I've migrated for work myself, as well as working in my country of citizenship. Never really felt I was competing with these billions of self taught people... It was always down to my skills being a good fit for the company and us agreeing on a salary.
I don't think I'm exceptional, not in the top 10% of geniuses. The UK's immigration system is apparently too lax. I compete directly with people from eastern Europe, Poles and Bulgarians and Romanians who thanks to freedom of movement don't even need to apply for a visa, they just book a cheap flight.
Managers don't just want the cheapest though, they want someone good. If they get someone not so good it ends up reflecting badly on them.
If there is an issue in SV it sounds like it's because there are too many people in SV. I think US employment laws are partly to blame too. In Europe it's much harder to fire people so there is more effort put in to hiring someone good in the first place, and not just getting the cheapest warm body.
Seems like China already has much better cyber defences (the Great Firewall) and that the US couldn't match them even if it wanted to, because the US government doesn't have that kind of contralized control and people would never stand for it.
So on the face of it starting open cyberwar with China doesn't sound like a good idea. Securing US systems seems like a better strategy.
Interesting, because Amazon's numbers from 2014 suggest that 60% of their employees are "white". That of course includes people at all levels. Managers are 73% white.
So either it's a problem very specific to development, which isn't born out in more detailed numbers we have from other companies, or you were extremely unlucky.
Excuse me for being skeptical, but I hear these 90%+ claims and never see a shred of evidence of it being true anywhere. When I ask people get evasive or the available evidence doesn't back them up.
The reason we don't have more direct democracy is that to work properly it requires the population to be well informed, and for the most part populations aren't. People prefer to delegate to elected representatives so that they don't have to become an expert on everything government gets involved in and so that theoretically informed decisions are made.
Another issue is that direct democracy is rather powerful, and democracy relies on individuals and individual institutions not having too much power. Checks and balances.
Democracy is a process too, so the nature of individual votes on often binary questions isn't really suited to it.
As an example of what can go wrong, look at Brexit. The population was not informed, in fact most of the information that was available was false or misleading. The question was both binary and unclear: leave or remain, but neither position was defined. And after a slim majority voted in favour of leaving that single event has been used to wield an enormous amount of power, so much so that new balances had to be introduced and it's not clear yet if they are strong enough.
This makes no sense, what motivation would "American elites" have for benefiting "hostile people in distant lands"?
No, businesses did it to benefit themselves of course. It's been happening since about 1980, productivity has continued to rise but wages have not kept pace. Combined with tech being a relatively young industry which is still rapidly evolving (meaning that once rare skills are now more common, and things like Javascript frameworks on machines with 8GB of RAM dramatically lowered the bar to entry) and you have your explanation.
Speaking of political extremists, take a look at your own language. You probably didn't intend it, but you are echoing some very unpleasant people with those phrases.
It's got very little to do with immigration, and everything to do with development work getting easier and more common as a profession. Back in 1997 it was much harder than it is today, with modern frameworks and sandboxes to play in like the browser. Back then web apps were CGI scripts written in C++, and Javascript was only two years old and far from widely supported or standardized.
It would be strange if modern JS developers were getting paid as much as C++ people in 1997. There are far more JS developers, it's a far easier job. This is what happens as industries mature and the barriers to entry are lowered, and the skills required become more mainstream.
Today if you want the big bucks you need rare skills, like embedded or AI research.
Seems like an immensely risky scheme for a problem they could solve with a few billion dollars. In fact it would be odd if they hadn't spent a few billion on supercomputers that are able to brute force hashes and do massive dictionary attacks against AES etc.
Aside from anything else they couldn't really use it to brute force anything really interesting, because the public nature of the system would mean that other intelligence agencies would immediately know what they were doing. Plus the way Bitcoin works the amount of computing power this would generate is so small and so slow to muster it would be impractical.
Because sending a rover costs far more than deciding where to land it. They only have the budget for one rover, so getting maximum value is rather important.
Cheap rovers don't really exist. Most of the cost is not building the rover, it's getting it to Mars, landing it and supporting it while it operates there.
Even sending multiple rovers a year doesn't make sense. The energy and time required to get to Mars varies based on its position relative to the Earth, so you might as well wait for it to be in a good location.
If the movement is gentle and smooth enough the inner ear isn't sensitive enough to notice.
People who have been on Japanese high speed trains or in some electric cars will know this. More than once I've been on the train, looked down at something and when I looked up again the station was slowly rolling past the window.
It would probably have to be combined with more aggressive acceleration for when the user starts running. The main challenge would be creating a pair of shoes that can accelerate you gently in perfect sync.
The Russians could argue that they just wanted the truth to come out, but then they would have to admit to having done the hack and interfered with a foreign election.
Republicans should be upset about this too. If proven that Russia was responsible for this information coming out then it de-legitimizes Trump's win even further, because he had illegal help (even if he didn't ask for it, although the fact that his staff and family members were meeting with Russians at the time makes that difficult to accept).
