Really, "VC privilege" and "gender implications"? Come on. Worker productivity isn't a new field of study, there's a lot of empirical evidence (in both directions, really) that address this question. I _think_ that the literature tends to show that while burnout is a very real thing and absolutely devastating to long term productivity, occasional "crunch mode" periods can actually be very productive. Whatever the actual answer is, though, it's super depressing that people fall back on ad-hom attacks (which is essentially what all identity-based args are) vs referencing the huge body of research that exists.
To be so bad at your job that you're terrified of 80,000 non-native English speakers (out of a workforce of 160m) who generally tend to work in growth industries. If you can't beat out an Indian making 60k, maybe the problem isn't them, it's you.
I agree that both arguments are silly, which is why I made the comparison. Free trade and open borders are indeed the natural and correct state of things.
Here's a list of per-capita GDP (PPP) by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Pick a reasonable place on the chart to start the third world, and tell me that's what US companies are paying H1-B programmers. India, for example, is about $7k USD per capita. Are programmers working for that here? No, they're working for like 5x that. I bet most H1-B workers are either at or above the US level (55k).
So, what's your complaint again?
They're only price-competitive for their market if you define their market as "American IT workers", in the same way that US steel is price competitive only if you're talking about a certain type of steel produced in the US. I agree that the lock-in part is bullshit, and should be abolished, but the overall ideal is still completely open borders and a free flow of goods, services, capital, and labor.
Question: if not for the lock-in part, which I agree probably exerts a downward pressure on wages (although I don't know the significance of that pressure), would you be fine with importing foreign workers?
No, but you could easily argue that the relatively free trade we engaged in even in the 70's and 80's was as much a "government-run program to import foreign goods" as the H1-B program. In fact, the auto workers probably have a better case, because we didn't have absurd quotas on how many BMWs and Toyotas we could import. In fact, the government, via those quotas, actually provides a subsidy to American tech workers by preventing them from having to absorb the full impact of competition in the labor market. H1-B is a restriction, not a gift.
So, the analogy maybe falls down a little bit, but only because it's giving IT workers too much credit.
Do you feel the same way about manufacturing jobs lost to foreign competition? If not, why? If so, how do you explain that trade and prosperity have, at every point in history, gone hand in hand?
Is your argument that all foreign trade is harmful and destructive to (Importing Country)'s living standards, or just labor imports? If the former, you're empirically wrong. If the latter, what's the difference?
Well, I said what I meant to say, but I also agree with your statement. In the same way that I have no problem with people buying foreign goods that non-competitive American firms provide, I have no problem with American firms buying foreign labor that non-competitive American workers could provide. If that ends up being a temporary negative for me for a time, that's a.) my own responsibility, and b.) a price I'm happy to pay for the benefits of a globalized economy.
An Indian or whatever is no less a person than an American, no less worthy of a job to sustain themselves and grow. There's nothing inherent about geographical boundaries that changes the moral calculus about whether or not someone "deserves" a job.
It's amazing how much tech folk can sound like auto workers in the 80's bitching about Americans buying foreign cars. The only thing lamentable about the H1-B visa is how it turns foreign-born employees into virtual slaves of whoever their sponsoring employer is. Every other complaint is just a variation on "I shouldn't have to be price competitive because I was born in America".
I'm curious as to the design decisions that led to the way that Go objects are implemented, which feel and seem to operate like C structs w/ function pointers. Yes, all objects are essentially structs with function pointers, but most languages provide a good deal of syntactic and functional candy on top of them to make them more useful. With Go objects, you get sortof-inheritance, sortof-polymorphism, and sortof-encapsulation, which requires re-thinking a lot of design patterns that people learn working with languages like C++, Java, and even PHP. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I can see arguments for forcing people to get out of their comfortable patterns, I'd just like to know why.
Oh, ok, you're just a rule of law conservative. So, it's safe to assume that you're equally incensed by and demand punishment for people who do drugs, violate intellectual property, record conversations with public officials in two party consent states, etc. And, because you use legislation to determine morality, you have no problem at all with market segmentation because it's legal (you specifically pointed out legal barriers to US consumers getting the same price).
Unless you'd be just as outraged by Disney replacing their current tech workforce with a bunch of white kids fresh out of college, you're just being a nativist douchebag.
Naw, I didn't miss that part, I just don't think it makes an argument for this being a failure of Amazon security policy. Given that you need to know someone's account email address (how hard is it to do foo+amazon@dingleberry.com, or some other not-easily-guessed email address?), billing address, etc, to even get an Amazon rep to talk to you, the protections on that front seem sufficient (maybe not best, but sufficient) to me. Running an auth/void doesn't really work either. Sure, Amazon has their own payment gateway, but that doesn't make it free, it just makes it cheaper for them. Given the volume of cards that they accept into their system every day, running two transactions on each would pretty quickly jack up costs considerably. For subscription services like Norton, that might make sense, because the overall transaction volume is fairly low, but for Amazon, that bill would get pretty big.
