America's Innovation Engine Is Slowing - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/americas-innovation-engine-slowing/614320/ <comment><USER2> Id like to see a concerted effort for America to regain number one status and ensure we stay ahead of China. To do that ideally we need more people. Ideally something like 100M of the brightest in the world.

IMO the easiest way to do that is: -offer a path to citizenship for the world -they have to pay something like $50k per person for a visa (or maybe $5k per year for 10 years) -must pay into social security, unemployment, etc. But can't draw any benefits until they are citizens. -if current on all obligations after 20 years, they are citizens. -can offer sponsorships for exceptions -something like 1 week approval (time for background check) $1k non refundable application fee.

Details can be changed, but this solves most concerns on the American right. We can see how far this gets us, but I suspect we would have a lot of global takers. Anyone willing to go for something like this I'm happy to have.

<comment><USER3> Why not offer a visa that requires you to have a minimum of 125 IQ on a standard test -or- be running a profitable business that you are willing to relocate?

\- 2 year visa

\- Renewable in 2 year blocks if you can prove you've been working or running a business for 18 months earning at least the median income (waived for startups)

\- After 8 years eligible to apply for a green card, if an independent panel determines you have positively contributed to the US you are awarded one

This would act as a supercharged vacuum for talent like New York City was for European migrants during the boom.

Especially in tech, you either work in the United States or you are _dramatically_ underpaid. Why not soak up all of the world's talent?

<comment><USER4> > you either work in the United States or you are dramatically underpaid.

First off you might be surprised but money isn't the #1 priority for a lot of people.

In SV maybe, and even then when you factor cost of living, insurances, unemployment benefits, parental leaves &c. I'd rather be in Europe making half the raw salary and getting all the good stuff than being paid twice as much and spending 5k$ on a small flat in SF.

As an outsider it's impressive to see the shift in the recent years, back when I was in uni the majority of my peers wanted to move to the US, me included, and I did for a bit. Nowadays I literally don't know anyone who wants to migrate there in my circles, especially not with the current process. I think American people don't understand how broken their immigration, political and social systems are, and how bad of a deal breaker it is for a lot of Europeans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I disagree. America's labor and innovation problems are all self-inflicted.

America has 350 million people. In this population, you have people from all walks of life. And from all ethnicities that you can choose from. But America squanders this human resource potential. Instead of being inclusive, American culture is all about being exclusive. You can see it everywhere. From elite universities, to selective companies, to instagram whores, to the professional sporting teams of the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. Even to neighborhoods and cities. Instead of promoting teamwork and unity, the underlying tone of American culture is to produce hate and envy. It's the "I got mine" attitude, so I'm going to do what I can to prevent you from succeeding.

Ignore all the fake messages of love and unity. That's just marketing nonsense to disarm you. Instead, look beyond their words, and criticize their actions.

Crony Capitalism has run amok in America, and they are the source of all your problems. And no, I'm not advocating for socialism or communism, or something stupid like that. You need capitalism as an underlying mechanism, but the egregiousness of it, needs to be reigned in.

The problem is your politicians. The business leaders and those with access to capital, have corrupted the system. And the politicians are all compromised and bought out. So they are the roadblocks that prevents anything from happening. They prevent society from moving forward.

And why should they bother to do anything? They are benefiting perfectly from the system. They get a cushy job, with pay in excess of $250,000. And after their public career is over, then they can land an even cushier job with a lobbying firm. It's the perfect revolving door.

And meanwhile, the society continues to deteriorate. People vote in charlatans that promise them the moon, and delivers a pile of dirt instead.

There are 3 hits that America did to shoot itself in the foot.

1) Education. Corporations required degrees to do mundane things. But yet, when you got that expensive education, the pay didn't reflect what it costed to attain such education. So young people are now saddled with very expensive student loans. This delays adulthood, and leads to other problems downstream.

2) Housing. After the 2008 housing crisis, corporations with access to cheap credit, bought up houses in huge quantities, and prevented people from buying affordable houses. This drove up costs everywhere else, especially in rent. And prevent people from having a savings in the form of their homes.

How do you buy a house, when some corporation with easy access to liquidity, thanks to the Fed, comes out and outbids you, and pays in cash? You can't.

3) Healthcare. America refuses to establish a single payer health insurance system, so everyone ends up paying through the nose for expensive health insurance.

In summary, America has the human resources to succeed, and to continually reinvent itself. It needs smarter policy from the Federal and State level, to engage with the population. People can be retrained for advanced careers, without going bankrupt. Houses can be built, to enable everyone to be a homeowner, and share in the prosperity for all. Healthcare can be made cheaper and accessible to everyone to ensure that all Americans are healthy.

The choice is yours America. Do we continue to go down this path of failure, where the economy works only for the wealthy and well connected? Or do we renew the social contract that binds us, and build a new, prosperous, and inclusive future for all Americans.

The ball is now in your court.

<comment><USER6> Excellent points. Everything in this country is aligned with being wealthy. Look at how they attack 'public schools', and 'teachers unions' ruining education and want to use tax dollars to subsidize private schools. Who can go to private schools? Rich kids, and extremely smart kids.

I helped my GF do her taxes. 18K in student loan interest (most of her loans are 4-7%), of which only 2.5k was deductible. Meanwhile, I do well, have assets, and paid $28k in margin interest. ALL DEDUCTIBLE.

What type of debt is non dischargeable? education What loans are essentially non refinanceable and much higher interest rates? education

It's as though the rich want to keep the poor, poor.

The republicans were able to push through tax reform that benefited real estate investors, and wealthy individuals that live in low / zero tax states. It's as though Donald Trump's sole goal of being elected was to make his family more money in the long run.

When most have nothing, the pitchforks will come out in the form of policies championed by the likes of AOC and Bernie Sanders (not that they're all bad).

Student loans need to be dischargeable in bankruptcy and need to be privatized. This way, there will be accountability with the university education.

People need to be able to purchase medicare policies if private insurance costs more than x% of their income.

Corporate tax needs to be super low for those corporations that provide health insurance with out of pocket expense less than x% of salary, $7k / year in retirement contributions so that they'll have incentive to reparticipate in the social contract.

rant over</comment></comment>


Alvin M. Weinberg - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg <comment><AUTHOR> > Weinberg was fired by the Nixon administration from ORNL in 1973 after 18 > years as the laboratory's director, because he continued to advocate > increased nuclear safety and molten salt reactors (MSRs) […]</comment>


Fingers Detect Typo Even When Conscious Brain Doesn't - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101028141759.htm

<comment><USER2> The human brain is fascinating. But I think the article could be slightly misleading; the fingers do not do any of the "processing" of information. It's a part of the brain below consciousness that detects the problem, probably as it tries to map the messages received from the fingers to the ones it expects to receive from a given word as the fingers touch the keys.

Not that I'm a neurologist...</comment>


How High Frequency Trading Benefits All Investors - <AUTHOR> http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/high-frequency-trading-benefits-105365-1.html?zkPrintable=true

<comment><USER2> I am a professional trader, and by almost any definition I operate in the "high frequency" space. First, let's establish that Traders is an authority on the real world of financial markets in the same sense that PC World is an authority in the world of technology.

So I've not read the linked article, nor am I going to. But I will say this: HFT does perform a viable, necessary economic function. A well-functioning capital market absolutely requires this kind of activity.

HOWEVER, like most mainstream-media memes, what gets talked about / opined on is almost never relevant to what is actually important and/or controversial: in this case, the question of whether HFT creates a two-tiered playing field where individual (read: non-technically-sophisticated) investors suffer at the hands of the "pros".

Most arguments against HFT basically say that algorithms are purely predatory and only serve to hurt the performance of large investors. This is naive at best and deceptive at worst; for every share I purchase "ahead of" a big order, a seller has been filled at the price he desired. Every transaction has two sides; you can't just pick one and say they got screwed. The other side has to have done as well as the other did poorly (assuming a fictional frictionless world).

