Probably a lot of people got scammed. In my capacity as 'that guy who does internet stuff' I have explained to quite a few that the letter was a scam.

Perhaps the resorts in Geneva were closed for renovation.

One huge beneficiary of food stamps is WalMart. Without food stamps, their workers would be half dead from malnutrition and would frequently die right there in the store (bad for business). That would force them to raise pay. Thanks to food stamps keeping their worker units alive for them, they don't have to pay so much.

So since WalMart isn't real commerce (being a huge welfare recipient), we should jettison it. Fortunately, by raising the minimum wage, we may yet salvage it as an actual contributor to commerce.

As for the comment about cleaners, good luck selling food in a filthy restaurant that gets closed by the health inspector. The fact is, you would be forced to stop mooching off of the food stamp program and actually paying a living wage if you want to stay in business.

That means the rest of us are subsidizing their employer's payroll.

So you firmly believe people's lives should suck? (presumably not your own, of course).

That suggests we should cut CEOs way back and increase minimum wage even more.

Russia jettisoned their mockery of Marx decades ago. How are they doing now?

One thing is perfectly clear though. Since employment didn't go down, those who were earning minimum wage have more money now than they did before.

By that argument I can claim that had they not raised minimum wage, they would have plunged into a new dark ages populated exclusively by roving bandits. But hey, we'll never know so I am safe from ever being disproven. How nice for me!

You missed the part about the people with more money will now spend it. Where, you might ask will they spend it? Mostly at the same sorts of businesses that pay minimum wage, since they still won't be wealthy by a long shot.

And what will more customers mean? Gotta hire more staff to handle the load.

I should point you out in the thread above as evidence that it is the conservatives who think it's a negative sum game where the more it is spread the less there is to spread.

Many libertarians re-define slavery to mean paying taxes or putting people in chains and literally whipping them until they work. They ignore the constructive slavery of being forced to work for next to nothing because that's what the offered wages are in the vain hope of not starving long enough for a miracle to happen.

In some ways, the modern minimum wage slaver is worse than the literal slave owners of old. The slave owners of yesterday HAD to provide food, clothing, shelter, and health care to avoid losing their investment. The modern ones palm that responsibility off on society.

If the shoe fits...

So why didn't it cost jobs in the 13 states that tried it? Did you RTFA? Your theory is shot to hell.

As for the rest, nobody has contemplated a law forcing one particular employer to pay higher wages. Your imagined outcome doesn't happen when everyone is equally required to pay a fair wage. You're also breaking the argument by analogy by insisting on an unrealistic starting condition. Nobody has suggested $300/hr or anything close to it. The effect of $15/hr would increase the cost of a Big Mac by $0.20. Meanwhile, a bunch of people could actually afford things, which means sales and hiring staff to serve them.

Actually no. Progressives generally believe that if we raise wages for the poor, the stimulus to the economy will make everyone richer. It is the GOP that believes that moving money from employer to employee will bring the world to a screeching halt and make everyone poor.

Note that the Dems are coming to closely resemble the GOP. Few seem to be actually progressive these days.

Once you have established that something works well on multiple test systems, shouldn't it then be deployed to the production system? Now that the test states have proven the effectiveness of the measure, any remaining 'controversy' is political in nature and likely driven by a metric that would end a political career if voiced honestly.

Many people have no desire to live like gypsies and move constantly.

You'll need a bit of C, but consider using sched_setscheduler on the receiver process to make sure you get the packets before the buffer fills. That process can have a big buffer and keep a queue stuffed for the actual handling. Probably one thread to receive and one to stuff the queue will work.

The worker processes can remain as python processes at that point. As long as your queue is lossless and the workers are on average fast enough AND their jitter is smaller than your buffer in the high performance C code, it should work.

By using the pipe, and a thread, you avoid the problems from the worker process priority not being boosted.

Given that the work packets are small, consider reading and writing more than one in a single call to reduce context switch overhead.