Now, compare Amazon's relatively reasonable, if not super awesome, procedures to Apple's, where all you need is the last four in order to get access to all data and devices, and tell me this is still an Amazon problem.
Every e-commerce company in the world that allows you to store your card info will display the last four digits of your card number, because what other option is there? What other unique determinant could you possibly display in order to allow people to select one card from a set? There's nothing at all insecure about that on its own, and it's silly to pretend as though everyone else becomes liable for Apple's crappy security policy.
This is way more about a.) How one guy had a bad personal password policy, b.) poor security training for Apple support staff and poor security policies at Apple, and c.) How stupid it is to make any of your data deletable remotely. "There's this option to wipe all my data on Apple's site, and then these evil hax0rs totally did it, and I didn't have backups" does not translate into "Amazon has bad security policy".
"If the machine is up enough to SSH into, it's not an emergency"? Really?
Segfaulted Apache
Runaway MySQL query
DDOS attack
DNS server dies
Full disks prevent writing session files
I'm barely awake and those popped right off my head.
Either you've been fortunate enough to only have IT gigs where you weren't the only person running the servers, or you've never had anything go wrong. Either way, get your ass to Atlantic City while your luck is holding out.
I'm pretty happy with my Epic. The physical keyboard is pretty good considering the space constraints, and, as many people have already suggested, ConnectBot is a fantastic SSH program with full support for key auth, the slightly bigger than normal screen is noticeably nice, and, at least in Austin, 4G connectivity is pretty widely available and speedy.
Energy is not fungible. I can't turn a KFC Double Down into electricity to power my car (at least, not in any way that doesn't involve treadmills, copper wire, magnets, and a shitload of inefficiency), but I can turn it into power for my body. Plus, in 300 years, you think we'll be running anything off synthetic gas? That's a pretty low estimation of mankind's ability to innovate.
There's no relationship between electric cars and windmills. The production of one does not spur the production of the other. Wind power is a (inefficient) way to produce the thing that makes the electric cars go, yes, but you still have to solve the problem (if you think of it that way, I don't) of increasing electric car adoption. Furthermore, the my argument wasn't against the claim that windmills produce less CO2, it was against the claim that windmills have a tradeoff with oil. They don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, "VC privilege" and "gender implications"? Come on. Worker productivity isn't a new field of study, there's a lot of empirical evidence (in both directions, really) that address this question. I _think_ that the literature tends to show that while burnout is a very real thing and absolutely devastating to long term productivity, occasional "crunch mode" periods can actually be very productive. Whatever the actual answer is, though, it's super depressing that people fall back on ad-hom attacks (which is essentially what all identity-based args are) vs referencing the huge body of research that exists.
To be so bad at your job that you're terrified of 80,000 non-native English speakers (out of a workforce of 160m) who generally tend to work in growth industries. If you can't beat out an Indian making 60k, maybe the problem isn't them, it's you.
Unless you're crying about all the unemployed farriers out there, hush.
I agree that both arguments are silly, which is why I made the comparison. Free trade and open borders are indeed the natural and correct state of things.
The purpose of the economy is to serve consumers.
Here's a list of per-capita GDP (PPP) by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Pick a reasonable place on the chart to start the third world, and tell me that's what US companies are paying H1-B programmers. India, for example, is about $7k USD per capita. Are programmers working for that here? No, they're working for like 5x that. I bet most H1-B workers are either at or above the US level (55k).
So, what's your complaint again?
Just this one, and my account # is lower than yours, so nyaaaaaaaah.
They're only price-competitive for their market if you define their market as "American IT workers", in the same way that US steel is price competitive only if you're talking about a certain type of steel produced in the US. I agree that the lock-in part is bullshit, and should be abolished, but the overall ideal is still completely open borders and a free flow of goods, services, capital, and labor. Question: if not for the lock-in part, which I agree probably exerts a downward pressure on wages (although I don't know the significance of that pressure), would you be fine with importing foreign workers?
No, but you could easily argue that the relatively free trade we engaged in even in the 70's and 80's was as much a "government-run program to import foreign goods" as the H1-B program. In fact, the auto workers probably have a better case, because we didn't have absurd quotas on how many BMWs and Toyotas we could import. In fact, the government, via those quotas, actually provides a subsidy to American tech workers by preventing them from having to absorb the full impact of competition in the labor market. H1-B is a restriction, not a gift. So, the analogy maybe falls down a little bit, but only because it's giving IT workers too much credit.
Do you feel the same way about manufacturing jobs lost to foreign competition? If not, why? If so, how do you explain that trade and prosperity have, at every point in history, gone hand in hand?