The reality is that HFT requires tons of knowledge and a technology budget of seven figures per annum _at the barest minimum_ , and this provides a very real barrier to entry. What should be talked about, but never is: is that ok? Why or why not? What ramifications does it have?

<comment><USER3> I'm not a professional trader, like yourself, but from what I've gathered over the last several years of HFT coming up in the news is that it is in fact a low-barrier to entry field. All you need is a decent quant, application designer, and some co-located machines as close as you can get them (and other easily acquired amenities.) So I could make a reasonable bet you could open a HFT firm with a couple hundred thousand, plus the talent. (And I've confirmed this with a few hedge fund guys, and they pretty much agreed.)

And I do completely understand the argument for liquidity: more transactions = more accurate price discovery. But I think problem here is that this entire field is black box, meaning property trading algorithms and trading patterns can and are used within the system. This can allow a trading AI to go out into the market place, look for pattens, and to create and cancel millions of orders within the fraction of a second.

I'm sure you know about the former Goldman Sachs programmer who was charged with theft by the FBI. It was totaled at around 32 megabytes of software code. Not very much. But Goldman insisted that if this code got out into the market it would be detrimental to their business and violate their trades secrets confidentiality clause. Not to mention Goldman's largest profit center in their business is their proprietary trading desk, which is heavily into HFT.

My contention is that if we are really interested in a utility that uniformly benefits the market, then let's have an open source platform that provides that, so we can verify that any of these firms aren't "front-running" their trades.

Thats my opinion. I think a lot of the debate over HFT is just filler, it doesn't matter. The guys who are hip to the scene are already making a killing on it now, and it may last a few more years before we begin to regulate.

<comment><USER2> Sure, you can get the point where you're placing trades for a couple hundred grand... as long as a lot of things fall into place for you. Writing your own apps? Unless you think you can get talent that is willing to roll the dice and possibly be out of a job in a couple months, you're looking at 12 months x the cost of those people... how much is that? $500k? This isn't framework-style assembly of components. If you want to be competitive, the SLOWEST things you can use are linux and C++.

Colocation agreements usually require a minimum commitment of 12-36 months... probably $10k/mo if you have some rudimentary failover and the like.

I'd say anyone who tries with less than 12 months and $500k to truly burn has 0 shot at success. And if you want to really do it right, you're looking at an order of magnitude more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Keep in mind that this is appearing in a magazine that is successful because of the success of high frequency trading and that the article is written by the member of a company that bases its profits on the ability to conduct high frequency trading.

<comment><USER5> <http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html>

DH1

<comment><USER6> PG articles are not scripture that you can just link to a quote from to end debate, you know. =]

I do think it's legitimate to look at sources for articles, especially when there are _strong_ conflicts of interest.

<comment><USER7> "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established."

Romans 13:1

<comment><USER8> The Bible is not scripture that you can just link to a quote from to end debate, you know.

<comment><USER7> Stack Overflow

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am somewhat confused by this double-negative: "No serious market observer disputes the claim that volatility would not be higher without the liquidity provided by high frequency traders."

The author seems to be trying to say that high frequency traders reduce volatility. But I parse the claim differently: it seems to me to be saying that volatility could only be lower in the absence of liquidity from high frequency traders.

As to the rest of the argument, it seems to be structured along these lines:

* More efficient markets with lower spreads between buy and sell are good. I think this is a valid claim, but I don't think it follows from the existence of high frequency trading, but rather from more efficient, automated trading systems.

* High frequency trading helps supply market liquidity, and this liquidity is good. I can buy the first part of this, and the second part seems mostly true.

* Old-fashioned purchasers seem to be annoyed that when they make a large purchase, the price for the last share is higher than the price for the first share, because the market has already reacted to the change in supply and demand. He also makes the argument that were this not so, the sellers of shares would in effect be subsidizing purchasers. His case seems solid enough to me.

* But he then makes another claim that seems to contradict it. He suggests that companies with stocks that have low volume turnover are unduly affected by small purchases, and since high frequency trading increases volume, the impact is reduced.

* Finally, it seems he would like to claim that because "our nation's equity markets are far fairer, more efficient, more liquid and have lower transaction costs for investors than ever before", high frequency trading should claim a substantial portion of the credit.

<comment><USER10> It actually seems to be more like a quadruple-negative. Let's try to simplify.

"No serious market observer disputes the claim that volatility would not be higher without the liquidity provided by high frequency traders."

"[serious market observers believe] that volatility would not be higher without the liquidity provided by high frequency traders."

"[serious market observers believe] that volatility would [be lower] without the liquidity provided by high frequency traders."

"[serious market observers believe] that volatility would [be lower] without ... high frequency traders."

"[serious market observers believe] that volatility [is higher with] ... high frequency traders."

"[high frequency traders increase volatility]"

This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the author proceeds to argue in the following paragraphs. My conclusion is that the author managed to create a sentence so overly complicated that even he could not understand what he was saying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I usually hate TL;DR comments, but if someone provided a short summary of the argument here (and for bonus points, a critique of the argument's strength), I would be very grateful.

<comment><USER12> The argument is essentially: 1) High-frequency traders (HFTs) increase liquidity. For the benefit of those who don't know what that means: there are actually a finite amount of shares of each company, and you cannot buy shares unless someone is willing to sell theirs to you, and you cannot sell shares unless someone is willing to buy them from you. You can imagine that you might not be able to sell your shares the instant you want them to if humans are in the loop on the buyer side (i.e., if a human has to review your selling price and decide whether or not to buy), and vice-versa. In contrast, if somebody has programmed a computer to automatically execute trades if certain conditions are met, you can buy and sell shares very quickly. This is what HFTs do.

2) HFTs provide transparent price discovery. This means that the computer programs the HFTs have set up will quickly and unambiguously tell you at what price they are willing to buy and sell shares. Contrast this with a hypothetical process in which you had to haggle with human representatives of each shareholder or potential buyer in order to figure out the price. It's similar to consumer vs. enterprise software sales (sticker price vs. "well, how much can you afford?"). In theory, transparent price discovery promotes fairness (everyone sees the same price) and encourages trading due to decreased latency and hassle.

3) Lots of repetition of 1 and 2. Also an assertion that HFT decreases volatility (average dPrice/dt), while most commentary on the matter assumes that it would increase volatility, due to algorithms that are either busted ( e.g., [http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/01/how-a-stray- mou...](http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/01/how-a-stray-mouse-click- choked-the-nyse-cost-a-bank-150k.ars)) or interacting with one another in a bad way. It is disconcerting to me that the author cites empirical evidence without a hint of intuition or insight to help the reader generalize it; however, it is difficult to dismiss the evidence off-hand without looking at it more closely and/or being more expert than I in the matter.

Points 1 and 2 are by far the most common and obvious arguments for HFT, and the analysis in TFA is not bad, but not exemplary either. The rest of the article is basically redundant and comes off a little defensive. I found this article interesting ( <http://www.zerohedge.com/article/whoa-glitch-hft> ), though its tone is also less-than-objective.

<comment><USER6> The rest of the article seems to make some rather dubious strong claims, also. For example: "High frequency traders can only trade profitably when their trades push a stock price towards fair value."

I don't see why there's any particular reason that's true. High-frequency traders can trade profitably whenever their trades are in line with (very) short-term price movements. Ideally everything works together to push prices towards fair value, but you can't assume that as an axiom, since that's the main point being disputed in that section (the one on volatility).

