notabot

I agree with you in general. I just don't think a person 6 months out of college can effectively do what you describe.

When I was six months into the job I certainly didn't know how the org functioned, nor did I have any political capital to move things my way.

I don't think being led / managed by someone younger is a big deal, but this is a weird story. The author was just 6 months into his first job then made a leader of three much more experienced employees. That makes me think someone up the chain wanted those three guys gone.

You made too many assumptions about me. I'm not at the top. I'm not even from the US.

Yes. I'm at least half serious.

    1. The system is unfair in the first place -- Indian's quota is not in proportion to their population.

    2. The bill tries to flush the queue, that leads to:

        2.1 The perpetuation of this unfair system.

        2.2 Other people who will still use this system get unfairly treated.

So I don't think this is a proper solution to this issue. If US really wants all the best and brightest, the cap should be lifted.

This is such a terrible "fix".

“For the next 10 years, more than 90 percent of the employment-based green card will go to citizens of one country”

This is so unfair to citizens of other countries.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Indian immigrants. What they've been through is not tenable in the slightest. I think lifting the cap all together will be a better solution for everyone?

The graph is likely showing Frames Per Second (FPS). The higher the better.

Right. So it is a world in which everyone is for themselves.

Companies shouldn't blame employees having no loyality then.

Having survived a few rounds of layoffs and saw colleagues let go, I said to myself "On a scale of 0 to 10, I will love this company as much it loves me -- 0".

This comment articulated my thought so well. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who would react like that. :-)

The industry is playing a silly game.

The act sent out two messages to me.

1. They have low-balled me before, they will do it again.

2. They don't pay based on how much value I generate but as little as they can to prevent me from moving.

Royality is a two way street. While the company doesn't have my best interest in mind, why should I have theirs in mind? It would be foolish for me to not look around. Once I put in the effort to look around and got a better offer, I might as well leave the company for good.

> I've always wondered how much value employers lose via this sort of error.

I suspect nobody can come up with a number that would convince everyone in the chain in a large organization. If that could be done, I wouldn't end up in this situation in the first place.

> he was one of those people making easy SV money

Yet what I see most of the time is that organizations exploit employees' passion. The more you like your job, the less likely you will leave, so why bother paying you more?

I had a moment of epiphany when my manager said to me in a 1-to-1: "You've been very passionate and doing great. Now $competitors are in town, so we will raise your pay by $a-double-digit-number %".

I went out of the meeting and said to myself "Screw it, I have been exploited for $X years. I will start looking for my next job tomorrow".

So? What is the significance of one single event? Looking at that site it is not that uncommon. Did this event catch your attention simply because it had the right keywords (US Dept of Energy and China)?

MIT hijacked someone's route? https://bgpstream.com/event/171889

An US ISP? https://bgpstream.com/event/171683

Another US ISP? https://bgpstream.com/event/170328

China Telecom could have been a victim too? https://bgpstream.com/event/155707

The list goes on...

(edited: formatting)

"A person familiar with the analysis told Reuters it had been conducted by global firm Nardello & Co and that customers could ask for more detail on that company’s findings."

So I guess yes you can bypass Super Micro if you're a customer.

The context of the NYT article is that bad news in Chinese media is censored. GP already said "the kind of ...", which was not about a specific piece or a specific link, so it would be natural for me to interpret GP's comment as "the semantic content about defaults is censored in China", which is not true according to @paradite.

Last time I checked Trump wasn't exactly a fan of immigrants either.

Open source project with 2 PMs? That sounds very weird to me. In my mind that open source projects should be driven by community.

zinc.rc is certainly interesting. Thanks for sharing!

> Has hello world ever been exciting

The HN upvote says otherwise. :-)

But I guess had there been an HN-equivalent in assembly age people would get excited about C, too.

> The question is what does Rust have to offer as your embedded program grows.

Exactly.

We are aware of the good, bad and ugly bits of C. The industry has built extensive tooling around it. Rust has a long way to go. I certainly wish to see more pioneering projects from Rust.

As a C programmer who fiddles with low level stuff I wonder why people get exciting about such trivial thing.

Don't get me wrong. Rust is an interesting language. The thing described in this post is well within its capability, i.e. IMO there isn't really anything that worths bragging about. Such trivial thing neither demonstrates the real potential of Rust, nor answers important questions from real world engineering perspective.

I'm all for having better tool to write low level stuff. I have dabbled with Rust and the experience was eye-opening. I think Rust still have a lot to catch up though.

I just want to point out accepting pull requests for signatures is a bad idea -- someone is going to lose the race and rebase over and over if unlucky, assuming many people are going to sign this. :-)

I myself don't really see any motive of doing that. It is administrative burden (maintaining the service that bridge API and existing system, managing GitHub accounts / tokens). Compare that to the number / quality of pull requests received [0] [1] and I find RoI of doing that very low.

[0] https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/pulls [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pulls

My company pays me to work on a fairly old-school free software project and we run our own git service. Our workflow is email based so we won't ever consider switching to GitHub.

That said, we do sometimes consider setting up an official mirror on GitHub. Ideology aside (some team members might think we shouldn't promote a propriety solution for free software project), the main thing that puts us off is that there is no way to disable pull requests. Closing all pull requests by hand is not appealing; leaving all pull requests open is not desirable. We can probably write a bot to close pull requests, but that is just yet another administrative burden.

Not sure if GitHub will ever consider allowing users to disable pull requests though. That seems to go against GitHub's core interest.

Wow, this is unbelievable. More than two hours have passed and the page is still live. Someone even fixed the typo, which is even more insulting.

Please define "properly written" then we can discuss who is going to fund it.

This is not the first time they rant about this sort of things. Of course if they can't stand the code quality of Xen they are always welcome to switch to KVM, virtualbox, bhyve or whatever open source hypervisor they think has the best code quality and security practice.

I know it is within their right to write things as they please. But seriously, ranting like this is not very constructive and doesn't move things forward. If Qubes thinks the practices in Xen community are bad, why don't they start a conversation on Xen development mailing list?

(edited: typo)