Assuming 36 mpg of "decent car mileage" (kind of standard around here), you'd pay $32000 for those 200k miles. Gasoline price is US$5.8/US gal. right now. Electricity rate for electric vehicles is $0.1/kWh.
According to GasBuddy, there are no states with an average gas price like that. Mine is $3/gal https://www.gasbuddy.com/USA
Moreover if you live in a high-tax state your electricity rates would also reflect high taxes. $0.10/kwh is at the low end.
The HR people and hiring managers I've spoken to tell me the climate regarding hiring H1-B's has shifted dramatically. The are very concerned about the increased scrutiny from the government to justify the hires and as a result they are looking elsewhere.
Correct, now it's a better bargain to hire kids straight out of college.
Check out this video where an immigration lawyer is whining about the increased requests for evidence and denials. She even acknowledges that lack of specialized skills is justification to deny a petition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The HR people and hiring managers I've spoken to tell me the climate regarding hiring H1-B's has shifted dramatically. The are very concerned about the increased scrutiny from the government to justify the hires and as a result they are looking elsewhere.
Even infosys is shifting work from visa holders to Americans. Apparently it is possible to find local talent when necessary. https://www.hrdive.com/news/in...
I've worked for a couple of very large financial institutions, and they disabled USB drives 5+ years ago. It not only curtails the threat of pilfering information, but shuts down a hole in security. "hey, I found this thumb drive in the parking lot, I'll just plug it in and see what's on it"
It was a pain at first, but you quickly learn that for MOST work, it's not necessary. If it is, you can usually get an exemption.
I am surprised this made the "news" though.
I'm amazed IBM hasn't blocked this years ago. It's a huge security risk.
I'm also at large financial institutions. The all have or are moving to thin clients with no access for USB drives or anything else. They don't allow file transfers of any kind. If you get caught they could have you arrested, like Sergey Aleynikov.
The Hatch Act is very much subject to interpretation
Every act is subject to interpretation. It's why courts exist in the first place. If you're worried about something not being clear then err on the side of caution.
The U.S. Office of special council interpreted it differently and chose to issue a warning. So what.
So nothing. Guy did wrong by an Act and got issued a warning. You're the one who started the discussion down the path of: "Everyone breaks a law" followed by jpaine619's "How can people possibly understand laws".
So, don't be flapping your pie-hole about how you could be sure you wouldn't be violating the Engineering Act, since there may be rules that govern engineers buried in a bill called "Save the Spotted Owl".
And if there were (there are not), then it would be passable. Quite unlike an act that has stood on it's own from inception to passing as well as having multiple amendments applied to it directly and independent from any other bill. A good example of this would be.... drumroll... the Hatch Act.
So, don't be flapping your pie-hole about how you could be sure
Don't go making bullshit excuses precisely 0% relevant to the topic at hand. None of anything you said applies to this case. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read your reply. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
The Hatch Act is very much subject to interpretation. The Commissioner explained why he felt he had not violated it - I agree with him. The U.S. Office of special council interpreted it differently and chose to issue a warning. So what.
"Meanwhile, the Guardian reports an alternate perspective from 86-year-old social scientist Mayer Hillman: "We're doomed." He's predicting the end of most life on the planet, citing the lack of any way to reverse the process that's already melting the polar ice caps.
From that article:
Although Hillman has not flown for more than 20 years as part of a personal commitment to reducing carbon emissions, he is now scornful of individual action which he describes as “as good as futile”. By the same logic, says Hillman, national action is also irrelevant “because Britain’s contribution is minute. Even if the government were to go to zero carbon it would make almost no difference.”
Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too. Can it be done without a collapse of civilisation? “I don’t think so,” says Hillman. “Can you see everyone in a democracy volunteering to give up flying? Can you see the majority of the population becoming vegan? Can you see the majority agreeing to restrict the size of their families?”
So, are you going to have cops sitting at the entrance and exit of this neighborhood, recording everyone that enters, relaying that information to the exit cop, and then having them try to match any cars that drove through?
I imagine this could be enforced with license plate readers
"Goldman Sachs analysts attempted to address a touchy subject for biotech companies, especially those involved in the pioneering "gene therapy" treatment: cures could be bad for business in the long run.
"Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" analysts ask in an April 10 report entitled "The Genome Revolution."
"The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies," analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. "While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow."
"The report suggested three potential solutions for biotech firms:
"Solution 1: Address large markets: Hemophilia is a $9-10bn WW market (hemophilia A, B), growing at ~6-7% annually."
"Solution 2: Address disorders with high incidence: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) affects the cells (neurons) in the spinal cord, impacting the ability to walk, eat, or breathe."
"Solution 3: Constant innovation and portfolio expansion: There are hundreds of inherited retinal diseases (genetics forms of blindness) Pace of innovation will also play a role as future programs can offset the declining revenue trajectory of prior assets."
You can argue with the financial analysts view but I see nothing wrong in his analysis.
businesses do NOT need to make a profit. Spotify hasn't made a profit yet, but it's still an existing business. It's a hard fact that businesses do NOT need to make a profit.
I guess you've never run a business.
PROFIT (noun): a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.
If a drug company can't make a profit on their existing drugs they will not have the capital to invest in new ones. They can get the capital through direct borrowing or investors but either way they need a profit to pay them back.
Err... no. The memo in question basically instructs staffers to use equivocal language to misrepresent the current state of evidence.
Suppose somebody asks you, "Is a proton more massive than an electron?" and you answer (paraphrasing the Trump administration here) "The ability to measure with precision the mass of a proton is subject to continuing debate and dialogue." Have you lied?
Well let's clarify: You haven't said anything counterfactual; new papers on more precise mass measurements of proton mass are being published every year. However you have deliberately left the false impression that the uncertainty in proton mass is more important than what we know about proton mass for purposes of answering the question.
I submit that deliberately encouraging false belief is a form of lying, even if you don't say anything that is by itself false. That's how lies of omission work. It's the intent to create a false picture in your audience's mind that makes it a lie.
Sorry, got my memos confused. But I don't have any issues with this one either
"While there has been extensive research and a host of published reports on climate change, clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it."
"Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact and what to do about it are subject to continuing debate and dialogue."
Both statements are accurate and generally accepted.
Broadly speaking, the demand for labor starts in Mexico and makes it's way North through the US and into Canada. Then it jumps back South again for secondary harvests, heading not as far North. Then there's nothing to pick for about 3 months while late winter and early spring pass.
There are not many US people who would take a job that requires them to move through three countries every year, for very low pay.
I defer to your knowledge on this but I point out you ended that comment with "for very low pay". People do a lot of things when the pay is better. I am related to people who do seasonal jobs and travel to where the work is, but these jobs pay well.
It's not "racially motivated" to be against slavery.
Immigrant labor is not "slavery", and their jobs are superior to what they would be paid in Mexico, or otherwise they wouldn't come here.
The worst racists are those that justify it by saying it is "for their own good".
The worst racists justify exploitation by saying things like "it's worse where they are coming from". Do you feel good when you cover your eyes and rationalize like that?
Nobody in America really wants to pick strawberries for a living. Aside from it being awful work with low pay it's seasonal, meaning you can't have a stable family even if the pay was OK.
I think there is always some crop ready to go. As far as the low pay, well, that's because it's easy to find slave labor. It's not "racially motivated" to be against slavery.
Sure, some business owners will say "But how can I be profitable without slaves?". Imagine how much more profitable they could be if they could grow opium or cocaine instead of food crops.
It's not that important that we know it - It's important that it's set according to a criteria set organization-wide, applied equally to all of us.
OK, let me rephrase it. If your motivation for the work is the work itself, why do you care if your peers are compensated exactly the same as you are? What if one of you chooses to work harder or is more productive?
It is telling that "it's _very_ hard to be demoted". It's basically a union job, you just need to show up. I've known union techs who didn't even bother to show up, they knew it was impossible to fire them. I was offered such roles and rejected them.
Possibly. Yet, this system is what fuels research in the highest ranked universities in all geographies. Maybe it's a different mindset - Maybe what differentiates university people from industry people is that cash is not our main motivation.
Then why does it matter that you know each others compensation?