<comment><USER13> One other aspect of HFT that was not mentioned in the article is that HFTers often seek arbitrage opportunities. For example, the value of many ETFs such as SPY (i.e. an ETF tracking the S&P 500) are derived from the value of underlying securities. If the value of SPY versus the value of the underlying securities becomes out of sync, HFTers may go long one and short the other and then profit when they converge again. In this sense, HFTers only profit if the market returns to fair value. This applies to many ETFs, convertible securities, and options.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How Your Company Can Support Junior Engineers - <AUTHOR> https://www.eventbrite.com/engineering/how-to-support-junior-engineers/ <comment><AUTHOR> What do you guys do in your company to support new engineers? Is there anything we are missing? We would love to hear the opinion of the community!</comment>


Reddit, what are your favourite TEDTalks? - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/dwk2t/reddit_what_are_your_favourite_tedtalks/ <comment><USER2> Related: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=442022> \- Ask HN: What is your favorite TED talk? (644 days ago) <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1447418> \- Ask HN: What's your favorite TED Talk? (128 days)</comment>


A tiny sea creature is the earliest known step in humans' evolutionary history - <AUTHOR> https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/meet-your-earliest-known-ancestor-saccorhytus <comment><USER2> What I find fascinating about this is that humans and many other branches of the tree are Deuterostomes[1], which means that when the cells first divide the first 'hole' goes on to form the anus [2], rather than the mouth. This is in contrast to the Protostomes where the first hole forms the mouth.

I mean obviously it makes sense that a single-holed animal used it as a mouth - the anus has no use without the mouth - but (in my naive understanding) it means that somewhere beyond this ancestor, certain groups of vertibrates split and went in opposite directions despite both being (presumably) decended from this thing.

It fascinates me that there was some mechanism to cause this, rather than all animals forming in the same order, if we did indeed share a common ancestor that only had one entry/exit hole.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterostome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterostome)

[2]: The clever observer will note that this means that technically, very early on, each of us is little more than an arsehole ;)

<comment><USER3> Personally, I think it's easier to understand the deuterostomes: the "mouth" will benefit from being controlled by input from sensory organs, and those need to be on the outside of the body. Thus, a natural bending of a flattish body-shape into a horseshoe, with the mouth on the outside of the "bend."

Also, a fun fact to go with yours: vertebrates are triploblasts. That means, when we first fold over (gastrulize), our cells differentiate into three types --one on the "inner wall" of the fold, one on the inside of the body, and one on the exposed "outer wall" of the fold. In other words: we're all tacos!

Another, perhaps more-weird-than-fun fact: our DNA is basically three separate "code bases", one for each layer. It is much easier for a given feature to evolve by differentiating from similar tissue proteins in its own layer, than in another layer. (In fact, to do otherwise, the resulting proteins still have to "start off" in their ancestral layer, before "migrating" during development.)

Anyway: our brains--which you'd think of as an "internal" organ--are actually part of the ectoderm, and in lower organisms, the first thing that the ectoderm is, is skin. So, your brain (and your nerves, your spine, and most of your sensory organs) are all effectively "kinds of" skin tissue. Your nerves? Skin with capacitance. Your spine and teeth? Calcified nerves. The reward centre of your brain? Modified skin pigmentation cells. Your retina: _also_ skin pigmentation cells. Your iris: modified retinal cells.

Basically, evolution always starts its feature branches with a bit of copy- and-paste programming. :)

<comment><USER4> So what you are saying is that nature ALSO shuns multiple inheritance? :)

<comment><USER5> Yes, but have you tried reading the codebase?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A heard about this, it has a large mouth that it excretes though. I know a lot of humans that still do that

</comment><comment><USER7> The cynic in me has doubts whenever Chinese scientists claim China is home to the missing link.

<comment><USER8> I imagine if this was discovered in, say, Argentina, then there'd be a good chance of some Argentinian scientist participating in the discovery.

Call it the anthropic principle of archeology :)

<comment><USER9> I can't speak for the GP, but one might make a reasonable distinction between the reliability of findings that come out of Argentina as they compare to those from China.

Edit: Someone doesn't appreciate this comment. Astute professional analysts the world over know that official figures that come out of China are among the least reliable on the planet.

And while scientific misconduct is not unheard of anywhere, China's hardly a shining example in that regard.

Lastly, good Chinese research agencies themselves are having a difficult time keeping up with numerous bad actors who are doing their best to fraudulently publish papers.

This isn't xenophobia, it's a fair appraisal of the sometimes inconsistent qualities of the world's societies.

<comment><USER10> What kind of misconduct? There is a big difference, for example, between plagiarism and fabricating results.

And which percentage of the researchers are involved in this? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? Do you have any studies you could link to that in any way quantify this?

China's research spending and number of research articles produced today is second only to the U.S. There are always going to be some bad apples among that many researchers. That should in no way discredit the rest of the profession.

<comment><USER11> Last year, 80% of the applications for new pharmaceuticals in China were found to contain fabricated, flawed, or inadequate clinical trial data: [http://www.sciencealert.com/80-of-the-data-in-chinese- clinic...](http://www.sciencealert.com/80-of-the-data-in-chinese-clinical- trial-is-fabricated)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It looks like chest breaker from alien</comment>


Get Your Manager To Prioritize Your Tasks - <AUTHOR> http://www.codesqueeze.com/get-your-manager-to-prioritize-your-tasks/ <comment><USER2> Managing your time is important, but might be even more important to know how to manage it yourself. It's better to have the skill of knowing how to prioritize things than to just listen to what someone else says. Of course you can share your priorities with others to see if they are in line with project goals.</comment>


GitHub contributions 8-bits - <AUTHOR> http://www.cixtor.com/blog/57/github-contributions The talks for me: $ git init $ touch 'README.md' $ git add 'README.md' $ DATE=$(stat -c %y 'README.md' | sed 's/2013/2000/g') $ git commit -m 'Initial commit' --date "$DATE" $ git remote add origin https://HOSTING.com/USERNAME/REPOSITORY.git $ git push -u origin master <comment><AUTHOR> Hello, today I'm coming with a very simple article, but with a curious image. This post doesn't have a technical explanation, it is just something that I want to share because it was funny to achieve this thing Cixtor GitHub Contributions ([https://github.com/cixtor](https://github.com/cixtor)).</comment>


Say goodbye to IKEA (video) - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAa6bOWB8qY

<comment><USER2> IKEA is about much more than simply ( if at all) saving space. Their stuff is relatively inexpensive and easy to assemble. The resourcefurniture.com site makes me "request a quote" when I try to see what stuff costs.

Looking over some of the offerings on the Web site, I much prefer the IKEA aesthetic. And IKEA has seriously kick-ass cinnamon buns.

IKEAFTW.

<comment><USER3> furthermore, i suspect IKEA can get some great ideas from this sort of thing, and they've got the mass distribution.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't mean to hate on IKEA. It'd be awesome if they adapted/improved on some of these designs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great video, bad link title.

<comment><AUTHOR> yea I know, I was in a rush and I didn't want to give the impression that I was astroturfing with a title like "Resource Furniture: Awesome space saving furniture"</comment></comment>


Executive order expected to suspend H-1B, other visas until end of year - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2020/06/20/881245867/trump-expected-to-suspend-h-1b-other-visas-until-end-of-year <comment><USER3> Disclaimer: I'm an immigrant.

There are companies like Cognizant/InfoSys/Tata/... whose business model is based on abusing the H1B system, and that's obviously wrong and I'm quite surprised they get away with it. I'm not defending that.

To those who broadly argue against skilled visas, consider this: Most H1B immigrants are between 20-30 age range. The prime age to join the workforce. Think how much investment you have to make on a child's health care and education to make them into a highly skilled workforce. It would at least cost you 1$M and probably much more. Now all these immigrants have learned your language, passed job interviews, and are competing to come to your country to give you 1$M and help your economy. Why would you not want that? People seem to think that number of jobs is a limited constant and if you stop immigrants that will have a positive effect on the economy. But in reality companies can simply just scale. If they have more workforce they can do more. Things get done faster and they just make more profit. Stopping immigration obviously would dent the economical growth. Never mind that many top tech companies in the US were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.

To those who say we must invest in local workforce, I wonder why would you have to stop immigration to start investing in local workforce? As if allowing immigration would reduce the amount of money for investment, while in reality immigrants pay taxes. I personally have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes so far. I'd be happy if this money was used to educate the American workforce. However I know that it doesn't. I would like to see that change.

