I've been looking for a job for the first time in 10 years of Python, and Netflix is one of the rare big companies that I still have respect for.
https://jobs.netflix.com/ has several offers I would be a good fit for, but I'm not ready to relocate to the US.
Netflix is generally opposed to remote work, but some teams may make case by case exceptions (especially in Open Connect, the organization which manages the CDN). I'd encourage you to speak to a recruiter.
Besides, I know many people that are not as productive at home.
It works if everyone is on site. It also works if everyone is remote.
But when some are at the office and some aren't, communication and information sharing becomes a lot harder. Mostly it's a process and tool issue, but still humans will rather just turn around and ask the team than spend a minute writing their issue on Slack/whatever.
Even in remote-heavy orgs, communication issues remain if the culture or process is shit. If you have 10 different Jira sites, 4 forms of communication, and documents in 15 different systems, it's going to suck no matter where people work.
Although this now translates to a cost on me needing an extra room in the house for an office.
Not everyone has space in their apartment for a "normal desk".
Bring a laptop to a different corner of the house or a library/coffee shop if you can't adapt to using your personal space for work.
Not every coffee shop likes having people lounging around for 8 or more hours a day, making minimal purchase. Aside from the fact that most are too noisy to concentrate, have shit wifi, bathrooms that are frequently occupied / barely work, etc.
I find that there are significant benefits to working in the same physical location.
It's just way easier to go to someone's desk and ask them something than to have to set up a video chat. Human interaction is just naturally an in person thing. So much is lost if you can only video chat. Sure it may not affect the work directly but I think it really affects a team's dynamic. Lots of great ideas happen just from random office interactions, whether it be lunch or just talking over coffee. These kinds of things are really hard to reproduce in a remote environment.
That's not to say there aren't reasons working remotely is beneficial. I just don't think it's fair to just say the only reason companies opt for physical proximity is cultural.
That's not a benefit, that's a downside. Interrupting someone while they're working kills productivity. You're far better asking in chat and having someone you're not interrupting help.
What you describe sounds like it's putting one person's progress over another. Sure a mentor may be disrupted but by unblocking someone else they're still increasing the overall productivity of the team and thus is a net gain.
> You're far better asking in chat and having someone you're not interrupting help.
This only works when your question is general enough that many people can help you
Also, some dev positions require extensive communication and that is easier in person.
Even if you wanted to, it's nearly impossible to immigrate to the US as a skilled worker legally.
I have a friend who is an really talented programmer (and a really diligent worker) who studied Computer Science at some of the best universities in Europe: École Centrale Paris and the EPFL (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) in Switzerland. One of his biggest desires for a while was to move to the US, and live and work in New York. He spent more than 2 years trying to the US, and then gave up. He had even hesitated buying too much furniture while in France, because he was anticipating being able to move to the US.
The only viable option to move to the US for most people in your (and his) situation would be the H-1B visa, which is extraordinarily difficult to get, and requires a miracle to obtain. You need to: (1) have a bachelor's degree that's related to the field you want to work in -- e.g. Computer Science degree for software development work, (2) find a company that's willing to offer you a job that pay at least what Americans make doing the same job, (3) the company must be willing to wait 7-8 months, (4) you need to win a lottery in which your odds of success are about 1 in 3.
(1) and (2) are not too difficult. (3) is quite difficult -- the majority companies do not want to wait for 7-8 months for you to join. And (4) is completely up to chance, and out of your control. (By the way, this lottery is conducted at the beginning of April every year, and you can only start working in October.
My friend fulfilled criteria (1), (2), and the difficult (3). But he did not get selected in the H-1B lottery two years in a row.
The US is essentially a closed country when it comes to skilled immigration. Most of the immigrants who get green cards here are family members, refugees/asylees, and diversity lottery winners. Getting even temporary permission to work in the U.S. as a educated/skilled person requires a miracle from God.
I'm an optimist :)
The only visas that don't prohibit immigrant intent (i.e. desire to immigrate + company applying for permanent residence for you) are the H-1B visa, L-1 visa, and O-1 visa. For anyone looking to permanently move the U.S. on the basis of skills, those are the only options. (I didn't mention the L-1 and O-1 in my comment above because they're even more narrowly granted.)
> only of of them is technically better
Technical skill doesn't really matter with the H-1B visa; only salary really does. Even going to a top university doesn't mean anything. The lottery doesn't discriminate.
There are foreign students who graduate from the best universities in the U.S. like Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc, often with advanced degrees (Master's / PhD), with good high-paying jobs, who get deported from the US because they did not win the H-1B lottery.
The Harvard Crimson complained about this even back in 2007: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/4/9/raise-the-h-1b-c...
For example, right now, if you wanted to work in the U.S. the earliest date you could start working would be October 1, 2020. (That's because this year's lottery is already over, you'll have to try your shot with the April 2020 lottery, and you can only start working 6 months after that at the earliest.)
