Why are we using self reported data from a company known for deleting unfavorable information instead of it being published by the Department of Labor from official filings that have legal consequences for falsifying?
The US creates several million new jobs each year on average, and the H-1B cap is 85K, which is an order of magnitude less than the number of jobs created per year. In order for the H-1B program to meaningfully impact the US labor market, the H-1B cap needs to be increased significantly.
Getting paid more than domestic workers doesn't mean you don't lower the wages of the sector overall, it could just mean you're competing with the top end of the market.
I was over there working on an E-3 a few years back, and I'm pretty sure I got hired because it was easier (e.g. cheaper) to set up a hiring funnel in another country than within the US. That doesn't automatically mean lower wage growth, but it could.
I tentatively think that skilled migrant workers lower wages within a single sector but have a neutral or positive effect on wages overall, and the US tech labour market is so hot that I don't feel bad for making its wages drop, stagnate, or increase slightly slower than they might otherwise, assuming the overall impact on every other sector is positive.
Any additional workers in an area will lower wages in that area. Simple supply & demand and off course you are right that they also grow the overall pie. I do wonder though how much the added friction when changing jobs as an H1B holder creates a downward pressure. I'd bet comp in all areas with lots of H1B workers would go up if we made it much easier to change jobs while on an H1B and give a lot more time to find a new job when suddenly unemployed (1-2 years instead of weeks)
> The US creates several million new jobs each year on average, and the H-1B cap is 85K, which is an order of magnitude less than the number of jobs created per year.
H-1B hires are not evenly distributed across all job types. A large fraction of them going to particular industries, like is seen in big tech, could move the needle in those industries.
> In fact, a 2017 Glassdoor study found that the wages of H-1B workers were 2.8% higher than their American counterparts
The problem with this is that H1B workers work a lot more than 2.8% harder, on average, and companies know this.
Many H1B workers are practically abused. They may be doing the work of two engineers. Unlike a typical work relationship between an upper-middle class professional and a tech company, separating from the company may not be realistic recourse because the work-visa immigration status is a Damoclean sword.
I've seen this bite even harder for L1B immigrants who work for multinational tech companies and get lured to the US from abroad, because even if you find another company willing to sponsor your H1B you are still subject to the caps. It's pretty messed up.
It’s not a myth. I worked for a prominent US company that routinely hired non-Americans based on price. There are innumerable ways around the H-1B limits. I quit the company.
Perhaps it is a myth with no basis. That said, increased supply decreasing demand is usually the null case, yes? So I'd want to see evidence that additional workers do not supress wages.
I am not purporting that the H-1B program has no effect on tech wages, just that it has a negligible effect due to its small cap relative to the number of tech jobs available.
Any increase in labor supply would have some effect on the wage level in an industry.
I think it's hard to export the SV software engineering culture to foreign offices. You have at most a few people to seed it, but then it's overrun by people with totally different backgrounds that have no idea what it's about.
also consider that we issued more than 350k student visas this year. if the h1-b cap is 85k then we are giving immigrants some of best college-level education in the world and then refusing to hire >75% of them. this has never made sense to me.
Maybe I'm an idiot but my curiosity got the best of me and I clicked the link. The photos just look like abstract modern art, although their perceptual hash may match that of known CSAM, I doubt that anyone who clicked the link will get into legal trouble even if Google flags that folder by detecting a perceptual hash match, as they will likely use real people to verify before taking legal action.
Google has been recently focused on cultivating the image that they care about user privacy. The last thing they want to do is call the cops on a bunch of HN users for looking at some abstract swirly pics.
I think the concern here isn’t legal trouble but getting banned by some automated system.
I’ve heard from googlers that once an account is nuked for suspected child abuse no one will ever want to touch it to find out whether the ban was legitimate.
Cool stuff! What are some great use cases that you'd like to see for 3D websites? Do the long load times of 3D websites relative to 2D ones affect search ranking?
Because most of the site are not built with html, it is difficult for Google and search engines to crawl. That would affect search rankings the most.
An idea to fix this is to automatically auto generate tags created by html that describe the 3D models and decorations/components added to the room.
Should there be a way to trademark your own name in order to prevent its misuse in creative works? That way, film studios should have to pay a licensing fee to have your name anywhere in the film or its marketing material.
It's strange to think that fictional characters often have more protection and control over the use of their name than real people.
That's a separate and interesting discussion itself, IMO. On the one hand, how do you have sympathy for someone who does what he did? On the other hand, do we not believe in rehabilitation, redemption, or anything like that? It is getting easier to believe that the mania over Brock Turner has led to a disproportionate response. And to go against the mob is to risk becoming a pariah yourself. When the mob is the size of the Internet, this seems pretty scary.
"Rehabilitation" usually comes after an appropriate criminal punishment being issued and received, not before. That reasonable people think that getting just twelve weeks in jail for his crimes -- which he at no point admitted -- is an offensive undersentencing in no way justifies their description as a "mob".
