Intel has a fab in Israel, and an assembly factory, plus various R&D facilities.
Made possible only by the prosperity alleged in the previous post. They just didn't do a fucking mind-meld with their great intellect and made it appear out of thin air. With that said, yes, Israel's society is quite productive compared to the rest of the region. They deserve due credit for that. But do not pretend that external resources (a lot of it our taxes) made that possible (not that I mind, I rather see my tax dollars helping countries progress than in bombing the shit out of poor remote villages.)
I guess it's been coming for a while. From their perspective it makes total sense - keep everyone on a single version of Windows and Office, force all the consumer users to accept every OS and application update, etc. The average consumer is used to the subscription model now - many are on Office 365 and almost everyone pays for their mobile phone every month. I can't say I'm too happy about the idea of having to rent the operating system as well as the office software running on top of it, but hopefully they'll realize they can't trap everyone in that cycle.
This seems to be the ultimate desired state -- collect revenue on a permanent basis little by little, rather than rely on enterprise agreements and one-off software purchases. It's going to be a big shift though, Windows client licenses have been sold to OEMs for ages, and buying a new computer means it comes pre-licensed for the life of the machine. Windows Server licenses have been either one-off purchases or covered under much bigger enterprise agreements. If you shift to a monthly fee, who pays it, and what happens if you don't pay?
Being in the IT industry for a while gives an interesting perspective...this is officially the point where we start swinging back toward an IBM mainframe style model. IBM still rakes in massive amounts of money by selling companies a mainframe, keeping it fed with parts and software, and charging monthly for the use of computing power. They used to be pretty much the only game in town, and the PC/x86 ecosystem was the break from that. Microsoft's got this going on the Azure side, and now will have another revenue stream on the device side, so we're back to central control of everything. I guess it makes sense because consumers are used to locked-down phones. But, I wonder if as PCs become a niche product for doing actual work rather than consuming entertainment, how many businesses will be happy with having to buy the same software over and over for eternity?
I think in many ways Office 360 was one of the best things done by MS. It lowers the price for home users, and it allows businesses (specially small ones) to turn their MS Office expense from a capex into a opex.
It does sound funky, and it does remove some freedoms from end users. But on the other hand, it allows more people to use the software (it is cheaper to pay a monthly fee than to fork money for a permanent license at once.)
It's all about trade-ins. Many costumers will have legitimate objections towards such a subscription model. Others customers will actually find it advantageous. c'est la effing vie.
Forced Arbitration Isn't 'Forced' Because No One Has To Buy Service, Says AT&T
Someone should tell these assholes at AT&T about these two terms. Sure no one forces anyone to sign up with AT&T... just like no one is forced to buy a car in a metro area with shitty public infrastructure.
The only choices of internet access for some customers is a single provider, so right there that eliminates the option. And even when there are multiple providers, they all require an adhesion contract.
In this time and age, you simply do not want to be without internet access. And this is not just to stream movies or look at pictures of LOLcats.
Want to order something? Internet.
Price comparison? Internet.
Sign electronic documents? Internet.
Your kid is required to use a lectures portal provided by the school? Internet.
Job searches and resumes? Internet.
Sure we can live without it. But that pretty much requires an individual to separate himself from society so much, such an option is no longer reasonable for the common person (specially one with children, and who wants his children not to live under a rock.)
So, no, we consumers do not have options, and we are force to take these adhesion contracts by necessity. No one forces us my ass.
Isn't there a point though, where the body can't get rid of heat fast enough and your body temperature starts to rise, causing hyperthermia and heat stroke?
The laws of physics say that if it's 129F and your body temperature is 98.6F, the heat transfer will be INTO your body. At what point is evaporative cooling via sweat no longer enough? There is a physical limit; there has to be.
Human bodies cool off via evaporation of sweat. The outside temperature might measure at 129F, but as you sweat, it evaporates, dissipating heat off your body. As long as you are hydrated, this will work. Outside temperature would have to be a lot hotter than that to stop your body from cooling, hot enough for you to cook maybe.
Isn't there a point though, where the body can't get rid of heat fast enough and your body temperature starts to rise, causing hyperthermia and heat stroke?
The laws of physics say that if it's 129F and your body temperature is 98.6F, the heat transfer will be INTO your body. At what point is evaporative cooling via sweat no longer enough? There is a physical limit; there has to be.
