sunir

Frankly, it's always hard to hire engineers. Either you can't find talent or you can't find money to hire talent.

No matter what the personal choices and predilections of any engineer, the software industry is fundamentally constrained by the twin forces of capital and engineering talent. When there is lots of capital, there are a lot of companies, and there is insufficient talent. When there isn't a lot of capital, no one can nor wants to pay for talent so they can weather the storm. That's been the case since at least the 1970s.

Through this cycle, there are so many "engineers" working tirelessly to put other "programmers" out of work (not the shift in labels there, because there is always an unjustified scent of snideness in the air) as well to reduce the cost of engineering. All the no-code revolution now is part of this cycle.

There's a wonderful book angling for a Marxist revolution of engineers from 1977

Kraft, 1977. Programmers and Managers. The Routinization of Computer Programming.

I love it because it's cute, and since it's 2022, proven to be a dud. Like any Marxist analysis, it is accurate in assessing the problems and hopeless at prescribing a solution.

Regardless, the main lesson I have taken in my career is the absolutely top priority a senior engineer should have is building tools and processes to eliminate the need for code to generate business results. You will never be able to hire warm bodies fast enough, so all you can do is radically increase the power of each engineer on the team.

Those have always been the most fun teams I've worked on. It almost feels like being a wizard.

p.s. All that being said, I'm hiring. :)

We offer virtual cards too through AppBind and when I can’t sleep at night, sometimes I do game plan the possibility of what it means if we had to change card partners.

I expect we will see events like this fairly frequently in the next decade.

I feel for them.

I’ll take it further. Who cares about the company? It’s how people destroy human beings.

Thank you!

Thank you for your insight! I'm the only Canadian right now. We're still a small startup. I don't have majority control of the company by myself any more as we have raised VC.

I only enter the States for very specific business purposes and short durations and the occasional short family vacation. Less than 8 weeks in any given year, and much less now that I have kids at home.

I am super qualified for a TN1 computer systems analyst. I could presumably make a case for an O1 but that's a lot of work to prepare.

Hi Peter, my startup is a US Corp (Delaware) with a US-based co-founder and US-based employees. I live in Canada and I'm a Canadian citizen and I have zero intention of moving to the US. I'm the CEO. I'm using an EOR (Remote.com) to pay me in Canada.

I believe I can fly into the US for short trips on a smile and wave B1, but I want to be sure I don't need something like an L1. I have easily got a TN1 in the past, but I don't think that works if I'm a major shareholder.

Basically, I'm the CEO of a US corporation that lives permanently outside the US, and I want to cross the border occasionally to meet with the team, do trade shows, board meetings, sales meetings, and then return to Canada shortly thereafter. What permits do I need?

Thank you for your input!

I find it interesting that teachers are high on the list for most professions but conversely teachers marry teachers and other education professionals almost exclusively.

Three possibilities..

There must be a lot of teachers. (Most likely)

They may be the most attractive profession. (Possibly)

…Or they all have secret second families at work. (I always suspected!) :)

If you’re on Wikimedia’s side there is negative value in throwing chaffe into the conversation about imperial saber rattling.

Focus on the ball please.

I didn’t check his algorithm but if it only found one solution with a leading zero it is incorrect.

3821+0468=04289 as well.

The only bad thing about Full Throttle is the iPhone adaptation has a critical bug that hasn’t been fixed in years. It makes me sad. I want to play it again.

Don’t “Be humble”. Be scientific. Humility is an assumption the mistake is with you; but you only know the system is not functioning as expected.

Proceed by narrowing down what parts of the system behave unexpectedly. Keep an open mind.

Humility implies blame in some human way. The computer is a machine. It doesn’t care how we feel. It just is. Appreciate the freedom that grants you in debugging.

How is your posture? You may go further by strengthening your back, hips, neck, shoulders. If every chair is uncomfortable it could mean the issue is more in your own physical state. You could invest some money in a physiotherapist to check you out.

They are novel. We have had the same basic design for a century. People like seeing new concepts.

It's a prejudice about the human doing the work. It's not complicated to understand what the problem is. You should judge the work on the intrinsic merits of the work, not the worker. Every human has the right to work and be evaluated on the work, independent of the nature of their birth.

Thanks for posting the context for such a bizarre description. I can assure you that it's not worth continuing that train of thought.

However, if you want a positive, constructive frame the goal is self-documenting code. In that vein, here is a set of ideas I made a major contribution to amongst many other serious-minded software engineers.

http://wiki.c2.com/?SelfDocumentingCode

Girly?