I work at a public university, as (mostly) technical staff (plus a bit of teaching). I consider it a very good point of our work that the income of each of my colleagues is basically public knowledge - Not to the exact sum, but to a general ballpark (as there are too many small variations, but they don't alter the result by >20%).
Each person negotiating their work terms seems to me like a terrible use of time. I know which category I fit in when I was hired; I might have stayed equal or improved (it's _very_ hard to be demoted). I know there are important extras, such as (publicly known) stimulus levels. I have never had to think about negotiating my income level over the last 13 years I have worked there; only once I have requested reclassification (jumped to a higher bracket).
This is a perfect system for under achievers. You have found your home.
The moment they buy a $500,000+ house or a $50,000 car or a suit over $100, or a $20 restaurant meal, etc- kick in the taxes. Poor people buy cheap food and cheap clothing and certainly don't spend $500,000 on a house or $50,000 on a car.
Necessities shouldn't be taxed, but luxuries should.
Your idea of what constitutes a 'luxury" is seriously broken.
- A $500,000 house in NJ is middle class. - A suit over $100 is typical department store. - A $20 restaurant meal? Is that an over $20 entree or the total bill? Most chain restaurants have entree prices in the mid teens. I don't see why $20 is your idea of luxury living. The $50,000 car is the only one I'd say is at the higher end nationwide, but not by a lot, especially if you need room for a large family.
The article could have just as easily said "Coastal developments, including San Francisco Airport, that were build on landfill are sinking and may need remediation to prevent flooding in the future".
The study says "However, rates exceed 10 mm/year in some areas underlain by compacting artificial landfill and Holocene mud deposits.", which means it is sinking a lot faster than the water is rising.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming 36 mpg of "decent car mileage" (kind of standard around here), you'd pay $32000 for those 200k miles. Gasoline price is US$5.8/US gal. right now. Electricity rate for electric vehicles is $0.1/kWh.
According to GasBuddy, there are no states with an average gas price like that. Mine is $3/gal
https://www.gasbuddy.com/USA
Moreover if you live in a high-tax state your electricity rates would also reflect high taxes. $0.10/kwh is at the low end.
.
The HR people and hiring managers I've spoken to tell me the climate regarding hiring H1-B's has shifted dramatically. The are very concerned about the increased scrutiny from the government to justify the hires and as a result they are looking elsewhere.
Correct, now it's a better bargain to hire kids straight out of college.
Check out this video where an immigration lawyer is whining about the increased requests for evidence and denials. She even acknowledges that lack of specialized skills is justification to deny a petition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The HR people and hiring managers I've spoken to tell me the climate regarding hiring H1-B's has shifted dramatically. The are very concerned about the increased scrutiny from the government to justify the hires and as a result they are looking elsewhere.
Even infosys is shifting work from visa holders to Americans. Apparently it is possible to find local talent when necessary.
https://www.hrdive.com/news/in...
I've worked for a couple of very large financial institutions, and they disabled USB drives 5+ years ago. It not only curtails the threat of pilfering information, but shuts down a hole in security. "hey, I found this thumb drive in the parking lot, I'll just plug it in and see what's on it"
It was a pain at first, but you quickly learn that for MOST work, it's not necessary. If it is, you can usually get an exemption.
I am surprised this made the "news" though.
I'm amazed IBM hasn't blocked this years ago. It's a huge security risk.
I'm also at large financial institutions. The all have or are moving to thin clients with no access for USB drives or anything else. They don't allow file transfers of any kind. If you get caught they could have you arrested, like Sergey Aleynikov.
The Hatch Act is very much subject to interpretation
Every act is subject to interpretation. It's why courts exist in the first place. If you're worried about something not being clear then err on the side of caution.
The U.S. Office of special council interpreted it differently and chose to issue a warning. So what.
So nothing. Guy did wrong by an Act and got issued a warning. You're the one who started the discussion down the path of: "Everyone breaks a law" followed by jpaine619's "How can people possibly understand laws".
You missed the point.
So, don't be flapping your pie-hole about how you could be sure you wouldn't be violating the Engineering Act, since there may be rules that govern engineers buried in a bill called "Save the Spotted Owl".
And if there were (there are not), then it would be passable. Quite unlike an act that has stood on it's own from inception to passing as well as having multiple amendments applied to it directly and independent from any other bill. A good example of this would be .... drumroll... the Hatch Act.