That is a bit disingenuous. This isn't people thinking that the justice system should have slapped him down harder. This is people who drop into every thread where his name comes up and insist that it should never just be "Brock Turner", but rather "The Convicted Rapist Brock Turner."
Arguably the biggest argument in support of the justice system failing in this case is that it did not deter this kind of vigilante attitude; that is an important part of why the system exists in the first place.
I agree with this. I have no idea if the guy was a terrible person or made a terrible decision in the moment and did what he did. Either way he deserved a punishment greater than he received. With that said he is portrayed in the media and social media as if he is the second coming of Hitler. A ton of people do far worse things and are allowed to continue with their lives after serving their time. If people are not allowed a chance at rehabilitation (within reason, I think some crimes are unforgivable, but not his) then we are a lesser society.
Trademarks can't be used to go after people who mention your mark, only people who use it to promote their own commercial endeavors (and even then, subtle mentions like "compare to X" are generally ok).
If Brock Turner had a trademark, he could use it to block Brock Turner: The Movie, but not us on this forum talking about Brock Turner, convicted rapist.
For a laugh, I set my name as a google alert. I get stories about a meteorologist, a guy who woke up and had lost 20 years of memory, a CEO of a sports media company, some random person with the same name who works as a dog groomer friended me on FB. Really not sure how trademarking that would work out.
Not even if they are causing you real harm by lying?
Other countries don't allow as much of that as the U.S. does, like the U.K. for example [0]:
> "English laws are much more favorable for someone looking to protect their reputation," says Jenny Afia, a lawyer in London who often represents people making libel and privacy claims.
> In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.
> "So you've got the rich and powerful shutting down and chilling speech which is critical of them," says Stephens.
> Spreading negative implication and opinion about a third party is and should remain protected expression.
In the U.K. it is. You can publish the truth, and you can publish your opinion. You can't publish lies.
For someone to sue you in the U.K. they need to prove loss, and there are two defences for libel - the truth, and what the solicitors call "fair comment". You can say that your experience of XXX was poor. You can't say XXX is an idiot.
> Otherwise we quickly approach a world where we can be sued for negative product or service reviews.
I grant that is a definitely problem. This gets talked about in the U.K. I can't say I've heard about it as much in the U.S., and to be frank I am a little surprised, as often those with money use the courts to get bully people. Just brainstorming, but maybe that's a big chunk of the problem?
But I can't help thinking about how much the internet has changed everything. Our laws were designed when people actually interacted with each other face to face and there were a handful of printing presses per town. Now everyone has a worldwide printing press in their pocket, and it's all archived on the wayback machine, etc. High stakes stuff, especially if you get on the wrong side of it. Anybody can be arrested, or have the bad luck to be harassed, and that follows you for years on the internet, looking for dates, looking for work, apartments, people at church, your kids friends, etc.
Maybe we could discuss not only what constitutes libel and the burden of proof, but also where we draw the line on private vs public speech. You can say anything to your family and friends in your house, but maybe you shouldn't be allowed to post lies to the global internet. Maybe those are the rules while talking about a normal person who doesn't have a national or global internet presence, but the rules are different talking about a large company who does. Maybe publications are held to higher standards than individuals - they can play by the rules or don't play. Maybe something like dcma take-down notices for libel, so nobody is surprised with a lawsuit. These are just some ideas, more brainstorming.
Admittedly I don't know the judicial history behind lies being defended as free speech in the U.S., but it seems to me there are some interesting things to think about here.
This can't happen. An option like that would conflict directly with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As much as I hate what happens to people like her, there are far more cases like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin that need to be put under the spotlight. Don't get me wrong, I hate what happens to people like here that get caught in the crosshairs. This director and company making the movie should be ashamed of themselves for either not dissociating themselves from her story or at the very least working with her and reaching some understanding where they have respect for her story. A lot of people know she was innocent but I would say the majority don't and only followed the story in the beginning.
We probably just need to fix loopholes in slander and libel laws and give common people more power to enforce them without making it a huge financial risk. People realized many many years ago how people's names come be abused and drug through the mud and created a recourse for it.
Changing someone's name just a bit or creating fictional characters you can copyright that everyone knows is a substitution or can find the substitution if they're interested in linking the fictional depiction to the real depiction is just a loophole around slander and libel, which the author points out with Damien Matthews or whatever in the example. Completely legal and now you have artistic freedom to reshape the story however you want. The person with the most resources to fight legally typically wind here.
Throwing some disclaimer line in like "this is no based on actual people or events" or whatever seems to give far too much of a liability waiver. It's really just plain wrong and the author makes a great point about naming an event and agency. Branding is very powerful and can create subconscious links that otherwise shouldn't exist. Naming is a bit tricky though because you often pick an easy memorable name to associate with something. Naming sort of act like a hash map with collision handling in my brain.