<comment><USER4> I know this will probably be flagged or voted down, but at least please understand that I truly want to see people in the US get better and more equal. Here it goes: if the US wants to invest in local talent, the US had better invest heavily in education. And I'm not talking about an-iPad-per-kid kind of investment, but investment to hire great teachers, lots of them, to public schools to the point that tutoring schools become a joke, investment to set up a system that can fire bad teachers -- the kinds who ask students in grade 9 physics class "which is heavier, pound or kilogram". Investment to ensure that even the poorest area can have public schools that are at least as good as KIPP. Investment to really keep students in their discomfort zone so they can learn every day. Investment that builds a system that really pushes the limit of every student instead of being complacent with the craps like "Kids can discover most math by themselves" or "left no kids behind" or "challenging math is systemic bias against the poor" or "math is racism" \-- maybe they are, but then they are because our governments offer such low- quality education that family with means can get ahead by going to soul- sucking tutoring schools.

Education is the key to local talent, and is the key to equality. Yet, what has the US done to make our education better?

<comment><USER5> This comment is the reason why we need to rethink our current culture of censorship and social media outrage.

It explains a non-trivial logical connection, showing how something that could look unpopular from the surface, would pay off in the long run. Except you cannot make comments like this in public anymore. Because all it takes is an angry mob leader shouting "%USERNAME% is %CLICHE%ist" and that's it. Your employer fires you, your friends abandon you, you are socially bankrupt in an instant.

There are many bright people our there with great perspectives to share. Except they have to maintain radio silence, because they are not willing to take that risk. So the only voices to be heard are the most extreme ones that have nothing to lose.

I sincerely hope we can overcome this and get people to discuss problems and work _together_ on solving them before our civilization sinks into medieval barbarism.

<comment><USER6> I don't see anything in the parent comment that's even remotely controversial. Almost everyone across the political spectrum agrees that we should spend more on education, at least in the abstract. There's plenty of disagreement on the details, but I don't see anything in the comment that stakes out a strong position on any of the major issues. Perhaps I'm missing something.

<comment> core-questions Here's the problem: you cannot guarantee equal outcomes across intersectional groups. Period. Not going to happen. A hundred years of psychometric research backs this up; there are simply differences that cannot be papered over by adjusting metrics and applying equalizing coefficients.

A highly effective education system that really gets the best out of every person involved is also going to be selective, it is going to group people into different classes based on ability, and the resulting output is going to be highly offensive to the militant people who right now are literally doing their best to take over American cities.

So no, we can't fix this problem. We can spend more on it, but ultimately all of that money is just IOUs against a decaying system that demands everyone be equal, even if that lowest common denominator means all but the super-rich end up living in a favela within a few decades.

<comment><USER6> In short, you're claiming that some races or genders are inherently more capable than others, independent of all 'nurture' factors? If so, you're wrong, but feel free to clarify what "hundred years of psychometric research" you're referring to.

<comment><USER7> No we are claiming that we need $4309582309239 extra spending on the Governor's wife's tennis partners' baker's niece's program to totally-not-put- all-those-dollars-back-into-the-governors-electoral-budget.

That will fix it.

What I mean to say is that 99.9% of those programs are just abusing the system (even if 10% of them started out with honest intentions).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> All data indicate there is no shortage of US Citizens that could fill STEM positions and that H1-B holders on average make well below market rate. Outright ban is the wrong tool and I can't imagine that this is a reasoned policy response to a well understood abuse of wage-arbitrage. The right answer would be to mandate comparable wages for H1-B immigrants as for median employee with the same experience/tenure etc...

"A comprehensive literature review, in conjunction with employment statistics, newspaper articles, and our own interviews with company recruiters, reveals a significant heterogeneity in the STEM labor market: the academic sector is generally oversupplied, while the government sector and private industry have shortages in specific areas."

[https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/stem-crisis-or- ste...](https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/stem-crisis-or-stem-surplus- yes-and-yes.htm)

"Our examination shows that the STEM shortage in the United States is largely overblown. Guestworker programs are in need of reform, but any changes should make sure that guestworkers are not lower-paid substitutes for domestic workers."

[https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/new-analysis-finds-no- shortage...](https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/new-analysis-finds-no-shortage-of- stem-workers-in-the-united-states/)

"Sixty percent of H-1B positions certified by the U.S. Department of Labor are assigned wage levels well below the local median wage for the occupation."

[https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing- wa...](https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing-wage-levels/)

<comment><USER9> If there is no shortage of US citizens that can fill STEM roles, then the H1-B program has no reason to take in STEM workers. Its purpose is to fill skill shortages. There is clearly no skills shortage, therefore the ban, while perhaps overkill, is not unjustified. Companies simply use it to get cheap labor.

<comment><USER10> When was the last time you hired to grow a team in SV?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This has gotten very old very fast (beyond the obvious cruelty). I have several friends who keep watching their colleagues just have to up and leave over this and it's causing a ton of issues for businesses that employ folks on work visas in general. It's just disruptive to be disruptive/feed the base.

<comment><USER12> It's just silly... even if you're a nationalist, isn't the prospect of bringing over talented people from foreign countries to work in America and help our companies profit plus deprive their home countries of their skills a really, really good thing?

<comment><USER13> If H-1B visas were being used how they were intended, they would be a good thing, but we often see them used as a way to get cheap labor, or even directly replace American workers. The company I work at has H-1B junior web developers, hardly "very niche, hard to fill" positions that they can't find any qualified Americans to do.

<comment><USER14> I guess this is indeed an issue. I'm a manager and I am trying to hire. 100% I'd rather find a person who can start in a couple of weeks than several months for a candidate who needs immigration. But there are rarely any local applicants and even when there are they don't make in the interview. We pay in excess of 300k for all roles so it's not like we are trying to find cheap talent.

<comment><USER15> Something isn't adding up here, even in areas with high COL people are clamoring for jobs like that. I'm not saying it never happens, something just doesn't sound right.

Also, the vast majority of people on H1-Bs that I've worked with are quite... average. It's nothing against them, but I doubt they were blowing people away in the interview. Many of them do have better attitudes, though.

That's not to say that there aren't exceptional examples, or a given candidate was bad, but we absolutely could of hired some kid from university, or a mid- senior level from a US company. They just tend to have more demands.

It's not exactly a secret the main reason for the program, is to lower wages here. ie. keep the wages of nationals in check. Of course, you also get access to a better deal on labor, and people that want the job very badly.

I could be off base, but many of the people I've worked with on H1-Bs simply cause less political problems. It's not necessarily a cultural thing, as I'm including many different countries. They have the threat of deportation hanging over their head.

<comment><USER16> Off-topic, but just a tip. "could of" is never correct (nor is "would of" or "should of").

<comment><USER17> Or could-have, which I think is more applicable in the sentence you're correcting. Or am I missing some obscure grammar rule?

<comment><USER16> No you aren't missing anything. "could of" (and its cousins "would of" and "should of") are common mistakes made (interestingly) almost exclusively by English-as-first-language speakers (my observation, so don't ask for citations I don't have any), since they sound similar to "could have", "would have" and "should have" particularly in "native" English accents (I'm thinking North American and UK especially).

I've never seen "could-have" (hyphenated) though. I don't think that's right either.

<comment><USER18> It's just misspelled. 'Could've' is a standard contraction.

<comment><USER16> "Could-have" is misspelled? Or "could of"?

<comment><USER19> It's "could have" or "could've".

<comment><USER16> Right

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Reminder of the top H1B employers. Its not about high tech workers in SV.

[https://www.h1bdata.org/employers](https://www.h1bdata.org/employers)

Employer Name Employees Hired (All Years) Infosys Limited 182,945 Tata Consultancy Services Limited 102,722 Deloitte Consulting Llp 65,976 Wipro Limited 63,354 Accenture Llp 51,360 Ibm India Private Limited 47,839 Capgemini America Inc 40,954 Microsoft Corporation 40,828 Ernst Young Us Llp 38,631 Cognizant Technology Solutions Us Corp 34,138

<comment><USER21> This is for all years, but the numbers for 2019 seem to indicate SV will be affected: [https://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2019-H1B-Visa- Sponsor.asp...](https://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2019-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx) Google is #8. Amazon, Facebook, Apple are in the top 20. I don't know how accurate this list is, but I am worried for my colleagues.

