I'm sure we all share in those kickbacks from the defense contracts, right?

Your "legal process", reconciliation is used for budget change bills not new law.

No real world computer can be Turing complete because it can't have infinite storage.

Unless we're either extinct through our own devices or so heavily modified that we are no longer biologically human.

Unless, of course, you live in the developing world. It is rare to find some societal or global policy no matter how bad that doesn't further someone's interest.

And how many H1-Bs are good quality workers because they are, rather than because the only way they can jump ship is if someone coughs up $5000 and a new job?

This is the sort of situation where one should consider the "ostrich" algorithm: high present day cost to mitigate unknown distant future cost. It doesn't always make sense to anticipate future problems, especially when you can just let those future problems sort themselves out.

For example, we know we're all going to die and it's far more likely to be a very painful way to go, if we don't control how we die. As a result, should you painlessly kill yourself now so you don't have to worry about dying later in a much more painful way? Ostrich algorithm works when you realize you have goals in your life other than avoiding a painful death.

I'm not calling for a complete abandonment of any sort of planning or insuring against future risk. Just be sensible about it and keep those options open. Here, the ostrich strategy continues to grow the global economy. So even if it should turn out that global warming or some other climate change problem is bad, we'll be wealthier and more able to deal with the problem.

Again, you have to adapt the methods to your particular computer. Not all sort algorithms are equal in this regard. It's not that hard to find an O(Nlog(N)) algorithm or hybrid algorithm that works manually.

That turned out to be false as jbolden demonstrated.

Best example of accidental sarcasm I've seen in a while. This little hurdle is why we call H1-Bs indentured servants.

Sure, we can implement behavior changes via political action. But why should we? Also, fossil fuels also have externalized benefits such as cheaper everything due to lower transportation costs. My view is that there isn't a particularly good reason to act right now. But with a few decades of experience we should be able to tell if global warming is a serious problem or not. That should also give us a good idea how long we can push the various fossil fuel industries and may even obsolete a few of the uses for fossil fuels.

Sorting is not such a problem. And adapting your software algorithms to the needs of your computing system (here you) is a pretty important skill.

Why don't you explain it since you're the one looking?

Reread the previous post. Nothing about reducing H1-Bs. Maybe that's the end game for the previous poster, but greatly reducing the indentured servitude aspect of an H1-B visa (especially while saying nothing about reducing the number of H1-Bs!) doesn't restrict the labor pool.