Assume one were to get to one point, consider that many areas of the world have been very hot for ages... and obviously w/o air conditioning.
Back then, people would not go out between noon and, say, 4. You would get up very early to work, go to a siesta and resume work in the afternoon. It wasn't that long ago that people back in my country of origin would wake up before 4 to go to the fields with lanterns, be back by 11 with milk and produce, take a nap and wait till 4 to resume work.
Desert dwellers would travel at night, and so on. Adaptability is not just limited to the physical. It covers the behavioral and social.
I would hardly call people with 4 year college degrees highly skilled. You can already be happy if they can code their way out of a wet paper bag. And that's for a technical or scientific 4 years degree.
Highly skilled? Not highly skilled? We are making these assessments with respect to what? What's the reference point? I'm sorry, but someone who did a 4-year degree (and who just didn't collect 2.0 grades) will be highly skilled. Highly skilled relative to the general population who did not achieve the same level of education. Highly skilled in their branches of study relative to other educated individuals that studied a different career path, etc.
Sure there are exceptional individuals that do not fit that pattern. But that's the thing with exceptions: Neither we can use them to describe the general case, nor we should use them to paint broad generalizations.
It seems strange to call this "new" since a few decades ago, it seems like there were lots of people like this in tech, including my high school buddy who never went to college yet did quite well designing computer printers.
That's how it used to be. I started my career with a AA in CS. And some of my classmates were running software programming one-man-shop businesses with only a HS degree (but also studying towards a AA and BS degree.) That was in the early 90's.
But by then we were all seeing the change, the progressive change in academic requirements in job postings. There were people at my first job who wanted me out because I only had a AA degree (regardless of how well I was performing.) So many of us kept studying, got a 4-year degree or even went to grad school.
There is no fucking way nowadays for someone without a 4-year degree to get a job in programming. Maybe you can get an IT job with an AA degree, but there is so much bias in the job market, one might as well suck it up and get the 4-year degree.
I went to grad school and all, and I'm going back again. And yet, I can categorically say (pulling a number out of my ass) that maybe 80% of the work in software does not require a 4-year degree.
The complexity of tools and technology would make it very difficult (not impossible for the naturally gifted, but difficult for the rest) to do the job with only a HS degree. But a AA or AS in IT/MIS/CS with enough programming courses, that's all you really need.
Hopefully we go back to that at some point. Yes, there are jobs that require 4-year degrees or advanced degrees. But most software jobs aren't like that.
That's right. All wind investment is automatically good and smart. No matter how high the cost or low the practicality for scaling. Its wind and wind is always good and smart. Only idiots think otherwise.
I wish that the term farm would stop being applied to what amount to gardens. A garden has to get pretty damn big and have a pretty big yield before the scale of farm as a term really applies.
Yeah, because language is impervious to change. Notions of what a garden and a farm are are changing to reflect the convergence between the two. It is a convergence that makes the difference irrelevant at the small/in-house scale.
I guess part of my distaste for the abuse of the term stems from smug, self-important people referring to their urban gardening experiments as farms.
Pot tells kettle. Who's the smug, self-important person now that you made your supremely subjective opinion obvious? Yeah, here is me, here is my point, where is my cookie?
Great, you've got some plants growing and producing fruit and vegetables.
Dude, vertical/hydroponic farms produce enormous yields relative to size. Singapore, for example, produces enough this way to compensate the expense of importing crops from neighboring countries. Greenhouses have always had this capability.
This isn't some hippie science fiction shit. It is real... and it is not news.
The points of these facilities is not to replace industrial farming, but to compliment and supplement at the local level (thus eliminating waste due to transportation and adding additional sources of income.) A vertical or hydroponic farm uses (IIRC) 20 times less water than regular farming.
This about affordable and supplemental production of crops close to where they are going to be consumed. In the aggregate, yes, they can produce (and do produce) enough to feed many households. How's this different from a farm? A farm is made out of many parcels, many of which (until recently) DID NOT necessarily produce enough for a household (until the introduction of mechanized agriculture.)
Is the yield even enough to feed your household for a season?