<comment><USER20> Actually that site is interesting, if you add up the Bay Area it would be the #1 region. [https://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2019-H1B-Visa- Category.as...](https://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2019-H1B-Visa- Category.aspx?T=WC)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> H1-B was intended for highly skilled workers that the US had a real shortage of. But now it's just being abused to bring in captive workers that are willing to accept lower wages and worse working conditions than otherwise while crowding out US workers.

What if, instead of bowing to corporate greed which cares not a bit for our country or our people, we actually invested in our own population and trained them to do the jobs H1-B workers currently do.

Scaling back H1-B in this way is the common sense approach. And it benefits other countries too by reducing brain drain.

It's a win-win.

<comment><USER23> You can look at the data, SV companies aren't paying H1B people low wages. Unless you think 200-300k is low wages.

<comment><USER24> Is this true? The argument I've seen is that H1B's are liked by SV because they can be paid less.

<comment><USER25> All H1B salaries are public: [https://h1bdata.info/](https://h1bdata.info/)

It's possible (maybe even likely) that title deflation is happening, but based on my experience the salaries are definitely in line with the pay ranges for each job title (I worked at Amazon for 3 and a half years, so I have some first and second hand information on pay.)

If nothing else it's a great resource to see the unfiltered payscale at SV companies.

<comment><USER24> Thanks for the data. I see comments across threads on HN that say that H1-B hires are common. What is the incentive to hire them then? Are professionals in the US really that ill-equipped? I guess there is a bit of cognitive dissonance with FAANG complaining about no qualified workers but then FAANG only hired people who went to Stanford or Harvard and such.

<comment><USER26> I worked at two FAANG companies and my degree is from the University of Arizona. I only met a few people there whose degrees were from elite schools. Where do you get the impression that they only hire people from Stanford and Harvard?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm curious. HN has largely agreed that the current pandemic showed that remote work is absolutely doable. At the same time, people are claiming that the H1B visa, which allows immigrants to work in the US at largely American salaries, are taking away American jobs.

So the stated solution is to do away with the visa and send those people back to their home countries.

So why does anyone believe that when those people go back to their home countries, their employers would choose to hire someone else instead of keeping the same people hired at a fraction of the cost?

I mean, people seem to think that companies would be unhappy about paying someone 75k/yr who was costing them over 200k/yr (salary + payroll taxes, etc) in the US.

It makes absolutely no sense that the job would go to an American. The likelihood is that the job would remain with the same person but now they would pay taxes and spend dollars in their home countries at a fraction of the cost.

<comment><USER28> Flipping that around, if a company can hire someone for less in a foreign country and get the same result, why bother going through the H1B process? Why the drama? Just do it.

<comment><USER29> No one knew about pandemic. No one knew we all can work remote. It's a mix day for folks who are cheering up ban. It proves work can be done be remotely. But how remote we be, is yet to be determined.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> So many people here are celebrating this order due to its supposed abstract benefits but are somehow unaware of the its cruelty. So many visa holders in this country will be unable to leave and enter the country for the foreseeable future. If they have sick parents abroad they will not be able to visit them or, in the most tragic circumstances, say goodbye in person. It won't matter whether someone is a world-class researcher with extremely niche skills or database administrator using commodity technology. They will live in anxiety, fear and uncertainty. One wonders how many proponents of these measures would be willing to uproot their lives and leave the place they call home at a moment's notice. Life is about get a lot worse for hundreds of thousands of hard-working, highly-educated immigrants and there are comparatively few who will shed a tear for them.

<comment><USER31> > So many people here are celebrating this order due to its supposed abstract > benefits but are somehow unaware of the its cruelty.

To be blunt, a nation's citizens and permanent residents' rights to economic prosperity outweigh any temporary worker's right to continued employment. Yes it may be viewed as cruel in the individual case, but the point of these visas are not to provide a vehicle for those workers to come live in the USA. They're meant to fill a need for companies that cannot find qualified workers.

In a country facing a staggering unemployment rate, continued job losses, and possible long term recession, it'd be malfeasance on the part of any public official to magnify the problem by allowing more workers to enter and compete against its own permanent residents.

It's not pretty. It's reality.

<comment><USER32> I think this is called the single lump of labor fallacy where there is a fixed number of jobs to compete for and by allowing immigrants to come in and take some of them the citizens are collectively poorer for it.

In actuality additional workers demand lots of things themselves that create net jobs. If more people within the carrying capacity of the environment/structures decreased economic prosperity every country in the world would be looking to shrink their birthrate as much as possible so that the decreasing population could have an increasingly large share of the fixed prosperity. We know of course that the reverse is true.

<comment><USER33> Counterpoint - [in Western countries] those who have any chance to promote population restriction are "the 1%" and don't care provided the population can be controlled enough to keep working for them.

We've had a massive energy boom in the C20th, and grown fat from it, and now realise that's not sustainable for the planet. We can't continue that growth.

Robotisation will continue the current trend of increasing the wealth gap. And we don't have the energy or resources to just buy our way out of it by making more and more junk to sell (as per C20th).

Yes more immigration, or more pay for immigrants, increases demand from them for "middle class" luxuries (and reduces the ability of the native population in general to pay; but doesn't reduce the desire, and debt fills that gap), but we need to take the limitations of the planet in to account and realise resources aren't as infinite as they seemed - that means it has to be treated as zero sum, and indeed with restrictions on energy/resources that debt won't be there to cover things.

On top of this the ability for the Western nations to control others, and live better off their labour, seems to be finally ending.

IMO if we in the West want to maintain our current standards of living we'll need to entirely curtail population growth. Redistribution is going to hit hard, except for the robot owners who will get richer.

Regular Westerners (the 99%), to my view, will have a taste of living in a World where others have the wealth, and we don't have resources (skilled labour in particular) to bargain with - the elite won't need most of us. Heavy immigration can be a foretaste of that. Skilled immigrants allow the elite to bypass negotiation with their own populations (that might lead to democratisation of roboticisation benefits) whilst simultaneously leaving home countries devoid of skills and ripe for exploitation, not by nations but by the Capitalists.

/rant

<comment><USER32> >the elite won't need most of us

Whereas we don't need ANY of them and can vote away their wealth and their power. If needed we could lop off their heads but we won't need to as its far easier and more defensible to lop off their wealth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is great news for Canada. Once the Covid situation resolves, if Trudeau doesn't give a lot of incentives for tech companies to build offices there Canada will miss out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Canada has already been benefiting from the recent restrictions on work visas and rejecting visas for no reason, for example by saying a forensic pathologist isn't a specialty occupation.

[https://www.npr.org/2020/01/27/799402801/canada-wins-u-s- los...](https://www.npr.org/2020/01/27/799402801/canada-wins-u-s-loses-in- global-fight-for-high-tech-workers)

[https://insights.dice.com/2020/02/11/canada-continues- benefi...](https://insights.dice.com/2020/02/11/canada-continues-benefit-u- s-h-1b-confusion/)

<comment><USER23> People in Canada aren't making US salaries. Most people want to go to the US for the money.

<comment><USER34> That makes Canada even more attractive to tech companies because they can save money. Canadian salaries and living standards are still better than many other countries'.

<comment><USER35> Tech labor has historically cheaper than in the US. It would have been nice to see more Canadian tech success stories at 1/10 the number that have occurred in SV alone. There must be some other variables that explain the difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Not clear from the article what this means. Would it impact existing visa holders already in the US? What about those who got an H-1B in this year's lottery? Is their visa canceled or postponed to a later date not known yet? (normally for a given year October is the earliest people can start working on H-1B)

<comment><USER37> It hasn't been issued yet, so no way to know for sure but the rumor is that no one will be able to enter (including re-enter) if they fall under the executive order but those in the country in status will not be immediately impacted.