Trump is a post-truth politician, you can't attack him for lying. Accusing him of lying doesn't work, everyone knows that he lies all the time so it's not even news to them. Trump supporters are mostly not stupid enough to think he means the things he says, they just like to hear him say them.
Better to hold him to account on his record, and for the kind of person he is. Mockery is effective too, because it attacks his strong-man image and he is very sensitive about it. But ultimately he will self destruct no matter what. Fire everyone who might have helped him succeed, land himself in some legal trouble he can't escape.
The FBI found 3 Clinton emails with possibly sensitive info in the, not "thousands of classified" ones.
Also Clinton didn't destroy anything. Her IT guy did that by himself to cover up his mistakes, and there is zero indication that she knew anything about it.
When you have to revise history to make your current leaders look good, you have a very big problem.
If they weren't so incompetent I could live with a couple of OS updates a year. My Android phone has been through three OS revisions and it never broke anything, reset my settings or deleted my data. It just quietly and quickly happened at a time of my choosing without bricking my phone.
They are trying to paint it as them being the victims of these nasty people abusing your personal data and posting fake news, even though they helped them do it and charged them for it.
Sure, but people are really waking up to it now. Facebook has been spending large amount of money advertising how trustworthy and honest they are, which can only mean that that research is telling them that people think they are untrustworthy and dishonest.
I'd like to think this is the start of people realizing that all these free internet services are a trade-off, but we shall see.
You're welcome to go work for the college at a reduced rate so that they can lower their costs. I'm guessing that whatever company you work for admits or maintains customers on the basis of their ability to pay.
Most countries subsidise their education systems, because they realize that they need educated workers to survive in the future.
If that sounds too much like socialism for you, consider this. Do you want to be treated by the best doctor, or the one who could afford to go to medical school?
This is a massive security fail. It's just an EEPROM and unique ID combo. Easy to clone. If they had a clue they would use a challenge-response system with no way to read back the critical IDs.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like they attended the 4chan School of Economics.
Billions of them?
I've migrated for work myself, as well as working in my country of citizenship. Never really felt I was competing with these billions of self taught people... It was always down to my skills being a good fit for the company and us agreeing on a salary.
I don't think I'm exceptional, not in the top 10% of geniuses. The UK's immigration system is apparently too lax. I compete directly with people from eastern Europe, Poles and Bulgarians and Romanians who thanks to freedom of movement don't even need to apply for a visa, they just book a cheap flight.
Managers don't just want the cheapest though, they want someone good. If they get someone not so good it ends up reflecting badly on them.
If there is an issue in SV it sounds like it's because there are too many people in SV. I think US employment laws are partly to blame too. In Europe it's much harder to fire people so there is more effort put in to hiring someone good in the first place, and not just getting the cheapest warm body.
Seems like China already has much better cyber defences (the Great Firewall) and that the US couldn't match them even if it wanted to, because the US government doesn't have that kind of contralized control and people would never stand for it.
So on the face of it starting open cyberwar with China doesn't sound like a good idea. Securing US systems seems like a better strategy.
Interesting, because Amazon's numbers from 2014 suggest that 60% of their employees are "white". That of course includes people at all levels. Managers are 73% white.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...
So either it's a problem very specific to development, which isn't born out in more detailed numbers we have from other companies, or you were extremely unlucky.
Excuse me for being skeptical, but I hear these 90%+ claims and never see a shred of evidence of it being true anywhere. When I ask people get evasive or the available evidence doesn't back them up.
Can you give some examples of companies that have 95% immigrant worker populations?
I've heard his claim made about companies like Google and Intel, but their own stats paint a very different picture.
Trump is draining the swamp and re-filling it with his own friends and family. Kinda like how you need to get a cesspit emptied now and then.
The reason we don't have more direct democracy is that to work properly it requires the population to be well informed, and for the most part populations aren't. People prefer to delegate to elected representatives so that they don't have to become an expert on everything government gets involved in and so that theoretically informed decisions are made.
Another issue is that direct democracy is rather powerful, and democracy relies on individuals and individual institutions not having too much power. Checks and balances.
Democracy is a process too, so the nature of individual votes on often binary questions isn't really suited to it.
As an example of what can go wrong, look at Brexit. The population was not informed, in fact most of the information that was available was false or misleading. The question was both binary and unclear: leave or remain, but neither position was defined. And after a slim majority voted in favour of leaving that single event has been used to wield an enormous amount of power, so much so that new balances had to be introduced and it's not clear yet if they are strong enough.
This makes no sense, what motivation would "American elites" have for benefiting "hostile people in distant lands"?
No, businesses did it to benefit themselves of course. It's been happening since about 1980, productivity has continued to rise but wages have not kept pace. Combined with tech being a relatively young industry which is still rapidly evolving (meaning that once rare skills are now more common, and things like Javascript frameworks on machines with 8GB of RAM dramatically lowered the bar to entry) and you have your explanation.
Speaking of political extremists, take a look at your own language. You probably didn't intend it, but you are echoing some very unpleasant people with those phrases.