Funny guy. Many farms have existed to provide excess produce without a need to supply a household for a season. This is the 21st century. There are large industrial scale farms for... roses. They are farms and yet they do not produce anything edible. Or how about a coffee plantation? That's a farm by the way it operates. I don't care how many fucktons of coffee it produces, it won't feed a household.
If it's not even adequate for subsistence then it may be difficult to call a farm.
No. The definition of a farm is an area of land devoted to crop production. Size and yield are not part of the definition. Look it up, or buy a dictionary.
And most kids will learn that in the US, if you follow a STEM education, you're learning and putting yourself in debt to be replaced by some H1B. Much better to learn for a medical doctor or lawyer instead, they make sure they won't be replaced by regulating their professions. In Russia (or most other eastern European countries) you can get education more or less for free if you're smart enough because they understand that they need educated people to get their economies further.
I've been hearing this shit for year and still, nothing. Hell, this is no different from people who told me almost 30 years ago not to go into CS because AI would write its own software and crap.
Seriously, how the fuck does a Biologist or a Nuclear Engineer gets replaced by a H1B? Or even how does a solid software engineer gets replaced under that program? The only jobs that get replaced are IT ditch digging and boilerplate coding.
If you are worth a damn at your profession, you simply do not get offshored in general, and in the rare case you do, you simply bounce back.
The issue isn't whether the bans are constitutional or not. Clearly, the Executive branch is empowered to secure the borders. The issue was whether or not a religious test was being implemented, and it's an issue because Trump and his proxies spent a good deal of time before and even after the election talking about a "Muslim ban". You see, one of the critical factors in any issue before a court is intent. There's no evidence that the intent of the Obama Administration's restrictions were religious-based, but a helluva lot of evidence that the Trump Administration's ban had a religious component.
That's not to say that there are not legitimate concerns about the ability to vet people coming from these countries, and I imagine that's where SCOTUS is coming from on the partial ruling. It obviously feels there is some sound reason for improving vetting of refugees and immigrants from this region, and that that takes time (though what exactly the Trump Administration has been doing for the last five months seems a bit of a mystery), but it also clearly wants to look into the potential the Administration was using the need for securing the border and improving vetting as cover for trying to implement a Muslim ban.
This. People who ignore it are doing so with full intent of ignoring such crucial and important details.
Humans have developed defenses for lying, it might take us a while to put that into our cars, but we can do it.
Uh, several millions voters bought on the idea that we can make coal great again. And there are millions who believe we can raise the minimum to $15 regardless of location (because apparently COL is the same in SV, Miami, Bozeman and Cheyenne.)
But suuuuuure, we have developed defenses for lying.
No, this is just another avenue to smuggle foreigners into the country. The plan that this will be used for creating jobs is really far fetched. Anyone who can show $250K (do they even need to show it?) is allowed to to invite anyone they please for 5 years. The cover that the money will be used to start a business is really hard to prove or verify. Also, who is going to invest into a business of a foreign tourist with a temp visa?
You do realize that there have been people who started off with ten bucks in their pocket and landing in this country and doing something right? Jeezus..
Indeed. Hell, I know of this person (true story) that came here as a student with literally nothing other than his clothes (his family could only get enough for a one-way trip.) He was accepted into a graduate engineering program in the US, but he (and his family literally) had nothing left when he finally came.
No cash. No car. No place to stay. Just the admissions letter. Imagine that. That person went to become a senior engineering manager at a blue chip company.
That's drive. That's something people in this country had. All they have now is nihilism. Clapping for this program to be axed is testament of that.
I'm not sure you've ever started a business or taken business classes, or understand the difference between equity, debt, revenue, and profit. Hopefully no startup is running at -100% profit margins. Most businesses operate in the -20% to +20% range. That means on $1mm in revenue, there companies that are bleeding $200k a year. By raising $250k in equity, such companies continue to survive, and grow. Companies typically have long-term debt that is 4 times revenue, or $4mm. By raising $250k, such companies continue to be able to make interest payments on their $4mm debt and meet all other payment obligations for the year. That is, due to leverage, a $250k equity investment allows a business with $1mm revenue to run a $4mm "credit card", which is used to pay employees or other purchases. There is significant economic activity achieved by that $4mm in expenditure and repayment. Defaulting on such expenses a zero-sum, whatever temporary gains were made through expenditure on credit will be zapped later on economic contraction due to non-payment of debt. It's well worth it (to society at large) to keep that $4mm in economic activity alive with $250k cash infusion.
