Take her around the world--nice and, not so nice places; then decide if you still want to get married.
I think that this is the wrong approach.
Anybody is suitable for marriage, on the condition that their culture says that there is no other realistic option than to stay married. That is the reason why both of you will do what it takes to make it work, and believe me that it will work.
In that respect, women from the wrong (western) communities are simply not suitable for marriage. Pick randomly a woman elsewhere and you should be ok.
You post this misogynistic screed knowing full well--or you should, if you're any sort of functioning adult--that end case of what you describe so glowingly is quite often the female partner learning how to hide black eyes or worse. "Western" culture not jamming people together because reasons is a feature, not a bug.
People are always compatible, if they have to. That is why rampant marriage failure is a cultural problem, not an individual one. Therefore, if you just avoid to pick someone from the wrong (western) community, you should already be ok.
I do not believe that marrying the "wrong person" is fundamentally that common. The problem is rather that it could be simple and easy to divorce someone for the inevitable quirks that you do not want to learn to put with.
That is why I have never considered and would never consider to marry a woman from a mainstream western community. The fact that it is culturally an easy option to move on, turns them into unsuitable marriage material. I would just be getting into an accident waiting to happen.
Prince Charles and lady Diana only divorced because it was culturally acceptable and rather easy to do. Otherwise, they would still be married today. Especially Diana would have learned how to deal with the drawbacks of that, and probably not be more unhappy for it.
As a newly divorced mainstream western person, I might have an anecdotal perspective on this. You don't divorce because of how easy it is. You divorce despite how hard it is. And while the cultural boundaries are reasonable (not encouraging, mind you), it is the finances, the practical things, the emotions, the social consequences that hurt. And, if you have kids, rip their opportunity to live in the same house as both parents.
My divorce was a "good" one. We agreed, and make the best of it together, not just for the kids' sake but for each other's as well. Still, I never wanna do this again.
According to other people I've talked to, the books I've read, and the therapists I've been to, the idea that couples divorce too easily is simply false. I'm sure you can find examples to point to, but, at least around the Nordics, it simply is not the case.
If you marry a woman who would divorce you in a wink, the reason is you not getting to know her beforehand, not some divorce-culture.
"According to other people I've talked to, the books I've read, and the therapists I've been to, the idea that couples divorce too easily is simply false."
I don't think it is about how "easy" it is. It's about when is divorce considered the "right thing"? In the west we often consider divorce the right option based on feelings and desires. Don't settle. You have the right to be happy etc.
It has always been like that. Women have never "fallen in love" with men who are not sufficiently socially successful. There is nothing new under the sun in that respect.
But then again, "socially successful" is a very relative thing. You will find that women "fall in love" with you all the time in third-world countries, even if you are only on unemployment benefits back home where women may snub you over that.
Furthermore, the appearance of success is probably much more important to women than any real success. The ability to pretend that they caught a fish who could have money, is often enough.
A guy who is (outwardly) self confident will get women (or guys for that matter) no matter what. Ugly, poor, anti-social, doesn't matter. Sure, if you want to have a large amount of one-night-stands with 'just 18s' in clubs expensive clothes and a fat wallet help next to that confidence, but we were talking about love here.
Enlisting more cores in order to get something done faster, you know, by splitting the work is indeed a serious pain.
I recently wanted to get lpsolve to split an integer branch-and-bound programming problem across multiple cores and then get a large on-demand AWS instance to deal with.
The branch-and-bound algorithm is eminently parallellizable. So, it should have been possible.
I came to the conclusion, however, that I would have to rewrite lpsolve for that. That program sticks to one process and there is no way to get it to fork other processes and read back the results.
The tendency is for things like lpsolve to be written single-process, because typically when you need to do it once, you need to do it one thousand times, and then your distribution is using each core available to you for a single lpsolve instance.
1000 iterations of an lpsolve invocation running on a single core, is going to run faster than the same number of lpsolve invocations each running on 10 cores.
Using multiple processes for this is a big leap since you have to plan your data sharing scheme. Assuming the program is currently only single threaded, dropping some OpenMP on it in the right places would be an easier path to using all of your cores.
It does not even matter that "the majority of Tor users are using it for nefarious purposes". Any attempt at intimidation will work out exactly the other way around.
Doing anything that the NSA do not like, is "cool"; even more so in the global scene.
Seriously, if you want to get people to use Tor, all you have to say is that the NSA do not like it.
The NSA strategy of spying on everyone only works when most people are not aware of it. The surprise element is now gone. They can undoubtedly already see the effect of the recent scandals in a serious decrease in quality of the information that they collect. The entire internet is now slowly but surely moving to stronger forms of encryption. On the long run, it probably means that the entire internet will go dark for them. In other words, the ones who wanted to see everything will end up seeing nothing at all.
The Snowden revelations also killed two other illusions:
1. Putting the state-actor threat in the too-hard pile is a viable security plan.
2. If you sell to governments, especially the US government, you can also sell internationally to strategically important customers and not provide a "trust nobody" level of security. "Trust that I have implemented no back doors."
Going dark simply means providing the level of security that was always needed against mafia-connected state-actors and other high-level threats. And it means adapting to the level of trust (i.e. none) required to do business across multiple sovereign nations that want real autonomy of action.
Yes, you are right. This entire NSA thing is bad business for American companies. Even an erstwhile global darling such as Google suffers from this. They are now being viewed with suspicion ...
Around here you'll get a lot of "How dare you say Google isn't doing enough..."
The problem with that is there is a minimum threshold: Web-of-trust for key exchange; open clients; encryption the default, etc.
Google can be lauded for being 5% of the way there while everyone else is dawdling and hoping the toothpaste goes back in the tube. But that's not the same as actually equipping their users to trust nobody as the usual day to day way of working.
Uber is actually a good example of how existing regulations can be a formidable barrier to startups; or even any kind of innovation. You are not just free to offer a new product or service that competes with existing ones. The incumbents will have the existing regulations on their side and use them to shut you down.
> The incumbents will have the existing regulations on their side and use them to shut you down.
Absolutely, but you must consider the possibility that in addition to turf protection, those regulations actually serve a social purpose. Not every innovation is good and every regulation is bad. Sometimes regulation is formalized valuable lessons learned over many years. As someone who sees Uber as an exploitative venture (I may be wrong), I actually find those regulations the last wall slowing down the huns.
I absolutely agree. The analogies I use when describing this are with the food (and medical/drug industry). Unless you grow/rear your own food, you really have no idea what's on your plate and your ability to comprehend the totality of the system that got the food there is quite limited (unless you work in that industry or devote significant time to it). Therefore, there is regulation intended to protect consumers from harm and from making poor choices.
It's true that regulations can be perverted and manipulated by incumbents but in my mind that's a separate issue (related to lobbying and politics). It doesn't mean we should throw out the laws all-together.
They may not have a choice. I can perfectly well see why they erect barriers and put large obstacles in front of people trying to cross their borders. The problem is rather that startups should not demand that you physically move over there. I have had the case several times and I had to refuse the project. Moving over there, is unpractical. Why not collaborate remotely with people around the world? Do people really need to sit next to you in order to work with them?
I think that this is the wrong approach.
Anybody is suitable for marriage, on the condition that their culture says that there is no other realistic option than to stay married. That is the reason why both of you will do what it takes to make it work, and believe me that it will work.
In that respect, women from the wrong (western) communities are simply not suitable for marriage. Pick randomly a woman elsewhere and you should be ok.