<comment><USER36> My educated guess is that the majority of this year's H-1B are already in the US. I wonder what it would mean for them.

<comment><USER38> This year's H1-Bs don't start until October 1st, and they can't enter the US "early".

[https://redbus2us.com/h1b-visa-petition-filing-deadline- is-i...](https://redbus2us.com/h1b-visa-petition-filing-deadline-is-it- april-1st-october-1st-uscis-fiscal- year/#:~:text=If%20you%20applied%20for%20H1B,and%20ends%20by%20Sep%2030th).

<comment><USER39> i don't know how this suspension would work but the H1B is held in April. I would assume most people have had their visa processed by now but it's possible i'm just if ignorant.

Regarding suspending H1Bs here is some not so breaking news: people on those visas are targeting jobs where no qualified people exist to fill them. Those people, by coming to the US create real value and increase the economic output of the US. They are also, in general, really smart people that fuel innovation. If you kill innovation the US is done.

<comment><USER40> Application process starts in April but even when visa is approved and processed, the holder can't enter before October 1.

<comment><USER39> yeah. it starts in October but they cannot take the visa back, right?

<comment><USER40> Apparently all visa holders will be denied entry so basically they can't enter until this order expires.

<comment><USER39> i did not pick this up from the linke article. i guess if your business relies in H1B workers now you know which camp you need to support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I am on H1B visa currently, one of those with high paying jobs in my current geographic area. I did my Masters in EE and have been on H1B since 2008, waiting for my GC, which may or may not happen.

I want to ask a question to those who feel that I should not be here. Why is it wrong for someone like me to move from my home country legally as a student, then decide to work and live here, since it is legal and that option is provided by the government. My employer is also willing to bear all costs of making that happen. Of course, USA is a great country, maybe the greatest, and people want to live and work here. Is it wrong to have such a desire, and go about fulfilling it in a legal way? I am genuinely interested to know, since I get the feeling that folks like me aren't exactly welcome, and would like to understand why that is.

On the ethical side of things, I have wondered if I have denied an American citizen a good life.I get the feeling that maybe I have, by the mere fact of me existing and being present in this country, since I haven't misrepresented, lied or cheated anyone to get my job. I have no doubt that given enough time, my company will find someone like me, but how long it will take is anyone's guess.

<comment><USER42> I don't have a strong opinion on whether you should or shouldn't be here, but I wanted to give a different perspective. It's really only tangentially related to this whole discussion.

A lot of Americans have been taught that the U.S is the land of opportunity, a place where anyone can come and through hard work can make something out of themselves. What people probably imagine when they think about this is poor immigrants coming and starting from the bottom, starting in food service jobs or doing janitorial work or something and working their way up. That's the American dream they were told about. None of them would imagine that through an H1B visa, we'd be allowing some of the most highly educated immigrants from other countries to come and immediately work in high level positions with salaries of 6 or even 7 figures.

I find it understandable that some amount of Americans feel that this is wrong and that they were told a lie.

<comment><USER41> Thanks for that perspective. I understand that it can appear unfair for someone whose ancestors had to build everything from scratch, to watch folks start leading a luxurious life, right from the moment they land here.

<comment><USER42> On the other hand, there are Americans who firmly believe that highly educated people like yourself from poorer countries shouldn't be giving your knowledge and work to first world western countries that are already wealthy. They think that people like yourself should be back at home, trying to make their own country better, rather than coming to make some other country richer.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_drain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_drain)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> In this thread, people who have no clue about how H1B works are making dumb comments (both for and against) with such confidence. Before some one asks me, I was a H1B visa holder and know how the system works. It makes me think how many such people are commenting in other threads that they've no clue about. Never ever follow any advice from a HN thread is a good rule to follow.

<comment><USER44> Maybe, but your comment doesn't help much either.

If you think someone made an erroneous comment, it would be good to correct them by replying to it, or just summarize the common misconceptions and share your expertise in a top level comment.

Saying that people are making dumb comments, I know how it works, but then not following up, is not in the spirit of HN

<comment><USER43> My point was to make people go do their own research and not believe what some random person writes (including me). If some one doesn't want to know the truth and here only for spicy half-truths/lies, it's up to them. Don't give me the spirit of HN crap, this is just another website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Some of these make no real sense, like L1 and J1 visas, which are so few and uncommon and are often granted to individuals. J1's for example are for researchers coming abroad to collaborate with scientists here, there isn't a real argument that J1's are taking jobs from anyone else that I can tell. Not that anyone should be travelling at all this year but one would have to see if they get extended after covid dies down.

L1s also look like they're geared towards essentially overseas managers moving to the US, particularly in the case of a single international company moving their executives around physically.

<comment><USER45> J1 visas are what all the tech companies use for interns from Canada. Technically you aren't allowed to work under a J1 visa, but everyone seems to be doing that anyways - tech companies will always say that you are going to be treated just like a full-time employee during the interview, and then say you are only in the US for training when applying for the visa.

<comment><USER46> Well you're not completely truthful here. Yes you can work under J1, its an internship or traineeship visa. J-1 in general is related to learning tho. But there is nothing against doing something for money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The Silicon Valley was built on the backs of H1-B workers. There's the bay wouldn't be the technical hub without access to the global workforce.

<comment><USER48> That's simply not true. SV was built in the 60's thru the 80's long before the H1-B visa program started in 1990.

<comment><USER49> Maybe the OP means the modern SV aka FAANG and that is not far from the truth or very hard to disprove. Things turned out the way they did for a lot of reasons and none of them can be really discounted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> If you step out of the tech (STEM) bubble, you'll see that this is going to have a lot of collateral damage. There are niche industries where H-1B is an actual necessity. I know that what people complain about, especially on a tech centric site like HN, is how it's used in the development industry, but I hope that people remember that there is a world outside of tech that this negatively impacts.

<comment><USER51> And what are these niche industries?

<comment><USER50> Social work organizations that require multilingual speakers is one that I know of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> if US bans H-1Bs these jobs wont go to americans, these jobs will just be offshored. Large american enterprises already have gigantic offices outside US to manage IT/midoffice/backoffice or have relationships with contractor firms like Cognizant.

It is so much easier to send one/two americans as expats to India/East Europe to manage outsourced staff and the trend will just accelerate.

</comment><comment><USER53> Here are the top 10 employers of H1-B.

With the exception of MSFT, all of these are "consulting firms" or "service" providers.

So while everyone is having "ideological, values" based discussions, here is what is __really __happening

Employer Name Employees Hired (All Years)

Infosys Limited 182,945

Tata Consultancy Services Limited 102,722

Deloitte Consulting Llp 65,976

Wipro Limited 63,354

Accenture Llp 51,360

Ibm India Private Limited 47,839

Capgemini America Inc 40,954

Microsoft Corporation 40,828

Ernst Young Us Llp 38,631

Cognizant Technology Solutions Us Corp 34,138

<comment><USER54> To directly turn labor costs into a profit center, you need a business model that allows you to bill per unit of work.

Perhaps this is where H1-B restrictions need to be focused. No third-party employment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Anyone who thinks this is good for the US is stupid. In the era of remote working, all this will do it hasten the retreat of software engineering from the US. Facebook and Google do not care where their employees live, they want the best in the world. This will just mean that jobs will truly flee the US.

Right now the US is winning because of such a high concentration of talented software engineers compared to the rest of the world. It's the same reason why there is only one Hollywood, the same goes for Silicon Valley. If you prevent people from coming here, the top companies will find them in their own countries and then those are jobs lost forever. And then the drain begins. This is a stupid self-defeating move by a self-defeating president.

<comment><USER56> Facebook and Google could have converted their entire software dev workforce to Indians in India any time they wanted. But they didn't, I wonder why hmmmmm.

<comment><USER55> Because all the best Indian software engineers went to US grad schools and then went to Silicon Valley. It sounds like you don't live in Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER51> This sounds incredibly racist. All the best Indian engineers went to Silicon Valley?