There might be racial prejudices in terms of getting a job, where being a European helps, but even that's extremely unlikely in Silicon Valley. Most U.S. tech companies are concentrated in progressive (Democratic party voting) regions -- and most people in these regions are emphatically not racists, and many often go the extra mile and make a conscious effort to deal with any subconscious racism in their minds. So don't expect being European or white to help that much.
The government certainly doesn't care what country you're from, and what your skin color is, when it comes to approving H-1Bs -- at least there hasn't been any evidence to the contrary. The vast majority of H-1B visas go to people from India and China, of which the majority go to people from India.
----
Also regarding L-1 visas: Getting a job at a FAANG or a large multi-national company with offices in the U.S. and Europe/elsewhere, and that's willing to relocate you is not easy. If you're a valuable contributing member of your team, I doubt your manager would be jumping with job at the idea of you being transferred to the US.
Getting an L-1 visa requires not just a degree and 1 year of work experience with the company, it also requires "specialized knowledge". Lookup the definition. There have been denials on the basis of this "specialized knowledge" requirement.
Furthermore, it's unpleasant to be in the U.S. on the L-1 because you have no way to change jobs (unlike the H-1B) and lose legal status as soon as you're fired. I had a family member who after many years in the US on the L-1A (managerial) visa, had to suddenly pack up and leave the US. The company held off on applying for an EB-1 green card until the L-1A was nearing its 7-year limit, and then for unrelated financial reasons this company shut down overnight. Everyone was laid off, including US staff.
So you need a company that's nice enough to apply for your H-1B every year (knowing that it'll give you the freedom to change jobs as you wish), and one that's willing to relocate (at a loss to the team in your original country).
https://www.immi-usa.com/h1b-masters-quota/
If you don't what they do is they ask you to work for them elsewhere for 1 year ( London / Switzerland ) then move you back to the US with an L1 visa.
The Master's degree needs to be from an US university - which is pure genius, as this way a prospective immigrant needs to pay a lot of money (US degrees are not cheap) for the right to have a better chance of getting in - even if they already have a Msc, or could get one for free in their country of origin. America's basically found a way to profit on people wanting to move there. Of course, it's not new, with indentured servitude being common in previous centuries, but it's cool (in a creepy way) to see it still being alive.
It's "most likely", if your definition of "most likely" is 51%.
Let's calculate the probability:
• In 2018, there were 95,885 applicants with a Masters degree or higher[1]. Out of 190,098 total applicants.
• There are 20,000 spots available for U.S. Master's degree holders, and 65,000 spots for everyone. (Ignoring the fact that there's a reservation of 1,400 for Chile and 5,400 for Singapore.)
• Your probability of rejection in the masters lottery is 1-(20000/95885) = 0.7914
• Your probability of rejection in the general lottery is 1-(65000/(190098-20000)) = 0.6179
• These are independent events; the probability of being rejected in both is: 0.6179 x 0.7914 = 0.489
• If you flip that, your probability of being selected in the lottery with a U.S. Master's degree is 0.51, ie. 51%.
[1] https://redbus2us.com/h1b-historical-data-lottery-vs-85k-quo...
I've addressed this in this sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19789172
> 1. Get F1-visa
People that study here also have to go through the H-1B lottery, like everyone else. Graduates with MS/PhD have a slightly higher probability of winning the H-1B lottery, but it's like 0.5 for US MS/PhD versus 0.3 for everyone else. You are still forced to go through a lottery. (One thing is you get to work in the US for a 1-3 years with an F-1 visa under a program called OPT.)
There are many graduates with Masters and PhD degrees from American universities (incl. highly-ranked ones), who have well-paying jobs (under F-1 OPT), who lose the H-1B lottery, and as a result, employers are forced to fire them, and they have to leave the country (under the threat of forcible deportation and being banned from the US). This is the reality of US immigration today, and it's been like this for a long time. For example, here's a Harvard Crimson article from back in 2007 arguing for increasing or eliminating the H-1B limit: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/4/9/raise-the-h-1b-c...
> 2. Marry a US citizen
Marrying someone for the purpose is immigration is considered "immigration fraud", and if they find out, you will be deported and permanently banned from the US. If you became a U.S. citizen through such a marriage, your citizenship can and will be revoked, and you could even be rendered stateless as a result. If the currently conservative U.S. Supreme Court overturns Zadvydas v. Davis[1], you could spend the rest of your life in prison.
No, it's not; Marrying someone for the purpose of evading immigration laws is. There is a difference; even if immigration is sought as a benefit of marriage, if there is genuine intent to enter into and maintain a bona fide marital relationship and that is maintained throughout the conditional period associated with immigration by marriage, there is no fraud.