So, don't be flapping your pie-hole about how you could be sure
Don't go making bullshit excuses precisely 0% relevant to the topic at hand. None of anything you said applies to this case. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read your reply. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
The Hatch Act is very much subject to interpretation.
The Commissioner explained why he felt he had not violated it - I agree with him.
The U.S. Office of special council interpreted it differently and chose to issue a warning. So what.
Here's their letter. I think they are splitting hairs.
https://www.americanoversight....
I suspect everyone breaks one law or another every day and doesn't know it.
"Meanwhile, the Guardian reports an alternate perspective from 86-year-old social scientist Mayer Hillman: "We're doomed." He's predicting the end of most life on the planet, citing the lack of any way to reverse the process that's already melting the polar ice caps.
From that article:
Although Hillman has not flown for more than 20 years as part of a personal commitment to reducing carbon emissions, he is now scornful of individual action which he describes as “as good as futile”. By the same logic, says Hillman, national action is also irrelevant “because Britain’s contribution is minute. Even if the government were to go to zero carbon it would make almost no difference.”
Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too. Can it be done without a collapse of civilisation? “I don’t think so,” says Hillman. “Can you see everyone in a democracy volunteering to give up flying? Can you see the majority of the population becoming vegan? Can you see the majority agreeing to restrict the size of their families?”
So, are you going to have cops sitting at the entrance and exit of this neighborhood, recording everyone that enters, relaying that information to the exit cop, and then having them try to match any cars that drove through?
I imagine this could be enforced with license plate readers
This is yet another misleading headline from Ars.
From the CNBC report it was quoting, which in itself is only quoting excerpts:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/1...
"Goldman Sachs analysts attempted to address a touchy subject for biotech companies, especially those involved in the pioneering "gene therapy" treatment: cures could be bad for business in the long run.
"Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" analysts ask in an April 10 report entitled "The Genome Revolution."
"The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies," analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. "While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow."
"The report suggested three potential solutions for biotech firms:
"Solution 1: Address large markets: Hemophilia is a $9-10bn WW market (hemophilia A, B), growing at ~6-7% annually."
"Solution 2: Address disorders with high incidence: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) affects the cells (neurons) in the spinal cord, impacting the ability to walk, eat, or breathe."
"Solution 3: Constant innovation and portfolio expansion: There are hundreds of inherited retinal diseases (genetics forms of blindness) Pace of innovation will also play a role as future programs can offset the declining revenue trajectory of prior assets."
You can argue with the financial analysts view but I see nothing wrong in his analysis.
businesses do NOT need to make a profit. Spotify hasn't made a profit yet, but it's still an existing business. It's a hard fact that businesses do NOT need to make a profit.
I guess you've never run a business.
PROFIT (noun): a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.
If a drug company can't make a profit on their existing drugs they will not have the capital to invest in new ones.
They can get the capital through direct borrowing or investors but either way they need a profit to pay them back.
They didn't actually impose any rules on a carrier. Just said they wouldn't give "state business" to a carrier. Big deal.
Both statements are accurate and generally accepted.
But neither signifies what, in context, is being implied. Therefore they are lies of distraction.
Blame the ars article that presented them without context
Err... no. The memo in question basically instructs staffers to use equivocal language to misrepresent the current state of evidence.
Suppose somebody asks you, "Is a proton more massive than an electron?" and you answer (paraphrasing the Trump administration here) "The ability to measure with precision the mass of a proton is subject to continuing debate and dialogue." Have you lied?
Well let's clarify: You haven't said anything counterfactual; new papers on more precise mass measurements of proton mass are being published every year. However you have deliberately left the false impression that the uncertainty in proton mass is more important than what we know about proton mass for purposes of answering the question.
I submit that deliberately encouraging false belief is a form of lying, even if you don't say anything that is by itself false. That's how lies of omission work. It's the intent to create a false picture in your audience's mind that makes it a lie.
Sorry, got my memos confused. But I don't have any issues with this one either
"While there has been extensive research and a host of published reports on climate change, clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it."
"Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact and what to do about it are subject to continuing debate and dialogue."
Both statements are accurate and generally accepted.