TL;DR: capital raised isn't going toward full-time salaries, it's going toward interest on much larger debt that goes toward full-time salaries and other purchases. (Quick side note: that's how your taxes work as well.. your taxes don't build roads or hospitals, those were all built on debt through muni bonds, your taxes just pay the interest payments and other obligations. We have a good 30yr history of never paying down the debt but just making minimum interest payments.)
Thank you. Finally someone who gets how a business actually runs.
I don't deny that $250k is a small number, but arguing that you can't start a company with quarter of a million dollars is ridiculous. Not all startups have to be unicorns.
I don't think people are saying you can't, rather that it is unlikely the visa is being used for this purpose.
To make that claim, them motherfuckers should be providing with evidence that shows that. Without this, such claims amount to nothing more than hand waving.
Wages for what? Convenience store clerks? Are you saying this is a way to procure visas for people to start up corner stores?
Let's not forget that two dudes started what looked like a company on a garage in the 80s and... we'll the rest is history.
America has plenty of examples of successful companies that started with one or two people with nothing but their clothes on. Somewhere along the line that drive was replaced with nihilism. The rest is history.
Exactly how many full-time salaries do you think $250k will cover?
Real tech start-ups need millions in funding. This looks more like a way for people to buy immigrant entry to the US.
Outside of SV, you can start a company or a franchise with (much) less than that. Sorry dude, the argument that this program does not create jobs is bullshit.
Bugzilla. It sucks. But that is what it is there for.
Same here. It sucks but does the job (and it is better in many aspects to the alternatives.) So bugzilla for product bugs (that directly affect a product's ability to meet requirements.)
Anything else goes into git issues.
Oh, and we triage the shit out of both (bugzilla bug entries and git issues) as we go along as well as once a month before the start of the next sprint planning. In fact, a mandatory all-team scrub is scheduled at the end of each sprint. Each developer is expected to look at the standing list regularly, just briefly, nothing epic, and make a list of things that need scrubbing.
Bugzilla. It sucks. But that is what it is there for.
Same here. It sucks but does the job (and it is better in many aspects to the alternatives.) So bugzilla for product bugs (that directly affect a product's ability to meet requirements.)
I know some people think that going into the office helps productivity or something through face-to-face communication, but I haven't had that experience at all as a developer. You're sitting there in the huge amounts of traffic congestion, thinking what the heck is the point in all these people moving from A to B when they could be working from home? Then you go into the office just to be distracted all the time (to different degrees, depending on how badly designed the office is - the open-plan office is the worst).
From now on I'm really trying to demand a majority of time home working from any new job up front, if I can get it.
This only works in some settings, and not in others. If you work in a defense contract, you will most likely not be able to telecommute. Working on commercial "shrink-wrapped" product development, that's another challenge. Other types of work that are purely sysadmin, L3 support, or development (near to no contact with product owners) then that it is possible (and even desirable.)
I think the bulk of software development will go this way. And there are many other jobs that have been done remotely (bill processing, accounting, etc.)
But if you have to face people because customers and liaisons demand it (which you have to in some development roles), there is not much to be done. And here comes the magic sauce in life: trade-offs. How much are you will to trade salary and benefits for physical presence (and possibly the joy of working with a particular team and organization).
All jobs have warts. Each individual just need to know how much warts he/she can live with (and for how much.)
That includes being a lifelong learner and staying on top of developments in your field at every stage of your career, and seeking out training at your workplace and on your own.
No shit. More common sense advise. News at 11. It is incredible that something so simple escapes the minds of otherwise (or supposedly) intelligent professionals. Ageism is always going to exist, and it will hit hardest for those who aren't flexible or expect to retire in-place.
Being proactive, that's the cure for a lot of shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Intel has a fab in Israel, and an assembly factory, plus various R&D facilities.
Made possible only by the prosperity alleged in the previous post. They just didn't do a fucking mind-meld with their great intellect and made it appear out of thin air. With that said, yes, Israel's society is quite productive compared to the rest of the region. They deserve due credit for that. But do not pretend that external resources (a lot of it our taxes) made that possible (not that I mind, I rather see my tax dollars helping countries progress than in bombing the shit out of poor remote villages.)
