my_username_is_

The criticism isn't that the translation was a lie, but rather it didn't capture the spirit of what she was saying (possibly with the intention to mislead international media). Indefinitely is frequently understood to mean infinitely, so by using this English word it is certainly misleading.

I think part of the reason that the number of people protesting has grown over the years is that a lot of the people who would have been protesters left around '97. A new generation has grown up with many basic freedoms and they don't want to give those up... And they don't want to leave HK either. I'm not sure if it's harder to get visas to other countries nowadays, but a lot of people are choosing to stay and fight for their country and their way of life rather than running away.

On that note, the Hong Kong Free Press--a nonprofit, English-language, digital newspaper in HK--is doing its annual fundraising drive right now. If you want to support a free press in the region, this is a good place to start. Their coverage of the protests has been quite good, and they definitely hit above their weight class with the amount of resources that they have.

https://www.hongkongfp.com

There are quite a few reasons, but they all boil down to the fact that Beijing wants Hong Kong to be part of China.

Culture: From what I understand, China sees itself not as a nation-state, but as a civilization-state. The government has a desire to unite all Chinese people together in a single nation. This is why they still claim Taiwan as part of China. Letting Hong Kong be independent is a step back from that goal.

History: During British colonial rule, China opposed all attempts at introducing full democracy to Hong Kong. It doesn't have strong democratic institutions in the way that you might expect. Yes it has a legislature, but half of the seats are essentially reserved for businesses (called 'functional constituencies'). The head of state is chosen from a pre-selected group of people who are loyal to Beijing. So even if the people all agreed on independence being the best path (and that isn't something that people agree on, as best I can tell)

Geography: Hong Kong is a relatively small geographic area with a very large population. It doesn't have the means to support itself. For example, most (all?) of its fresh water comes from mainland China. A lot of food comes from the mainland too. If Beijing doesn't want Hong Kong to be independent, they could simply stop supporting it with it's infrastructure.

Economic: Hong Kong has a thriving economy, and it's history has left it with a special economic status in several countries (including the USA). This makes it very useful to Beijing. They can skirt trade laws and funnel money through Hong Kong as needed. An independent Hong Kong could make this more difficult.

Withdraw the extradition bill, or forced to step down from office?

The bill is not in the legislature yet, so it is up to her whether the bill gets brought to a vote. It sounds like even pro-Beijing lawmakers are growing weary of this bill, saying that this isn't worth the fight that's being made over it. The Article 23 National Security law is more of a priority for a lot of them, but that was similarly unpopular the last time it was brought up.

The most likely outcome with Lam leaving the position of Chief Executive is for her to resign. This could be on her own accord, because her legislation has proved so unpopular, or because of pressure from Beijing. This is not making Xi look very good--both internally and internationally. One of the most consistent demands of the protesters right now is for her to step down. It would not be surprising for her to do so if these protests continue.

Several of the people that I've asked in Hong Kong say that they're simply fighting to protect the city that they love. There are many paths that the future can take, and while a lot of them do not look good for the way of life of many Hong Kongers, if they don't fight now then they're giving up their city freely. And to do that is just unfathomable.

Tear gas was definitely used in '14, see this image from the Umbrella Movement protests:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Hong_Kong_protests#/media...

Multiple sources also mention rubber bullets being used in '14 as well:

https://www.google.com/search?q=umbrella+revolution+rubber+b...

Upwards of 1 million people were at the protest this past Sunday. There's only a population of 7 million people in the entire SAR. That's the proportional equivalent of every man, woman &child in California, Oregon and Washington meeting in a single spot to protest something. Even if not everyone agrees on the exact details of what they're protesting, seeing that much passionate support behind a cause is a good indicator that the outrage is widespread.

It's exceedingly unlikely to happen (and Beijing would likely find a way to prevent it from happening) in the legislature ("Legco"). This is due to combination of proportional representation in the geographic constituencies, and the fact that half the seats are taken up by functional constituencies which are mostly pro-Beijing. And the Chief Executive is explicitly chosen from a pool of pro-Beijing candidates, so that wouldn't happen unless the law is changed. (The law that enacted this in 2014 was one of the sparks for the so-called "Umbrella Revolution")

Some relevant wiki articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_NPCSC_Decision_on_Hong_Ko...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Council_of_Hong_Ko...