The EPA did not tell it's employees to ignore science.
The EPA said the science to be used shouldn't be kept a secret.
I've worked on many projects with global teams. Meetings commonly happen during work hours in different time zones.
I think there is always some crop ready to go.
Not in the same place.
Broadly speaking, the demand for labor starts in Mexico and makes it's way North through the US and into Canada. Then it jumps back South again for secondary harvests, heading not as far North. Then there's nothing to pick for about 3 months while late winter and early spring pass.
There are not many US people who would take a job that requires them to move through three countries every year, for very low pay.
I defer to your knowledge on this but I point out you ended that comment with "for very low pay". People do a lot of things when the pay is better. I am related to people who do seasonal jobs and travel to where the work is, but these jobs pay well.
It's not "racially motivated" to be against slavery.
Immigrant labor is not "slavery", and their jobs are superior to what they would be paid in Mexico, or otherwise they wouldn't come here.
The worst racists are those that justify it by saying it is "for their own good".
The worst racists justify exploitation by saying things like "it's worse where they are coming from".
Do you feel good when you cover your eyes and rationalize like that?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.floc.com/wordpress/...
Nobody in America really wants to pick strawberries for a living. Aside from it being awful work with low pay it's seasonal, meaning you can't have a stable family even if the pay was OK.
I think there is always some crop ready to go.
As far as the low pay, well, that's because it's easy to find slave labor. It's not "racially motivated" to be against slavery.
Sure, some business owners will say "But how can I be profitable without slaves?". Imagine how much more profitable they could be if they could grow opium or cocaine instead of food crops.
It's not that important that we know it - It's important that it's set according to a criteria set organization-wide, applied equally to all of us.
OK, let me rephrase it.
If your motivation for the work is the work itself, why do you care if your peers are compensated exactly the same as you are?
What if one of you chooses to work harder or is more productive?
It is telling that "it's _very_ hard to be demoted". It's basically a union job, you just need to show up. I've known union techs who didn't even bother to show up, they knew it was impossible to fire them. I was offered such roles and rejected them.
Possibly. Yet, this system is what fuels research in the highest ranked universities in all geographies. Maybe it's a different mindset - Maybe what differentiates university people from industry people is that cash is not our main motivation.
Then why does it matter that you know each others compensation?
This.
I work at a public university, as (mostly) technical staff (plus a bit of teaching). I consider it a very good point of our work that the income of each of my colleagues is basically public knowledge - Not to the exact sum, but to a general ballpark (as there are too many small variations, but they don't alter the result by >20%).
Each person negotiating their work terms seems to me like a terrible use of time. I know which category I fit in when I was hired; I might have stayed equal or improved (it's _very_ hard to be demoted). I know there are important extras, such as (publicly known) stimulus levels. I have never had to think about negotiating my income level over the last 13 years I have worked there; only once I have requested reclassification (jumped to a higher bracket).
This is a perfect system for under achievers. You have found your home.
The moment they buy a $500,000+ house or a $50,000 car or a suit over $100, or a $20 restaurant meal, etc- kick in the taxes. Poor people buy cheap food and cheap clothing and certainly don't spend $500,000 on a house or $50,000 on a car.
Necessities shouldn't be taxed, but luxuries should.
Your idea of what constitutes a 'luxury" is seriously broken.
- A $500,000 house in NJ is middle class.
- A suit over $100 is typical department store.
- A $20 restaurant meal? Is that an over $20 entree or the total bill? Most chain restaurants have entree prices in the mid teens. I don't see why $20 is your idea of luxury living.
The $50,000 car is the only one I'd say is at the higher end nationwide, but not by a lot, especially if you need room for a large family.
Why are you so enamored with taxes?
"Although redditors didn't yet know it, Huffman could edit any part of the site."
This is pretty silly. It's their site, of course they can edit and delete anything they want to.
Why would anyone believe otherwise?
The article could have just as easily said "Coastal developments, including San Francisco Airport, that were build on landfill are sinking and may need remediation to prevent flooding in the future".
The study says "However, rates exceed 10 mm/year in some areas underlain by compacting artificial landfill and Holocene mud deposits.", which means it is sinking a lot faster than the water is rising.