My entry:
Reward companies (and people) who work from home with incentives to keep them off the road.
Can I have my $5k now?
Yeah, because all jobs can be done remotely #rollseyes.
I guess it's been coming for a while. From their perspective it makes total sense - keep everyone on a single version of Windows and Office, force all the consumer users to accept every OS and application update, etc. The average consumer is used to the subscription model now - many are on Office 365 and almost everyone pays for their mobile phone every month. I can't say I'm too happy about the idea of having to rent the operating system as well as the office software running on top of it, but hopefully they'll realize they can't trap everyone in that cycle.
This seems to be the ultimate desired state -- collect revenue on a permanent basis little by little, rather than rely on enterprise agreements and one-off software purchases. It's going to be a big shift though, Windows client licenses have been sold to OEMs for ages, and buying a new computer means it comes pre-licensed for the life of the machine. Windows Server licenses have been either one-off purchases or covered under much bigger enterprise agreements. If you shift to a monthly fee, who pays it, and what happens if you don't pay?
Being in the IT industry for a while gives an interesting perspective...this is officially the point where we start swinging back toward an IBM mainframe style model. IBM still rakes in massive amounts of money by selling companies a mainframe, keeping it fed with parts and software, and charging monthly for the use of computing power. They used to be pretty much the only game in town, and the PC/x86 ecosystem was the break from that. Microsoft's got this going on the Azure side, and now will have another revenue stream on the device side, so we're back to central control of everything. I guess it makes sense because consumers are used to locked-down phones. But, I wonder if as PCs become a niche product for doing actual work rather than consuming entertainment, how many businesses will be happy with having to buy the same software over and over for eternity?
I think in many ways Office 360 was one of the best things done by MS. It lowers the price for home users, and it allows businesses (specially small ones) to turn their MS Office expense from a capex into a opex.
It does sound funky, and it does remove some freedoms from end users. But on the other hand, it allows more people to use the software (it is cheaper to pay a monthly fee than to fork money for a permanent license at once.)
It's all about trade-ins. Many costumers will have legitimate objections towards such a subscription model. Others customers will actually find it advantageous. c'est la effing vie.
So more correctly, there's no great way to remove oil and bring it to the western world from Kazakhstan.
I hear there is something called a pipeline. Cool shit I know!
Forced Arbitration Isn't 'Forced' Because No One Has To Buy Service, Says AT&T
Someone should tell these assholes at AT&T about these two terms. Sure no one forces anyone to sign up with AT&T... just like no one is forced to buy a car in a metro area with shitty public infrastructure.
The only choices of internet access for some customers is a single provider, so right there that eliminates the option. And even when there are multiple providers, they all require an adhesion contract.
In this time and age, you simply do not want to be without internet access. And this is not just to stream movies or look at pictures of LOLcats.
Want to order something? Internet.
Price comparison? Internet.
Sign electronic documents? Internet.
Your kid is required to use a lectures portal provided by the school? Internet.
Job searches and resumes? Internet.
Sure we can live without it. But that pretty much requires an individual to separate himself from society so much, such an option is no longer reasonable for the common person (specially one with children, and who wants his children not to live under a rock.)
So, no, we consumers do not have options, and we are force to take these adhesion contracts by necessity. No one forces us my ass.
Isn't there a point though, where the body can't get rid of heat fast enough and your body temperature starts to rise, causing hyperthermia and heat stroke?
The laws of physics say that if it's 129F and your body temperature is 98.6F, the heat transfer will be INTO your body. At what point is evaporative cooling via sweat no longer enough? There is a physical limit; there has to be.
Human bodies cool off via evaporation of sweat. The outside temperature might measure at 129F, but as you sweat, it evaporates, dissipating heat off your body. As long as you are hydrated, this will work. Outside temperature would have to be a lot hotter than that to stop your body from cooling, hot enough for you to cook maybe.
Isn't there a point though, where the body can't get rid of heat fast enough and your body temperature starts to rise, causing hyperthermia and heat stroke?
The laws of physics say that if it's 129F and your body temperature is 98.6F, the heat transfer will be INTO your body. At what point is evaporative cooling via sweat no longer enough? There is a physical limit; there has to be.