From what I gather from people, their only hope is that the international & business communities put enough pressure on Beijing to get them to back down. It seems quite unlikely at this point, but that doesn't make the protesters less passionate

>since low end manufacturing will have completed its move out of China

This is not a quick, simple process. You don't need to just move your factory equipment from one building to another one on the different side of the border. You'll need to train new workers and quality staff, you'll probably need to adjust your supply base, you'll need to validate your processes. China still makes most of the consumer goods that an average person has, and it will continue to be that way for a while. They've spent decades creating an ecosystem of manufacturers, and that can't just be replicated overnight

Wawa is a chain of large convenience stores, mostly in the Mid-Atlantic region. They typically have a sandwich counter inside, which I think is most comparable to having an in-store Subway.

Ask someone from Pennsylvania or New Jersey what they think of Wawa. In my experience, their eyes generally light up and they start raving in a way that most people don't talk about a gas station convenience store.

As a former Rhode Islander, I firmly believe that the East Bay Bike Path is the single greatest piece of infrastructure in the state.

I believe alternative forms of ownership aren't discussed nearly enough. As we see more wealth become concentrated in the hands of fewer people, and with new companies being one of the sources of wealth creation, we need to re-evaluate our current system of corporate ownership and ask if it is really what's best for society.

I'm not necessarily sure if this is the best way of doing it or not, but I appreciate the viewpoint. I've thought about how best to manage company ownership in a worker owned cooperative, but I haven't settled on a personal answer.

Could they potentially face jail time in Ethiopia or Indonesia (where the doomed flights flew from, and the airlines are based)? I'm sure there would be quite the fight over extradition, but it would certainly send the message that you can't escape your negligence because of an eye to corporate profit on a global scale.

They've had a long time to figure that out. It's been an issue for a while. They've just neglected to do anything about it.

It doesn't take a genius to look at all the reviews that some products have and realize that they're fake

I agree strongly. Unions don't have to undermine the productivity of a company (and really they shouldn't).

A few things that a modern union could do:

1. Place limits on expected working hours. Let the management know that working above 40 hours a week, or needing to be on-call 24/7 should not be the norm. Let management know that using all your vacation time should be the norm. Set minimum amounts of vacation time for people to take, when a company advertises "Unlimited PTO". 2. Fight for minimum cost-of-living increases, presumably tied to a fair metric such as the CPI in an area. Every company that I have worked for has had a hard limit on the raises that you can earn each year--usually around 3%. This is typically close to or just above inflation. 3. Collectively hold the company leadership accountable for their actions. When management doesn't act in a professional way, they should be held accountable in the same way that someone lower on the corporate ladder would be. 'Unprofessional' behavior could be anything like sexual harassment, being physically aggressive, etc. We've all seen this first-hand or heard about it; typically HR won't get involved because it's easier to make the rank-and-file worker change divisions or leave, than to have the upper management change. 4. Place limits on executive pay relative to worker pay. Today a CEO makes hundreds of times more than your average rank-and-file worker. This multiple is only increasing. A union could fight executive pay increases without commensurate increases to worker pay.

A few things that modern unions don't have to do:

1. Push for equal pay among everyone. I think we can all acknowledge that knowledge-workers don't all contribute to projects with the same level of effectiveness. I know some of my coworkers are better at their jobs than I am--and I'm okay with them getting paid more than me. Because we aren't just a cog in a machine, it doesn't make sense to treat each other as directly replaceable parts. 2. Encourage workers to limit their productivity, for fear of eliminating jobs. The union should win when the company wins. The union should do its part to help the company create more value for the world, and make sure that the employees get a fair share of that value.

I think it comes down to being fair versus being equal. Workers used to be equal labor substitutes, so the unions treated everyone as equal. Workers are no longer equal, but unions haven't evolved to the new business realities.

For what it's worth, I'm not a software engineer and I don't work in the Bay area. My city doesn't have many job opportunities, so I don't have the luxury of just leaving a company without also packing up and moving to a new area. For my coworkers who own houses or have a family, this is particularly hard. A union could help us create a better working environment, but many people have this idea of what a unions are based on a system of unions that was based in 19th and 20th century manufacturing.

It doesn't help with cost of living, but it does help open the door to a new pool of founders that can't/don't want to live in the Bay Area for any number of reasons.