When I see Bill Clinton's name or "Clinton" a whole slew of thoughts and memories link to that name or phrase and it can be difficult to determine what someone says. When you say Monica Lewenski's name on the other hand, she acts as a memorable unique identifier to the event, unfairly to her. I know exactly what you're talking about and I know about Bill, power differentials at play, and so on but the name needs to be unique and memorable in language. As the author points out, this naming convenience comes at a cost to those who might get improper associations for responsibility, so it's complicated. I think we should strive for branding that leaves out names where possible. Watergate seems like a great branding job, I immediately know it's Nixon and it doesn't dissolve him of any responsibility. Should the facts change and I read about Watergate later, say it was Deepthroat actually responsible somehow, the name Watergate name still exists and associations of responsibility in the future can change. Abstract your branding to avoid finger pointing.
The libel and slander laws in the U.K. different than in the U.S. [0]:
> "English laws are much more favorable for someone looking to protect their reputation," says Jenny Afia, a lawyer in London who often represents people making libel and privacy claims.
> In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses.
> "So you've got the rich and powerful shutting down and chilling speech which is critical of them," says Stephens.
Non-sarcastic question: suppose I trademark my name and then someone with my name opens an account on a web site, or a resturant, or writes a script. Are they in violation? (It is strange to me that, say, Twitter is a worldwide namespace. We had a resturant in our East Coast US town that had to change its totally-boring name because they were threatened by a West Coast resturant with that name.)
Trademarks are narrow in scope to a particular line of business. If you trademark a restaurant named "Jim's", that means other people cannot open other restaurants named "Jim's", but they could open any other kind of business under the same name.
It’s even stricter than that. Getting a trademark on something as simple as “Jim’s” for a restaurant is near impossible because there are already thousands of restaurants and bars that use that name.
No, we’re not. I’m pointing out that you can’t even trademark common names even in the scope of a narrow business. You wouldn’t be able to trademark “Jim’s restaurant” at all.
Hades definitely has more interesting game mechanics, but it's more of a Roguelike ARPG than a classic ARPG.
I also find its enemy design and atmosphere lacking in consistency and quality. It just doesn't have the dark, dangerous, and foreboding feel that Diablo 1 and 2 have mastered.
Yes, i agree but then again i still feel it nailed down what the addictive parts of diablo were and put them into a far better game and context. That's why I maintain it's a better Diablo than any diablo or POE.
It’s been my experience that people who call things uninteresting are merely sharing their own unusual disinterest in something otherwise interesting. It’s also been my experience that said people are usually the most uninteresting in the room.
Also, I don’t know what it says about you that you went from effectively “trees falling in the forest” to the Hacker News infrastructure to defend your point about fun, thought-provoking idioms, but I do know it’s remarkably uninteresting.
Fair enough. By calling my comment uninteresting, have you also rendered yourself to likely be the most uninteresting person in the room, by the logic in your first paragraph? If so, who wins the title of the most uninteresting person in the room?
You initially would for having claimed something interesting is not, however you also started a discussion which is pretty interesting, including your own further comment, which also adds interest to the situation. Paradoxically you two now may be the most interesting here.
Tell that to Schrödinger. Even questions that seem utterly pointless and mundane at first glance can lead to captivating insights if explored at depth.
A lot of discoveries of interesting stuff resulted from something uninteresting being considered interesting and deeply contemplated. Others look and say "what an idiot, spending such time on such uninteresting x", I say, "you're only my self-imagined disagreeable other, I'm your god, your consciousness is my consciousness, what say you now?" and they would say nothing since the puppeteer has been revealed and there is nothing left to say. I guess this is why God will never prove he exists.
My point in bringing up the light meter is that in these "tree falls in the forest" thought experiments, it's taken for granted that your own biological senses are an absolute source of truth.
But your eyes are just another set of equipment, similar to a light meter. Just because your eyes are attached to the rest of your body, it doesn't make them inherently more trustworthy than equipment that's not part of your body.
However, our expectation is that a tree falling in the forest could kill us even if we didn’t hear and see it. That’s why we look when we cross the road. The fact that we’re subject to all sorts of things that can cause us harm without sensing them makes the case a lot more compelling that the light meter exists when we blink.
My undergrad major had a 50/50 gender ratio and there were only a handful of romantic relationships to come out of it out of the hundreds of classmates I knew. So, I wouldn't count on finding your S/O in your university program. There are plenty of other opportunities to meet a potential S/O in college, like clubs and house parties.
I kind of stumbled into a problem space I saw lots of my clients struggling with (search relevance) and sensed a market need ~9 years ago and tried to maximize my opportunities in it. You can read the full story here if you’re curious:
I heard that being an early startup employee is also a great way to fast-track to a leadership/management position, as compared to working at a big corporation. Is there any truth to that?
I think that is true in the case of the growth startup I work at; probably 25% of the leadership started out as early individual contributors, and if things go as expected over the next few weeks, I will be making my first big step toward leadership after just six months at the company.
I never had any internal career growth at other jobs in larger or more established orgs.