Assume one were to get to one point, consider that many areas of the world have been very hot for ages... and obviously w/o air conditioning.
Back then, people would not go out between noon and, say, 4. You would get up very early to work, go to a siesta and resume work in the afternoon. It wasn't that long ago that people back in my country of origin would wake up before 4 to go to the fields with lanterns, be back by 11 with milk and produce, take a nap and wait till 4 to resume work.
Desert dwellers would travel at night, and so on. Adaptability is not just limited to the physical. It covers the behavioral and social.
I would hardly call people with 4 year college degrees highly skilled. You can already be happy if they can code their way out of a wet paper bag. And that's for a technical or scientific 4 years degree.
Highly skilled? Not highly skilled? We are making these assessments with respect to what? What's the reference point? I'm sorry, but someone who did a 4-year degree (and who just didn't collect 2.0 grades) will be highly skilled. Highly skilled relative to the general population who did not achieve the same level of education. Highly skilled in their branches of study relative to other educated individuals that studied a different career path, etc.
Sure there are exceptional individuals that do not fit that pattern. But that's the thing with exceptions: Neither we can use them to describe the general case, nor we should use them to paint broad generalizations.
It seems strange to call this "new" since a few decades ago, it seems like there were lots of people like this in tech, including my high school buddy who never went to college yet did quite well designing computer printers.
That's how it used to be. I started my career with a AA in CS. And some of my classmates were running software programming one-man-shop businesses with only a HS degree (but also studying towards a AA and BS degree.) That was in the early 90's.
But by then we were all seeing the change, the progressive change in academic requirements in job postings. There were people at my first job who wanted me out because I only had a AA degree (regardless of how well I was performing.) So many of us kept studying, got a 4-year degree or even went to grad school.
There is no fucking way nowadays for someone without a 4-year degree to get a job in programming. Maybe you can get an IT job with an AA degree, but there is so much bias in the job market, one might as well suck it up and get the 4-year degree.
I went to grad school and all, and I'm going back again. And yet, I can categorically say (pulling a number out of my ass) that maybe 80% of the work in software does not require a 4-year degree.
The complexity of tools and technology would make it very difficult (not impossible for the naturally gifted, but difficult for the rest) to do the job with only a HS degree. But a AA or AS in IT/MIS/CS with enough programming courses, that's all you really need.
Hopefully we go back to that at some point. Yes, there are jobs that require 4-year degrees or advanced degrees. But most software jobs aren't like that.
That's right. All wind investment is automatically good and smart. No matter how high the cost or low the practicality for scaling. Its wind and wind is always good and smart. Only idiots think otherwise.
False dichotomy + strawman + no true Scotsman..
I wish that the term farm would stop being applied to what amount to gardens. A garden has to get pretty damn big and have a pretty big yield before the scale of farm as a term really applies.
Yeah, because language is impervious to change. Notions of what a garden and a farm are are changing to reflect the convergence between the two. It is a convergence that makes the difference irrelevant at the small/in-house scale.
I guess part of my distaste for the abuse of the term stems from smug, self-important people referring to their urban gardening experiments as farms.
Pot tells kettle. Who's the smug, self-important person now that you made your supremely subjective opinion obvious? Yeah, here is me, here is my point, where is my cookie?
Great, you've got some plants growing and producing fruit and vegetables.
Dude, vertical/hydroponic farms produce enormous yields relative to size. Singapore, for example, produces enough this way to compensate the expense of importing crops from neighboring countries. Greenhouses have always had this capability.
This isn't some hippie science fiction shit. It is real... and it is not news.
The points of these facilities is not to replace industrial farming, but to compliment and supplement at the local level (thus eliminating waste due to transportation and adding additional sources of income.) A vertical or hydroponic farm uses (IIRC) 20 times less water than regular farming.
This about affordable and supplemental production of crops close to where they are going to be consumed. In the aggregate, yes, they can produce (and do produce) enough to feed many households. How's this different from a farm? A farm is made out of many parcels, many of which (until recently) DID NOT necessarily produce enough for a household (until the introduction of mechanized agriculture.)
Is the yield even enough to feed your household for a season?