If there are enough quality founders and enough quality investors, it seems reasonable that YC could provide value to a new region by filtering for quality and facilitating new connections within the network

From what I understand, Amazon actually has trouble recruiting and retaining enough warehouse workers (especially during peak seasons). This is evident by them having a starting wage ($15/hr) that is more than double the minimum wage in many parts of the country

The way I see it, networking is making friends with similar (or at least tangential) professional interests. In different roles and industries, the specifics can be very different. But the foundation of it is the relationship that you have with someone. I would say that my best networking contacts are friends that I know from college, or who I used to work with. These people need to know that you're competent enough to be successful in what you're looking to do. But they're also going to need to enjoy spending more time with you.

It's the people I consider friends that I want to reach out to about working with, and I know that these people would be advocates for me within their respective organizations.

Sort of. There's ceramic in the coating, but it's a minor component. More specifically, the coating is referred to as sol-gel ceramic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol%E2%80%93gel_process?wpro...

Yes, that is probably how it will play out. At least at first.

But I think the side-effect of this is that other industries & locales would not get as many workers as they currently do, which would put upward pressure on wages in those areas. Compare this to the current system, where wages for lower paying jobs and areas are kept lower than they would otherwise be by adding worker supply through this visa program.

I think there should be a monthly allocation of visas that can be issued, and companies are allowed to bid on the salary that they would pay the worker. Each month, the highest salaries get visas issued. If they don't bid enough, their candidate doesn't get in. If companies really need these specialists, they should pay them enough to secure a visa in a market-based system. I suspect this would create upward pressure on the salaries of these visa workers and prevent some of the abuse that we see today

>Can't you make a pretty similar argument about all types of patents?

Yes, yes you can.

While I'm sure that you can find examples of software patents that have patented a specific implementation of a given idea, you can also find mechanical patents that claim a broad concept. These patents exist for two main reasons: 1) They discourage competitors from attempting anything within the broad concept. Even if a judge would probably rule a patent unenforceable, the risk of litigation is enough to make legal departments recommend against doing things that are covered by the patent. 2) They give companies ammo when they do get to litigation. If Company A sues Company B for infringement on one of its patents, Company B can come back and countersue because it holds a large war chest of other broad patents. Even if most of them are unenforceable, each one poses its own risk that some part of it is held up and the infringing party is liable for damages. The quantity of patents involved (and the legal costs for litigating such a case) help push companies into a quicker out-of-court settlement.

The problem as I see it is not with software patents versus mechanical patents. It's with broad patents versus specific patents. There needs to be a mechanism for easily challenging the validity of a patent after it is issued.

Edit: For context, I'm a mechanical engineer who's worked on design & development of technical consumer products.

The mechanism by which they get paid (W2 vs 1099) isn't important. The parent comment was listing several occupations that people fill at Google that don't fit the idea of "highly compensated software engineer" as examples of people who may be interested in organizing in search of better working conditions.

For what it's worth, I don't agree with the implication of the comment--it isn't fair to say software engineers can't have any reason to organize or protest against things that their company does.

>Why would it be that cheap? Fusion 360 is competing with SolidWorks.

I wouldn't really say that's true. Inventor is really Autodesk's competitor to Solidworks. Fusion seems like it's competing more with hobbyist tools like Sketch-Up, and maybe open source tools like FreeCAD & OpenSCAD.

>I liked OnShape a lot, I think they got a lot of the UI right, but they priced themselves out of the market I'm in.

Agreed. I'm a little surprised at how OnShape doesn't want to price their product cheap enough that every new startup wants to use them with no questions asked. After you start using a certain CAD system, it is a huge P.I.T.A. to switch all your files over. Fusion360 takes advantage of this (no cost till you're above $100k in revenue), but the quality of their product just isn't quite there for me. And given the risks of using an entirely cloud-based system, if I were to make a startup & get funding tomorrow I'd still probably pick Solidworks.

Also streaming requires reliable high-speed internet. This is easy to take for granted when you live in a major metro area, but for more rural users, high speed internet may not be available at all.

>Reputable factories will test 100% of every product shipped.

Frankly, this just isn't true. It depends on your expected defect rate, how your defect rate drifts over time, the cost of doing 100% inspection, and effects of product failures. If you're making safety-critical gear, yes you will probably inspect 100%. If you're making injection molded clamshells for connected consumer products, you're probably only doing inspection in batches.

Was Fugazi the only band doing this at the time?

When I was tuned in to the local music scene in the greater Boston area (say 15 years later), it seemed like most shows were at 'non-traditonal venues' like VFW halls, churches, and basements. It's funny to think of a time when DIY bands played mostly 'real' venues