<comment><USER55> How on earth is that racist? Just throwing that word around worthlessly is what is wrong with this world right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Xenophobia is a bitch. A few years ago I experienced an atrial fibrillation while exercising, so I called an ambulance, as I didn't know what was happening to me and thought that that was the end.

Once in the ambulance the paramedic started asking me where I am from and if I came in on one of "those visas".

I was afraid I was about to die, and this fucker was being xenophobic.

<comment><USER57> Hey that's awful, I'm sorry you experienced that.

<comment><USER44> Thank you. Not everyone is like this however. I can't even begin to tell you how amazing, friendly and compassionate were the staff at the hospital(Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara). They definitely made up for the awful ride there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Terrible idea. Upping the salary requirement for H1-B achieves the goal of using it only for highly-skilled workers. Instead, now employers have to make do with bootcamp grads instead of foreign engineers at lower level positions, hurting businesses.

<comment><USER59> Yes, thanks, that summarizes the whole situation. Just make min salaries 200k, it could push up us salaries a little, but would mean many or most of those people like those laid off from us universities working in it would not have lost their jobs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I wonder if they can make an exemption for the tech industry.

Feels like this is just going to accelerate the moves we've seen in the Bay Area towards companies going fully remote.

If this happens, the administration could see a lot of that money just leave the country altogether.

<comment><USER61> Tech is what? 90% of H1-Bs?

No way they're going to make an exception for that

<comment><USER60> Around 68.7% in 2017.

Going by these numbers (WARNING: PDF download): [https://immigrationhistory.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/03/h-...](https://immigrationhistory.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/03/h-1b-2007-2017-trend-tables.pdf)

That shows what a short-sighted move this is on the part of the administration - just re-election theater, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I can see how some people see this as positive but the premise that a talented and hard working foreign worker takes a job away from a citizen is short- sighted. Zoom out a little and instead of a talented and hardworking foreign employee taking a job you will see (on an average) that they help grow or expand projects and companies that opens door to hiring more people. Not only do they pay tax here and support social security benefits that many enjoy, they also help businesses survive and grow and help them stay competitive in a global market.

I'm not calling for open doors to everyone, this certainly needs a balanced approach. However, with such suspensions I think we seem to be going one extreme path. Global talent has helped develop industries and businesses here. Increasing restrictions to this extent and suspending these visas is going to push this talent out and promising businesses who want to get the best talent to work with them, will not-immediately but definitely follow their way out too. I hope the people who are celebrating this, at-least for a few minutes, come out of the myopic view and look at the long term economic consequences.

</comment><comment><USER63> I'm (worriedly) curious how this will affect people trying to change jobs on a H1-B, as technically you need to file a new petition each time, and I can see them somehow denying those too.

<comment><USER64> Extremely risky, I'd say. There would be people who have already changed jobs pending H1B transfer authorization (since premium processing was suspending earlier), also called joining "on receipt". Normal processing takes weeks to months and if their transfer applications end up getting rejected now, they lose visa status.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> So highly paid permanent resident tech professionals even more highly paid and a lot of non-permanent residents get even more harmed because of their country of birth....

I personally feel that the H1-B system needs to be rethought to encourage a healthier but not at the expense of bringing hard working immigrants into this country.

</comment><comment><USER66> This will definitely expedite tech jobs moving to India. At current market rates, companies can afford to hire 3-5 engineers in India compared to 1 engineer in US with equivalent interview standards. I already see this happening with Amazon(with new hyderabad campus), Google & Uber.

</comment><comment><USER67> This could be a knock-out punch for many US universities. H1B is the visa International students pursue after paying full out of state tuition to colleges here.

<comment><USER68> Hasn't covid already done that. I think we are going to see a high upsurge in competition for masters in my home country. Which is very good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> This and eroding section 230. I wonder if tech companies are going to fire back at trump.

<comment><USER70> If Facebook/twitter/google wanted to play with fire they could use their platformS to basically vanquish the GOP.

Those three companies control a significant amount of what people see online.

<comment><USER69> Certainly. But the risk is incredibly high. If trump gets re-elected he's going to go after these guys big time. Breaking them up would not be stretching the imagination.

Censoring trump is the nuclear option.

<comment><USER49> If he gets reelected (not likely) he would do it regardless. He'll destroy the country too

<comment><USER71> Word of advice, don't let your extreme biases cloud observations and judgements.

<comment><USER55> I'm completely unbiased. I voted for Trump in 2016. I think up until the pandemic he was probably going to win. The Democrats were deeply uninspiring except for Andrew Yang, and young people voted even less in 2020 than they did in 2016 which is why Bernie went down.

However after the pandemic and his complete lack of leadership over police brutality incidents and the BLM protests, he has turned off a lot of previous supporters and fired up a lot of unmotivated haters. I think it's going to be a landslide Blue Wave.

To put in another way, if Trump wins again, the Dems need to dissolve the party and the liberals need to create a new party altogether. This is about as easy home run as it gets for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> With all the push for remote work, won't that also accelerate these jobs leaving US? Well, good for us outside the US.

</comment><comment><USER73> My common sense frustration here is how can the US possibly have a critical shortage of developers on languages that are 20 to 50 years old? We have the third highest population in the world and claim to have excellent education, and these are high paying jobs at 2x-3x the national average yearly income.

So what qualifies the shortage? Is it like agriculture where Americans are too entitled for the work? Are Americans viewed as generally too low quality?

<comment><USER74> 1\. Developers dying, aging out, retiring.

2\. No real investment/push into learning legacy langauges.

3\. Philippines/Indian BPO encourage and actually train on the job. If you look at accenture/whatever agency, even IBM, they'll guarantee a job in that country if they stick with the on the job training. In those countries, entry level, know nothing developers make $500/$1000 a month, best, vs being experienced in the USA and making a minimum of $5000. 6-12K/yr is waaayyy cheaper then, 70K/yr. I feel like it's employer idea of infinite monkey theorem.

It's not entitlement, it's that in the USA, employers have to compete and everyone can easily get a job in IT that isn't even programming for $40-50k, think of help desk. All you have to do is show up, restart a few computers, and be relatable.

<comment><USER75> It isn't that easy to get a job in IT. It is easy if you have the right background.

I knew a kid who could program reasonably, was pretty smart but didn't go to college. Got "hired" somewhere on help desk, was on a training contract for 3 months (he was just doing normal work, no pay), offered minimum wage job at end, didn't get paid for overtime, and got fired when he wanted to leave work at 6 because he had arranged to meet family for his birthday.

I think many people significantly understate how bad the US job market is for a very significant minority of people.

Also, you are massively overstating how good development is in the Phillippines or India. India churns out masses of CS grads who have never seen a computer. The economics of training are different US/India but the incentive there is the low wage. Remove that low wage incentive, and companies I think there will be investment into US citizens.

(Btw, where I am there are for-profit companies that train ex-army people to do software development...it works pretty well...but no-one asks: why aren't tech companies doing this? Like these companies employ people on very exploitative contracts, why don't companies just do this themselves? There is something wrong with how tech companies are run).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> It won't happen, but it would nice to see a comprehensive plan to address the talent shortage that the H-1B is designed to address. Disadvantages faced by people of color is front of the mind right now; it's the perfect time to announce a detailed plan of training and education that would accomplish 2 purposes.

</comment><comment><USER76> I think it is a very good idea ... poaching of the best and brightest talent from less developed countries who invested in the education of these people is a form of robbery.

If you need them , then let them work remotely and pay them fair wages as they would have received in the US and let them contribute their tax to their own country.

<comment><USER10> My dude, the people who came here to work and make their living are individuals, they have desires of their own to trade their services for a good life. Countries don't own their citizens, they are entities organized by people interested in living there.

<comment><USER77> Of course they do not own their citizen, that is why you can take them to the US or other developed countries. However yes you do rob these countries of skilled workforce, and yes you do create an environment, which stuntnts the growth of these countries and yes you do increase the misery of the other citizen who is left in that countries. You just have to be honest, and say that benefit for US outweighs the loss for say India or Ukraine.