Funny guy. Many farms have existed to provide excess produce without a need to supply a household for a season. This is the 21st century. There are large industrial scale farms for... roses. They are farms and yet they do not produce anything edible. Or how about a coffee plantation? That's a farm by the way it operates. I don't care how many fucktons of coffee it produces, it won't feed a household.
If it's not even adequate for subsistence then it may be difficult to call a farm.
No. The definition of a farm is an area of land devoted to crop production. Size and yield are not part of the definition. Look it up, or buy a dictionary.
You are just being pedantic for no reason.
And most kids will learn that in the US, if you follow a STEM education, you're learning and putting yourself in debt to be replaced by some H1B. Much better to learn for a medical doctor or lawyer instead, they make sure they won't be replaced by regulating their professions. In Russia (or most other eastern European countries) you can get education more or less for free if you're smart enough because they understand that they need educated people to get their economies further.
I've been hearing this shit for year and still, nothing. Hell, this is no different from people who told me almost 30 years ago not to go into CS because AI would write its own software and crap.
Seriously, how the fuck does a Biologist or a Nuclear Engineer gets replaced by a H1B? Or even how does a solid software engineer gets replaced under that program? The only jobs that get replaced are IT ditch digging and boilerplate coding. If you are worth a damn at your profession, you simply do not get offshored in general, and in the rare case you do, you simply bounce back.
The issue isn't whether the bans are constitutional or not. Clearly, the Executive branch is empowered to secure the borders. The issue was whether or not a religious test was being implemented, and it's an issue because Trump and his proxies spent a good deal of time before and even after the election talking about a "Muslim ban". You see, one of the critical factors in any issue before a court is intent. There's no evidence that the intent of the Obama Administration's restrictions were religious-based, but a helluva lot of evidence that the Trump Administration's ban had a religious component.
That's not to say that there are not legitimate concerns about the ability to vet people coming from these countries, and I imagine that's where SCOTUS is coming from on the partial ruling. It obviously feels there is some sound reason for improving vetting of refugees and immigrants from this region, and that that takes time (though what exactly the Trump Administration has been doing for the last five months seems a bit of a mystery), but it also clearly wants to look into the potential the Administration was using the need for securing the border and improving vetting as cover for trying to implement a Muslim ban.
This. People who ignore it are doing so with full intent of ignoring such crucial and important details.
Humans have developed defenses for lying, it might take us a while to put that into our cars, but we can do it.
Uh, several millions voters bought on the idea that we can make coal great again. And there are millions who believe we can raise the minimum to $15 regardless of location (because apparently COL is the same in SV, Miami, Bozeman and Cheyenne.)
But suuuuuure, we have developed defenses for lying.
This scheme in fact involves creating US jobs
No, this is just another avenue to smuggle foreigners into the country. The plan that this will be used for creating jobs is really far fetched. Anyone who can show $250K (do they even need to show it?) is allowed to to invite anyone they please for 5 years. The cover that the money will be used to start a business is really hard to prove or verify. Also, who is going to invest into a business of a foreign tourist with a temp visa?
Ohhh ooooh smuggling foreigners, ooooh oooooh chupacabra!!!!
You do realize that there have been people who started off with ten bucks in their pocket and landing in this country and doing something right? Jeezus..
Indeed. Hell, I know of this person (true story) that came here as a student with literally nothing other than his clothes (his family could only get enough for a one-way trip.) He was accepted into a graduate engineering program in the US, but he (and his family literally) had nothing left when he finally came.
No cash. No car. No place to stay. Just the admissions letter. Imagine that. That person went to become a senior engineering manager at a blue chip company.
That's drive. That's something people in this country had. All they have now is nihilism. Clapping for this program to be axed is testament of that.
I'm not sure you've ever started a business or taken business classes, or understand the difference between equity, debt, revenue, and profit. Hopefully no startup is running at -100% profit margins. Most businesses operate in the -20% to +20% range. That means on $1mm in revenue, there companies that are bleeding $200k a year. By raising $250k in equity, such companies continue to survive, and grow. Companies typically have long-term debt that is 4 times revenue, or $4mm. By raising $250k, such companies continue to be able to make interest payments on their $4mm debt and meet all other payment obligations for the year. That is, due to leverage, a $250k equity investment allows a business with $1mm revenue to run a $4mm "credit card", which is used to pay employees or other purchases. There is significant economic activity achieved by that $4mm in expenditure and repayment. Defaulting on such expenses a zero-sum, whatever temporary gains were made through expenditure on credit will be zapped later on economic contraction due to non-payment of debt. It's well worth it (to society at large) to keep that $4mm in economic activity alive with $250k cash infusion.