It's got very little to do with immigration, and everything to do with development work getting easier and more common as a profession. Back in 1997 it was much harder than it is today, with modern frameworks and sandboxes to play in like the browser. Back then web apps were CGI scripts written in C++, and Javascript was only two years old and far from widely supported or standardized.
It would be strange if modern JS developers were getting paid as much as C++ people in 1997. There are far more JS developers, it's a far easier job. This is what happens as industries mature and the barriers to entry are lowered, and the skills required become more mainstream.
Today if you want the big bucks you need rare skills, like embedded or AI research.
Seems like an immensely risky scheme for a problem they could solve with a few billion dollars. In fact it would be odd if they hadn't spent a few billion on supercomputers that are able to brute force hashes and do massive dictionary attacks against AES etc.
Aside from anything else they couldn't really use it to brute force anything really interesting, because the public nature of the system would mean that other intelligence agencies would immediately know what they were doing. Plus the way Bitcoin works the amount of computing power this would generate is so small and so slow to muster it would be impractical.
Because sending a rover costs far more than deciding where to land it. They only have the budget for one rover, so getting maximum value is rather important.
Cheap rovers don't really exist. Most of the cost is not building the rover, it's getting it to Mars, landing it and supporting it while it operates there.
Even sending multiple rovers a year doesn't make sense. The energy and time required to get to Mars varies based on its position relative to the Earth, so you might as well wait for it to be in a good location.
If the movement is gentle and smooth enough the inner ear isn't sensitive enough to notice.
People who have been on Japanese high speed trains or in some electric cars will know this. More than once I've been on the train, looked down at something and when I looked up again the station was slowly rolling past the window.
It would probably have to be combined with more aggressive acceleration for when the user starts running. The main challenge would be creating a pair of shoes that can accelerate you gently in perfect sync.
leaking
That's now how you spell "hacking".
The Russians could argue that they just wanted the truth to come out, but then they would have to admit to having done the hack and interfered with a foreign election.
Republicans should be upset about this too. If proven that Russia was responsible for this information coming out then it de-legitimizes Trump's win even further, because he had illegal help (even if he didn't ask for it, although the fact that his staff and family members were meeting with Russians at the time makes that difficult to accept).
Trump is a post-truth politician, you can't attack him for lying. Accusing him of lying doesn't work, everyone knows that he lies all the time so it's not even news to them. Trump supporters are mostly not stupid enough to think he means the things he says, they just like to hear him say them.
Better to hold him to account on his record, and for the kind of person he is. Mockery is effective too, because it attacks his strong-man image and he is very sensitive about it. But ultimately he will self destruct no matter what. Fire everyone who might have helped him succeed, land himself in some legal trouble he can't escape.
The FBI found 3 Clinton emails with possibly sensitive info in the, not "thousands of classified" ones.
Also Clinton didn't destroy anything. Her IT guy did that by himself to cover up his mistakes, and there is zero indication that she knew anything about it.
When you have to revise history to make your current leaders look good, you have a very big problem.
It's possible to think that what Clinton did was wrong, but that it didn't disqualify her or make her the worst candidate in that election.
If they weren't so incompetent I could live with a couple of OS updates a year. My Android phone has been through three OS revisions and it never broke anything, reset my settings or deleted my data. It just quietly and quickly happened at a time of my choosing without bricking my phone.
They are trying to paint it as them being the victims of these nasty people abusing your personal data and posting fake news, even though they helped them do it and charged them for it.
Sure, but people are really waking up to it now. Facebook has been spending large amount of money advertising how trustworthy and honest they are, which can only mean that that research is telling them that people think they are untrustworthy and dishonest.
I'd like to think this is the start of people realizing that all these free internet services are a trade-off, but we shall see.
You're welcome to go work for the college at a reduced rate so that they can lower their costs. I'm guessing that whatever company you work for admits or maintains customers on the basis of their ability to pay.
Most countries subsidise their education systems, because they realize that they need educated workers to survive in the future.
If that sounds too much like socialism for you, consider this. Do you want to be treated by the best doctor, or the one who could afford to go to medical school?
Looking at their technology page they are using this chip from NXP: https://www.nxp.com/products/i...
This is a massive security fail. It's just an EEPROM and unique ID combo. Easy to clone. If they had a clue they would use a challenge-response system with no way to read back the critical IDs.
I know a lot of C/C# people use GitLab and BitBucket because they give you free private repos. With GitHub free accounts can only make public repos.
Web developers are used to doing everything in public, because everyone gets to see their code and most of it is using public frameworks anyway.
Earlier I included speech that is used as evidence of hatred as motivation in the definition. If you have a different definition that's fine.
Wikipedia has a good article with all the relevant laws and statistics for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As you can see, hate crimes are legally defined, and speech can be a component or used as evidence of motivation.
Yes, but as I pointed out, the law in the US does define hate speech.
Next time you get a speeding ticket try arguing that speeding isn't mentioned in the constitution.