I personally am very against fake marriages (in my own life). I want my marriage to be genuine, and life-long. There was a post on HN back in 2015 about William Han's experience with the US immigration system: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9764564 (article: https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8823349/immigration-system-bro... )
Some of the parts of his article, especially regarding marriage as an immigration pathway, are sad but enlightening (emphasis mine):
> Years spent as a student do not count. Neither do years on a work visa unless your employer is willing to sponsor your green card. Marrying an American works, as a thousand films and television shows have taught us, because it allows a change of status to permanent resident. But if you wish to follow the rules, as I do, then it must be a bona fide marriage. And if you take important personal decisions such as marriage seriously, then you may not wish to have their timing dictated by Homeland Security.
> I've already talked about my friends who think becoming a citizen is as easy as going to a government office and signing some papers. But even people whose job it is to understand the system often don't see how broken it is. At one firm where I worked, an HR manager told me to "just get married." Marriage solely for the sake of a green card is, of course, illegal — it is fraud upon the federal government. A bona fide marriage is fine, but that depends on you finding the right person and having your relationship progress according to Homeland Security's timeline. Once again there is the humiliating feeling that your life is not your own: the government may now effectively dictate when you get married.
(2) the salary must follow the prevailing wages in the area the employee is gonna work. That's not really an absurd thing specially considering that the market rates are usually higher than the prevailing wages.
(3) what I have seen about this point is that companies will usually find a way around that if they're really willing to hire you. Either work remotely as a contractor until the visa is stamped and you can move or something else. It's hard but not impossible.
(4) is really up to chance and I've had friends who were and were not selected.
I'd say it's hard but no miracles needed.
Nearly impossible? Come on, this is a gross exaggeration. Get a job at a FAANG or unicorn in Europe, work there for 1 - 2 years, transfer to the US on an L1 visa, then apply for H1B each year until you get it. I know several people who have done this. Hell, Microsoft opened an office in Vancouver specifically to move failed H1B's there until they can get an L1.
Netflix is in biking distance, but instead I work for a company on the east coast, 4000km away, waking at the crack of dawn.
There is always something. It's not possible to solve every problem, I prefer to choose my battles. Getting polite rejection letters is not important to me.
My intent wasn't to offend, rather set expectations for would-be applicants. Of course, things could be entirely different in Paris vs. Hollywood, so grain of salt and all that.
Trying any other way is a lottery - and if you didn’t go to MIT/Stanford/CalTech/Harvard then your odds are pretty bad.
The other way is already working at a famous company and having another famous company send you a recruitment email via linked in, but that typically requires you to have done the referral way first.
Just as a single data point, the last clause here isn't true in my experience. I worked at Google for a few years some years ago, and I get a regular flow of recruiter spam from all the big companies for Bay Area roles, and have never had any friction turning them into interviews.
I wasn’t clear, but I meant in order to already be working at a famous company you probably already had to figure out the referral piece at least once.
I was also not hired by referral, but got lucky they liked my resume in some resume book at RPI.
For the places I applied online my interview response rate from companies was poor (or an instant rejection).
It's one of the main benefits of living in the bay area, you build out a network of friends working at different companies which adds a layer of job security and ability to interview more easily at interesting places.
They don't really care where you went or even if you have a degree, but there are so many people applying through the front door that that ends up being a filter everyone uses. There are obviously excellent people outside of that, but it's harder to find them through the noise.
This is another reason I think Lamda School is great - they're actually attacking this problem too: http://zalberico.com/essay/2019/04/08/lambda-school.html
Many of the FAANGs have pushed for diversity in hiring. I don't have a problem with that. I think an ideal workplace would hire people regardless of their circumstances of birth and lived experience as long as they are qualified to do the job and they, in fact, do a good job there. That's actually the crux of my problem.
When companies have pushed to remove names, genders, and races from resumes before the hiring process because they find that people are treated differently in hiring due to unconscious bias in that process then it smacks of hypocrisy to then blanket filter incoming resumes unless you went to a short list of approved schools or have a buddy on the inside juicing your chances. That sounds like the complete opposite of trying to be diverse in recruitment. I don't think that Lambda School is that great of a response to this - it just adds one more "acceptable" school to the list.
In fact, to a cynic, it sounds like virtue signalling of the highest order to please both Wall Street and the public.
Currently highly selective schools and other famous companies are the easiest filter. Then they don’t want to have unconscious bias from that point on - I don’t think it’s virtue signaling, it’s more just pragmatism.
The reason I think Lambda School is cool is that they're actually focused on the first piece of this, scaling up to give opportunity to capable people the current system ignores and eventually leveraging their reputation to get people interviews. Right now it’s extremely unlikely to get accepted into MIT or Stanford, but Lambda School is incentivized to not do this - if you’re capable of the work they want to be able to scale to admit you.