Is your argument that all foreign trade is harmful and destructive to (Importing Country)'s living standards, or just labor imports? If the former, you're empirically wrong. If the latter, what's the difference?
Well, I said what I meant to say, but I also agree with your statement. In the same way that I have no problem with people buying foreign goods that non-competitive American firms provide, I have no problem with American firms buying foreign labor that non-competitive American workers could provide. If that ends up being a temporary negative for me for a time, that's a.) my own responsibility, and b.) a price I'm happy to pay for the benefits of a globalized economy. An Indian or whatever is no less a person than an American, no less worthy of a job to sustain themselves and grow. There's nothing inherent about geographical boundaries that changes the moral calculus about whether or not someone "deserves" a job.
It's amazing how much tech folk can sound like auto workers in the 80's bitching about Americans buying foreign cars. The only thing lamentable about the H1-B visa is how it turns foreign-born employees into virtual slaves of whoever their sponsoring employer is. Every other complaint is just a variation on "I shouldn't have to be price competitive because I was born in America".
I'm curious as to the design decisions that led to the way that Go objects are implemented, which feel and seem to operate like C structs w/ function pointers. Yes, all objects are essentially structs with function pointers, but most languages provide a good deal of syntactic and functional candy on top of them to make them more useful. With Go objects, you get sortof-inheritance, sortof-polymorphism, and sortof-encapsulation, which requires re-thinking a lot of design patterns that people learn working with languages like C++, Java, and even PHP. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I can see arguments for forcing people to get out of their comfortable patterns, I'd just like to know why.
Oh, ok, you're just a rule of law conservative. So, it's safe to assume that you're equally incensed by and demand punishment for people who do drugs, violate intellectual property, record conversations with public officials in two party consent states, etc. And, because you use legislation to determine morality, you have no problem at all with market segmentation because it's legal (you specifically pointed out legal barriers to US consumers getting the same price).
Unless you'd be just as outraged by Disney replacing their current tech workforce with a bunch of white kids fresh out of college, you're just being a nativist douchebag.
Duh.
Naw, I didn't miss that part, I just don't think it makes an argument for this being a failure of Amazon security policy. Given that you need to know someone's account email address (how hard is it to do foo+amazon@dingleberry.com, or some other not-easily-guessed email address?), billing address, etc, to even get an Amazon rep to talk to you, the protections on that front seem sufficient (maybe not best, but sufficient) to me. Running an auth/void doesn't really work either. Sure, Amazon has their own payment gateway, but that doesn't make it free, it just makes it cheaper for them. Given the volume of cards that they accept into their system every day, running two transactions on each would pretty quickly jack up costs considerably. For subscription services like Norton, that might make sense, because the overall transaction volume is fairly low, but for Amazon, that bill would get pretty big.
Now, compare Amazon's relatively reasonable, if not super awesome, procedures to Apple's, where all you need is the last four in order to get access to all data and devices, and tell me this is still an Amazon problem.
Every e-commerce company in the world that allows you to store your card info will display the last four digits of your card number, because what other option is there? What other unique determinant could you possibly display in order to allow people to select one card from a set? There's nothing at all insecure about that on its own, and it's silly to pretend as though everyone else becomes liable for Apple's crappy security policy. This is way more about a.) How one guy had a bad personal password policy, b.) poor security training for Apple support staff and poor security policies at Apple, and c.) How stupid it is to make any of your data deletable remotely. "There's this option to wipe all my data on Apple's site, and then these evil hax0rs totally did it, and I didn't have backups" does not translate into "Amazon has bad security policy".
Growing wheat for your own personal consumption and the feeding of your own livestock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
I'm barely awake and those popped right off my head. Either you've been fortunate enough to only have IT gigs where you weren't the only person running the servers, or you've never had anything go wrong. Either way, get your ass to Atlantic City while your luck is holding out.
I'm pretty happy with my Epic. The physical keyboard is pretty good considering the space constraints, and, as many people have already suggested, ConnectBot is a fantastic SSH program with full support for key auth, the slightly bigger than normal screen is noticeably nice, and, at least in Austin, 4G connectivity is pretty widely available and speedy.
How does a smart grid prompt people to produce and purchase more electric cars?
Energy is not fungible. I can't turn a KFC Double Down into electricity to power my car (at least, not in any way that doesn't involve treadmills, copper wire, magnets, and a shitload of inefficiency), but I can turn it into power for my body. Plus, in 300 years, you think we'll be running anything off synthetic gas? That's a pretty low estimation of mankind's ability to innovate.
There's no relationship between electric cars and windmills. The production of one does not spur the production of the other. Wind power is a (inefficient) way to produce the thing that makes the electric cars go, yes, but you still have to solve the problem (if you think of it that way, I don't) of increasing electric car adoption. Furthermore, the my argument wasn't against the claim that windmills produce less CO2, it was against the claim that windmills have a tradeoff with oil. They don't.