blacks are simply more prone to crime" — it is the people, who grew up fatherless, who are more prone to crime and are otherwise not right in the head. Whatever your race, not having a loving father when you grew up is a major handicap.

But blaming Whitey for the scandalous 67%-figure I quoted above is much harder, than accusing him of things unmeasurable and unverifiable.

Certainly not about English, because it would mean that a majority of English speaking population would usually talk mostly using words from a closely related language - that would be what, Frisian? - with English accent and grammar.

It does not have to be "closely related" — you just need to have a sizable chunk of population fluent in it. Over the years Americans, for example, have borrowed plenty from Yidish ("potz", "schmuck", "boychik"), Russian ("da"), Italian ("capish?").

Centuries ago, when the good Cardinal was establishing Académie française, he did it to fight for the purity of the language — would anyone had bothered, if the phenomenon you are disputing did not, in fact, exist?

It doesn't work for Russian at all, Russians don't usually mix their language

That's because today's Russians rarely know another languages, while all other peoples from the (thankfully — USSR) know Russian fairly well. 200 years ago Russian elite spoke French a lot — entire pages of "War and World" consists of dialogs in the language. Various French words were borrowed ("tuzhurka", "amicachon"). Before then — during Peter I, came Dutch words like "galstuk" and "zontik", which Ukrainian also borrowed, but from different direction: "kravatka" (cravat) and "parasolka" (parasol).

English has a similar dominance today and words like "router", "avatar", "account", "website" are already firmly in Russian vernacular.

Living in the US today, most Russian-speakers easily slip into English and back in their speech — sometimes in mid-sentence. I'm sure, you can notice the same in Germany. And not just Russians — riding the train every morning I sometimes hear a person talking on the phone in a completely foreign (to me) language suddenly speaking into English for a few phrases and then go back. It takes a conscientious effort to keep oneself talking in one language and most people don't bother.

Given that all Ukrainians grew up knowing Russian (even if against their will), it is not at all surprising, that the speech of most of them is "polluted" by it, just like the speech of those emigrants is polluted by the local languages.

Finally, even without the influence of languages of the neighbors, Russians are just as capable of ruining their own speech as anybody else: most, for example, confuse the verbs "dress" (odevat') and "put on" (nadevat').

But, despite all that, a Russian announcing his language, does not get snide responses about him probably not knowing it very well...

It's possible to be biased against one race and not others.

It is possible, I suppose, but it is rare. The typical text-book racist dislikes others because they are different from him — skin color, face-shape... Such equal-opportunity racist would treat all other races the same — if, indeed, it was the skin color, that formed the basis of his (irrational) negativity...

The prejudice becomes far less irrational, when it is based on the fact, that a man of a particular race is 3 times more likely to have grown up without a father — which, in turn, greatly increases the risk, he is not right in the head.

It is still unfair to the particular individual, but it is no longer irrational or even automatically wrong...

For the life of me I can't figure why you'd use that to support your claim that Asians don't suffer from racism...

They certainly do suffer from racism. The real racism of a system, that pretends to be anti-racism.

They do not, however, show any of the symptoms, for which the imaginary racism is usually blamed when failures of Blacks are discussed: they are not incarcerated disproportionally more often than others (heck, you can't even find them on the chart!) and their incomes aren't lower than those of Whites — quite the opposite, in fact...

Probably the fact that tons of us have tried to tell people this in our jobs in the past, but few have been able to put it as clearly and as succinctly as this, while still stating all the factors that play into it.

And this, in your opinion, is a problem unique to IT? Seriously?

Please explain how "enjoyable" is a dimension of functional?

Whenever "bringing joy" is among the functions, more enjoyable means more functional.

computer calculates far better performance ratios for you far faster than you ever could

Only if the objectives programmed in its algorithm(s) match mine. I'm yet to encounter a car, that is so programmed...

A minivan is not a sports-car. A minivan is not a 4x4. A minivan, however, is probably more efficient

And my point was, that people, who do choose a sports(ier)-car and/or a 4x4, do so for reasons other than mere fad.

For our cars, if we wanted function we'd all be driving minivans

Not at all. Minivans — and even most SUVs — drive like crap. And I don't mean engine — the suspension is nowhere near where it needs to be, to make driving enjoyable. None of them come with a manual transmission either — the command-line of driving — so, no...

There are people, who might choose a different model, because it comes in a particular color, but that falls into the "clothes style" category, which I already mentioned, anyway.

with stow-n-go seats.

This is an important consideration — and people do consider it. For example, I always preferred Volkswagens (and now that I've grown up — Audis) because their rear seats can be laid flat. A standard feature, whereas in BMW and Mercedes you have to pay extra for it (if it is available in the first place).

so they were held to the rules

Which rules are those, that prohibit police from looking at one's front yard? They didn't enter any premises and whatever can be legally observed, can be recorded...

The police knew it was illegal.

I don't understand, why... They didn't enter his house — they recorded his front door — and front yard. That ought to be Ok — whatever can be legally seen, can be legally recorded is the general principle.

A camera is just an extension for a policeman's eyes. Would it have been illegal for the department to post an officer in front of the man's house? No. So the camera standing there instead should be just as legal...

Because technology changes much more quickly than real world analogs

And yet, the functionality is still more important than a fad in (almost) all walks of life — with the exception of clothing styles, perhaps — not just in Information Technology...