You have it backwards. One should always assume our way of life is about to fail, so we take action to protect it. If you assume it is impervious, complacency will let it decay.

Pessimists persists in humanity because sometimes they are right. It’s valuable to let that fear be voiced, explored, determined, and planned for.

I agree with you. I think the lesson we're meant to take on the value-based pricing is you can have complex pricing if it is aligned tightly to the value perceived.

It can be very natural. Look at Stripe's pricing. It's a nightmare to explain, but makes sense when using the platform.

I like that way of thinking; it has a lot of resonance and power.

AWS prices on a cost basis, not value. That is you only pay for the input, not the output.

Value-based pricing works well if your product is aligned to revenue or cost savings, and you can attach a clear business objective to the product.

AWS is of course completely horizontal and therefore can serve an infinite number of business objectives excellently; and it does.

I would imagine you do understand the advantage of 30 seconds of time from anywhere in the world versus a 20-60min round trip to the bank.

I imagine there are other reasons you value than time and space convenience. Why do you feel the physical trip is more valuable?

All the SLO solutions struggle with the fact session IDs are disassociated with the IdP except by policy. Policy is insufficiently strong.

The session ID needs to be cryptographically associated with the IdP so if you blow away the IdP session unilaterally you cannot decrypt or access any SPs session.

For instance but probably not sufficient as a solution, you could imagine IdPs running a JavaScript inside the SPs client session that provides half of a key pair and the SP providing the other half that combined form the session ID. Then once SLO is initiated the IdP script no longer provides its key.

I have not deeply thought further about how to completely design a flow like this but I strongly believe this kind of cryptographic session ID is the likely idea that will lead to a solution.

What is the difference between a funder and a paying customer?

They are both users who are paying for the service.

The difference is that funders have political power over the project beyond the scope of their own use.

Customers are always better and more fair to everyone than funders.

Just fix the spelling. Only comment what is worth the time talking about.

That isn’t doxxing. You have no expectation of privacy if you send a threatening letter to another person.

The better solution is to link verified phone numbers in one account. You would need access to both numbers simultaneously of course.

However since this is non-trivial to implement as it requires indirection wherever authentication is performed or identity is asserted, requiring fundamental architectural change for most platforms, the engineering cost vs marketing benefit applies.

So the priority level “MUST” is questionable since almost no one has this problem. It is more likely that the solution will be an ever increasing number of cell companies will have agreements for international roaming.

There is nothing that is absolutely categorically capable of singularly identifying an individual natural person except that person’s physical body and even then biometrics need to be carefully created.

Everything else has a statistical probability of correlating with a natural person. The probability of phone numbers as identification is good enough. In fact it is great.

All or nothing reasoning is incorrect. It is only useful when you need to capture literally every case, which isn’t the problem here.

The dispute as I understand it was he did not “actually” (literally speaking) have a profit because the clearing and settlement hadn’t finished.

A lot of the anger with Robinhood comes down to the mistaken belief by many people that money moves instantly, trades happen instantly.

Robinhood UI is struggling to convey actual current value vs accrued unsettled value vs unrealized value.

These are non-trivial concepts. The time component of money confuses a lot of situations. Eg Most people treat retainers as revenue before it is earned; even SaaS companies treat MRR as earned before the time period elapsed and service is rendered. However this isn’t strictly correct or legal.

Vigilantism like calling for DDOSing is not the answer.

I’m not a criminal prosecutor or lawyer nor do I live in the jurisdiction this was tried under.

However, I would wager that the CEO would have to have intentionally and actively cooperated with the criminal act; merely benefiting from it indirectly by running the corporation is insufficient. Hence they indicted the corporation which is directly benefiting.

Even if the CEO was aware and conspiring the prosecutor would still need to prove it. They may not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

All that being said it is possible prosecution was pro-corporate biased and refused to burn down a company. I am not discounting that possibility. Regardless it is difficult to win convictions so it is also plausible this is the best win prosecution believed it could get.

This was a criminal conviction. It says so in the article.

Are you commenting on the disparate sentencing for the company versus an individual?

It is a deferred prosecution agreement, which is definitely an aspect of corporatism: that is the pre -eminent rights of corporations over natural people.

However there was a criminal conviction of a natural person as well. The DPP was the criminal conviction of the corporation that benefited from the underlying crime.

DPPs exist to avoid collateral damage to innocents dependent on the corporation, whilst still criminally convicting the corporation itself. It’s a balancing game.

With it a bit nuanced I am curious to understand better what you meant by your comment.