The undergrads at my university were mostly US-born. I believe that's the case most places, even elite universities. The more expensive universities are incentivized to take more international students for the money though -- and obviously there's enough wealthy people globally to fill whatever slots they offer. There are plenty of good engineers from the US who simply weren't lucky enough to be born to rich parents in CA. It turns out moving 2000 miles from home for a worse quality of life isn't super attractive to people born in the US when your whole family still lives in the same region. Of course, if you're born in India or China, the value proposition is a bit different.
Perhaps geographic restrictions on H-1Bs would spread the wealth: force these companies to prove they can't find engineers in the US by looking outside the wealthiest enclaves in the country, where even FAANG engineers complain about cost of living. We'd ease the Bay Area housing crisis, lift up other regions of the country, and provide more domestic-born citizens a path to good jobs while maintaining their own communities.
If their kids could afford to buy houses nearby, they'd probably be a bit more OK with it. But when their own kids are priced out and told they don't have the relevant skills (thanks to education provided by the government unequally) for the new jobs, it's easy to point fingers at the new people in town.
And those people don't have to be foreign or a different race: just see the anti-tech waves that have rolled through the Bay Area in the past, directed more based on attire and mode of transport than race. And a lot of people here would agree those new workers are to blame for a lot of Bay Area problems, but it's easier to dismiss others as bigoted than wrestle with the reality of winners and losers behind each statistic.
Watched a guy get fired mostly because he made code review such a nightmare for everyone else while getting lapped by everyone in terms of actual output. I’m not sure there’s much to be done once you’ve hit “toxic.” The only question is whether the standard can be reset for the whole team.
I agree. This is a case where the physical analogy leads us to (imo) the correct conclusion: compelling major property management companies to perform regular searches of their tenant's properties, and then to report any findings to the police, is hopefully something that most judges understand to be a clear violation of the fourth amendment.
> The issue of course being the government then pressuring or requiring these companies to look for some sort of content as part of routine operations.
The miss, which in my state has changed recently, was kicking kids out eventually who failed one subject but were succeeding in others. Sure, that kid isn't going to an Ivy League school, but there's value in finding ways to make up for what they aren't getting versus producing a high school dropout with bleak prospects in today's society.
Yeah, that's the point of me pulling it out: especially relevant to software folks when thinking about product requirements. "It's a car! I know what they need."
Really this is one of the more useless statistics. It's pretty much impossible to OD unless you're a toddler and you accidentally drink juice.
What matters is the affects small amounts of nicotine, repeatedly, have over time. Nicotine increases blood pressure and so it slowly destroys your cardiovascular system. Smoking is, of course, bad for your lungs.
The combination of lung damage and heart damage is deadly. Typically heart failure will require more oxygen in your blood to make up for the fact your heart doesn't work. But the lungs are bad at extracting oxygen when they have pulmonary damage.
Maybe not a useful statistic, but it's definitely 100% not harmless in the correct dosage. It has been successfully used for both murder and suicide. Being water-soluble, just soak tobacco leaves in water and you'll eventually be able to extract a useful amount.
I smoked for >20 years, quit for 10, then started again when dealing with grief after my partner passed away, and smoked for another 10. I get it, literally: high-blood pressure, etc. Although, when quitting, it was always the tar that really drove me crazy.
Another thing I've realized, is that smoking is a double-whammy vector towards heart disease: smoking promotes heart disease directly, but smoking also promotes gum disease, and gum disease promotes heart disease.
And the child-friendly flavours (bubblegum ice blast! crème brûlée! strawberry!) and packaging just plain immoral.
Oddly, nicotine as such is not that harmful, comparatively. It's the addiction (and the potential to escalate to inhaling carcinogens) which makes it so bad.
Chewing tobacco is harmful too, and there you are not inhaling anything. Nicotine is harmful in itself. (that is why plants make it - it tends to kill predators. Humans are just large enough that it dilutes in our body by enough to not kill)
Nicotine poisoning is possible, but not for adults at normal dosages. It's all the other crap your inhaling, sucking, or melting which is carcinogenic or otherwise directly harmful. Taking nicotine regularly isn't that healthy, but the reason nicotine is bad is really mostly down to its addictive nature.
Sometimes it feels like this AI thing is gonna be The Emperor's New Clothes for a whole class of management types. Like, maybe we're automating their jobs actually because AI makes me able to do more, but a lot of that is the admin stuff: I still have to do my own research (which many on the non-tech side don't seem to understand yet) but I can focus more on the tricky parts of my job, which happen to also be the parts I find most rewarding. I'm not sure how they plan to automate that when they're sitting there asking ChatGPT questions like it's an oracle.
It’s more there’s a bunch of people who put their life savings into cheap structures on expensive land in SF and Seattle. If the next generation of high income professionals doesn’t have to buy their shitty 100 year old money pit, they’ve now taken a loss on the single biggest purchase they’ve ever made while the schools they bought for get worse. Many of these folks work at places like Amazon.
No conspiracy needed for a bunch of people to act in their own perceived best interest and work backwards to a justification.
Because the leadership who makes decisions, or even just has the potential to voice their opinions and have them weighted, own real-estate.
Better yet, those leaders maybe also love exerting control over their employees and find this more enjoyable in an office environment.
Companies ARE NOT a democracy. In my mind, there's a huge overlap between being high company leadership and also being a self-serving narcissist. Are we then surprised that narcissists prefer to do things in their own self interests, and prefer to boss people around while looking at them? To me, that's not surprising at all. I think people don't understand these decisions aren't made by hundreds of people, but rather less than a handful per company.
I think if you reframe company leadership as egotistical man children, then it becomes very intuitive. Most companies aren't that, but in my mind, there is serious overlap between being a career executive and having narcissistic tendencies.
Perhaps geographic restrictions on H-1Bs would spread the wealth: force these companies to prove they can't find engineers in the US by looking outside the wealthiest enclaves in the country, where even FAANG engineers complain about cost of living. We'd ease the Bay Area housing crisis, lift up other regions of the country, and provide more domestic-born citizens a path to good jobs while maintaining their own communities.