damnyou

I mean, yes, in some cases not doing anything is the right call, but that is a much weaker statement than "first, do no harm".

There is no "first, do no harm" principle in medicine. And for good reason, it's a bad principle.

The problem is that the DOJ, and commenters in the thread, are attacking the process by which people make that happen.

As broken as the process is, the DOJ and commenters here clutching their pearls in the direction of excluding would-be permanent residents, by (for example) making false claims about how H1B was never intended to provide option value, are doing a xenophobia.

I think there's a good argument to be made that you should have to make your mind up about staying permanently after a few years. There is a lot of value in having people set roots in a community long-term.

I know H-1Bs at Facebook who are pulling in 500k per year in RSUs.

Stop retconning history. The H-1B has always been meant as a path to permanent residence, which is why it has been dual intent since the beginning.

The AC21 indefinite extensions were added because the per-country backlogs were not anticipated back when the program was created. But it has always, from the very beginning, built a path to permanent residence in via EB2, EB3 and the dual intent provision.

Edit: The person replying to me about the H1B not being dual intent from the beginning is wrong. I have receipts. The H1B was introduced in the Immigration Act of 1990.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/358...

> `(h) The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 204 or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i) or (L) of section 101(a)(15) or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph, if the alien had obtained a change of status under section 248 to a classification as such a nonimmigrant before the alien's most recent departure from the United States.'.

Edit to respond to the second reply: The H-1B is dual intent. I did not make any claims about a visa category that no longer exists. Besides, the argument about whether the H-1B is an update or a new category doesn't matter -- it is clear that Congress intended for the H-1B, as created (or updated if you will) in 1990, to be a path to permanent residence. The assertion that it was never intended that way is ahistorical.

Further edit: It sounds like rayiner's dad came in on an older H-1 which indeed didn't have the dual intent provision, not an H-1B which does. The details matter here!

Further, further edit:

> The only reason you need “dual intent” is because the law still requires H1-B holders to have non-immigrant intent.

I literally pointed to the provision of the 1990 Act which does not require non-immigrant intent for people in H and L statuses. This is what Congress intended.

Of course the H-1B isn't an immigrant visa. It is a dual intent visa, in that it preserves the option value of not having to become a green card holder (and thus pay US taxes worldwide if you decide to leave later, etc.) So someone on an H-1B can choose to become a permanent resident, but doesn't have to become one.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that people should have to decide within a few years either to leave or to stay permanently, but for that the green card backlogs need to be eliminated by statute.

So give out ten times as many green cards and remove the restrictions.

You don't want to do that? Oh, I see.

There is no moral obligation to hire a worker just because a particular state blessed them with a set of papers, usually because they were born on the right side of a line drawn in the middle of a desert.

edit to respond: Fine, then anyone willing to pay taxes in the US should get to work in the US.

Again, fuck the police state. People and communities matter, the state can burn to the ground for all I care.

No, the O-1 is meant for individuals with specialized skillsets. The H-1B is meant for workers with a bachelor's degree or above, or equivalent experience.

Besides, the idea of trying to segregate workers like this is bogus anyway. Fuck the police state.

Most developers I know use desktop Linux, and M1 is not (yet) an option for them.

Build system performance tends to be IO-bound, but responsiveness for things like no-op builds tends to be CPU-bound -- and the JVM in particular really suffers. Optimizing IO performance makes it perform better, while optimizing CPU performance makes it feel better to use.

Arguably, making tools feel better to use is more important than raw performance. When you're doing a no-op build, the difference between 100 milliseconds and 500 is large, and the difference between 10ms and 100 is enormous.

> Anyway, the take away for me is that diving into Servo and Rust is probably not worth my time investment.

You're the best judge of your time, but making a claim about Servo and then, in the last sentence of your post, broadening it to all of Rust, is a bit odd. Servo's not even in production, unlike plenty of other Rust code.

Well, thank you for providing the first compelling argument as to why software practices need to be more formally regulated. Providing CI/CD should be the industry norm and expected default.

All of them use Mac Minis as far as I know.

I'm not a consultant, but I believe it would be an ethical failing on my part to hand someone else a piece of code without extensive, automated testing and CI.

pjmlp's view appears to be that because their customers, who are not experts, don't know enough to ask for continuously tested software, they don't believe it is their professional responsibility to provide that either. This allows them to dismiss any complaints about macOS in datacenters as irrelevant.

I pity your customers.

I can't tell if you're being facetious or you just don't care about automated testing and continuous integration for your code.

No company on the planet is big enough for Apple to make exceptions like that. All of them either use a cloud provider or a custom rack design just for Mac Minis.

If you ever get a chance to meet employees at CircleCI or some other CI provider at a conference after Covid is over, consider asking them about how they rack Mac Minis.

Well, that's precisely what Stallman was trying to address, wasn't he? Trying to separate out the Linux kernel from the GNU userland.

Not sure exactly what its origins are, but it's standard Indian English. It's a legitimate dialect of English, just like standard American English has its own unique idioms like "grandfathered in" (a term that has extremely racist origins).

Yes. it's accurate to describe iOS as iOS/Darwin, and macOS as macOS/Darwin. But "BSD" implies a BSD userland to most people, which macOS has but iOS doesn't.

No, I don't think that's true. Android is just Linux with an Android userland.

Richard Stallman was quite correct to call it GNU/Linux, as much as I dislike the guy.

I can pretend Apple's ecosystem doesn't exist, but I can't pretend that all of the negative externalities of Apple's ecosystem don't exist.

It's the truth. Unilateral control is the reality, and I'm interested in exploring how to harness it to improve the lot of humanity.

For example, I think Stripe should be able to compete with Apple to be a payment provider on Apple's platform.

As I said, I would be a fine with a world where if Tim Cook doesn't want to play by the government's rules, he is jointly and severally liable for Apple's debts. There are real benefits that come with being a corporation. There need to be responbilities to society as well.

It's actually a completely justified intrusion into the market.

To answer questions posed by others since I'm apparently posting too fast:

The reasons governments should intervene are well-elaborated in the blog post under discussion.

Governments worldwide already have plenty of control over what terms corporations can sell their wares to people on. For example, in Europe you must offer at least two years of warranty.

Corporations are government-granted legal fictions, so a government is free to impose whatever constraints it wants on corporations. In return, corporations get plenty of benefits like the ability to declare bankruptcy and not have it hit the pocketbooks of its executives. I would be fine with a regime where if a corporation doesn't abide by the rules, its executives become personally liable for debts, for example.

Not fine by me regardless of monopoly status, and I believe it should be not fine by public policy either.

OK, fair. The goal should be to make models like Apple's app store, regardless of the corporation, against public policy.

There are such things as good and bad in the world.

Cultural relativism is brain poison. It is very important to define and fight for universal human rights, such as the right to date and marry someone regardless of gender.