TL;DR: capital raised isn't going toward full-time salaries, it's going toward interest on much larger debt that goes toward full-time salaries and other purchases. (Quick side note: that's how your taxes work as well.. your taxes don't build roads or hospitals, those were all built on debt through muni bonds, your taxes just pay the interest payments and other obligations. We have a good 30yr history of never paying down the debt but just making minimum interest payments.)
Thank you. Finally someone who gets how a business actually runs.
I don't deny that $250k is a small number, but arguing that you can't start a company with quarter of a million dollars is ridiculous. Not all startups have to be unicorns.
I don't think people are saying you can't, rather that it is unlikely the visa is being used for this purpose.
To make that claim, them motherfuckers should be providing with evidence that shows that. Without this, such claims amount to nothing more than hand waving.
Wages for what? Convenience store clerks? Are you saying this is a way to procure visas for people to start up corner stores?
Let's not forget that two dudes started what looked like a company on a garage in the 80s and... we'll the rest is history.
America has plenty of examples of successful companies that started with one or two people with nothing but their clothes on. Somewhere along the line that drive was replaced with nihilism. The rest is history.
Nuking this program is just a sign of that.
Wages for what? Convenience store clerks? Are you saying this is a way to procure visas for people to start up corner stores?
And this will be bad because??????
Exactly how many full-time salaries do you think $250k will cover?
Real tech start-ups need millions in funding. This looks more like a way for people to buy immigrant entry to the US.
Outside of SV, you can start a company or a franchise with (much) less than that. Sorry dude, the argument that this program does not create jobs is bullshit.
Bugzilla. It sucks. But that is what it is there for.
Same here. It sucks but does the job (and it is better in many aspects to the alternatives.) So bugzilla for product bugs (that directly affect a product's ability to meet requirements.)
Anything else goes into git issues.
Oh, and we triage the shit out of both (bugzilla bug entries and git issues) as we go along as well as once a month before the start of the next sprint planning. In fact, a mandatory all-team scrub is scheduled at the end of each sprint. Each developer is expected to look at the standing list regularly, just briefly, nothing epic, and make a list of things that need scrubbing.
No scrubbing == insanity.
Bugzilla. It sucks. But that is what it is there for.
Same here. It sucks but does the job (and it is better in many aspects to the alternatives.) So bugzilla for product bugs (that directly affect a product's ability to meet requirements.)
Anything else goes into git issues.
I know some people think that going into the office helps productivity or something through face-to-face communication, but I haven't had that experience at all as a developer. You're sitting there in the huge amounts of traffic congestion, thinking what the heck is the point in all these people moving from A to B when they could be working from home? Then you go into the office just to be distracted all the time (to different degrees, depending on how badly designed the office is - the open-plan office is the worst).
From now on I'm really trying to demand a majority of time home working from any new job up front, if I can get it.
This only works in some settings, and not in others. If you work in a defense contract, you will most likely not be able to telecommute. Working on commercial "shrink-wrapped" product development, that's another challenge. Other types of work that are purely sysadmin, L3 support, or development (near to no contact with product owners) then that it is possible (and even desirable.)
I think the bulk of software development will go this way. And there are many other jobs that have been done remotely (bill processing, accounting, etc.)
But if you have to face people because customers and liaisons demand it (which you have to in some development roles), there is not much to be done. And here comes the magic sauce in life: trade-offs. How much are you will to trade salary and benefits for physical presence (and possibly the joy of working with a particular team and organization).
All jobs have warts. Each individual just need to know how much warts he/she can live with (and for how much.)
That includes being a lifelong learner and staying on top of developments in your field at every stage of your career, and seeking out training at your workplace and on your own.
No shit. More common sense advise. News at 11. It is incredible that something so simple escapes the minds of otherwise (or supposedly) intelligent professionals. Ageism is always going to exist, and it will hit hardest for those who aren't flexible or expect to retire in-place.
Being proactive, that's the cure for a lot of shit.