<comment><USER10> I don't think someone from a collectivist culture will never be able to understand the motivations of someone from an individualistic culture, I believe it's a pretty deep seated blindness. I can't help you, rather, we can't help each other, you just have to be in the right region of the globe that supports your intrinsic culture. [1]

> which stuntnts the growth of these countries and yes you do increase the > misery of the other citizen who is left in that countries

So, are you suggesting that each country imprison all their individuals and extract value for itself? Absurd.

[1] [https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sapolsky- culture...](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sapolsky-culture-and- behavior-20140803-story.html)

<comment><USER77> What does it have to do with individualism or collectivism? Why are you bringing an opinion of Sapolsky as if he was an important person?

What I am telling that the current H1B system in US does not benefit anyone exception for the employer and probably enslaved employee. The original motivation behind the program is decent - let the really outstanding specialists to develop more (as US provides more opportunities for the top people), but what it become is essentially stripping the countries of intellectual power in bulk, and using back in US for a cheap price, basically enslaving them, by locking them via H1Bs. American workforce suffers, because they are under constant stress for being replaced by cheap H1Bs, the poor countries suffer, because of brain drain, world becomes more unequal, USA becomes more unequal.

I never said nothing about "imprisonment" \- most of poor countries are not prisons, and especially not for IT specialists, who can have some decent quality of live with their salaries. And the only hope for "the prisons" as you mentioned before to improve, is to keep their intellectuals in.

<comment><USER10> > What does it have to do with individualism or collectivism? Why are you > bringing an opinion of Sapolsky as if he was an important person?

This proves my point, you think like a collectivist, the individual doesn't matter much to you. Besides, the reason I posted that article is because I wanted to give you some reference to understand the construct I'm talking about (a bit of "meta" so to speak), so that you can orient your thinking and it didn't have anything to do with Sapolsky or his "importance" (seems like this matters to you more than actual facts). It seems like you're a collectivist AND not intellectually curious (they usually go hand in hand though).

Your grammar and "philosophy" sounds very Asian. Most of your thinking revolves around "for the greater good (of the country)". Your determination of the "border" for benefiting from "greater good" seems arbitrary, why not the whole world?

As an individualist, my advice to you is: do whatever feels right to you. If you're truly for the greater good of the country, who are you to decide what the country has to do? and why should I care about your opinion? whats the proof that what you say is actually happening?

<comment><USER77> I do not need any scolding from a random internet person. My grammar cannot be "Asian" because I am native speaker of an Eastern European language. You do not even know me, and yet are trying to psychoanalyze me remotely. I am neither "individualist" nor "collectivist", I am just a pragmatic - <USER2> creates more stable world, without concentration of power in one country or group of people (which is exactly what goes against individualism) rubs me wrong way. I, in my turn, would advice to grow beyond Ayn Rand books, and understand that neither "individualism" nor "collectivism" can be ultimate goals, they are just instruments for particular societal issue at hand. Attempt to coerce people to buy into libertarian ideology is very "collectivist" by the way, it is forcing people to be like you, to make you feel that everyone else are like you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> In the last few weeks many technology companies have been able to have their staff work remotely.

I wonder what suspending Visas means in so far as remote working is a thing.

</comment><comment><USER79> There are solutions to the problems we discuss these days. We have experts and researchers who are dedicated to find better solutions.

But sadly, Politics are focused to win the election and next elections. Populism and non-populism, left and right, social-networks and media, we all made it so hard for experts and scientist to be heard and to be trusted. We are so loud that we are only hearing ourselves. We can talk non-sense with insufficient knowledge and call it open discussion.

</comment><comment><USER80> Most tech companies are WFH right now, so if the government does this, there'll probably be lots of work for foreign lawyers setting up subsidiaries in other countries so that all the people affected can literally work from Home.

</comment><comment><USER81> This is going to have a chilling effect on international students thinking of coming to the United States.

Many people who do end up getting kicked out will probably take their jobs with them back home, especially in tech.

<comment><USER56> Many international students come to the US to get a world class education. That won't change.

<comment><USER82> Not at all. For most of the universities, grad schools are absolute cash cows. International students come here for grad school largely because of the associated 3 year(2 for non-STEM) OPT period and ease of getting a H1B during it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> 2020 is the election year.

</comment><comment><USER84> I am not exactly sure how this would help people working in tech (and other tech related areas like business analysts, PM's etc.,)

This makes it easy for companies to outsource work.

When all employees are remote what's the value in bringing someone onshore? And once jobs are outsourced I don't think they will come back.

So this could be marginally beneficial for onshore workers or it could be very bad.

</comment><comment><USER85> I worked in the finance industry, IT side. I can say that these work Visas are abused in that industry. Less so in tech and startup space. I think having a min salary that's 2x average for the job would also solve this. I'm will to see what type of data this pause provides.

</comment><comment><USER86> All my friends in the US are staying put now, they can't go see their families after covid because they have no idea if they'll be allowed back in.

Bad for america, good for the rest of the world though- maybe by restricting American foreign policy we'll see more competition for SV open up globally.

</comment><comment><USER87> Simple solution - auction off the H1B visas. This will ensure only the most needed, highest-value employees get it. Works with any number of visas. I fail to see why this easy, simple fix that also earns money for the government is not applied.

<comment><USER88> Because then no small company can compete with the big ones in the auction...

<comment><USER51> If your small company needs H1bs to survive, it doesn't sound like a very sound business in the first place.

<comment><USER68> It is not small companies per se, But a mechanical company can never pay equal to FANG.They do require niche engineering skills.

What about academics and non-profits?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Indians are running an Organized Mafia in America [https://archive.vn/XTZ5f](https://archive.vn/XTZ5f)

</comment><comment><USER90> You need highly skilled immigrants to pay for taxes and healthcare+SSA for the economy and those retired. If you don't fund retirement programmes then you're in trouble.

</comment><comment><USER91> BTW any horror stories about H1B people stealing good jobs from locals?

</comment><comment><USER92> Honestly I'm so tired of this shit. I can't leave the US without the risk of not being able to come back, and my Mom is in a different country in a high risk category for COVID-19.

If she is infected and hospitalized, I have to quit my job and leave my home to spend last moments with her. Fuck Trump.

</comment><comment><USER93> If this is true then next year the chances of getting an H1B would become less than half while the applications would double.

</comment><comment><USER94> This is great news for Canadians who would like to move and work in America. A lot less competition

</comment><comment><USER95> If you really need ppl to do the work make them here. Lots of ppl are available currently.

</comment><comment><USER29> I guess there won't be any protests like muslim ban, this time.

</comment><comment><USER96> i have no dog in this fight but the comments in this thread...

the amount of layoffs and unemployment since covid 19. this move is not to please you. it is to please the American people. only employers will care. the middle/working class American won't care (this is the biggest voting bloc that Trump needs)

this is a persuasion for Nov.

</comment><comment><USER97> Tech hiring and salary suppression cartel's going to have a rough time.

</comment><comment><USER98> I think H1B visas should be obliterated. One of the justifications is that they bring in international talent to fill in "shortages" in America. However, according this article by the Harvard Business Review: [https://hbr.org/2017/05/the-h-1b-visa-debate- explained](https://hbr.org/2017/05/the-h-1b-visa-debate-explained)

\- There is mixed evidence that there are actually shortages in STEM \- People are graduating from STEM fields at a rather high rate than in the past, but only half of them end up utilizing their degree; in sectors such as IT, one reason being why graduates aren't entering the field is due to a lack of job openings \- Despite all the clamor about "shortages," some STEM fields pay embarrassingly low, and in fact pay STEM workers less than they have in the past \- There is no requirement that entities show proof of workforce shortage before hiring workers on H-1B visas \- Some workplaces have already had American workers train in their H1-B visa replacements and then were out of a job

Not in the article, but some of my own experiences having been in the STEM field \- Many internationals seeking to get hired in the US STEM force don't actually have the "everyday technology" that the US uses, such as in molecular biology labs; this means quite a lot goes into training H1-B visa holders. Couple that with poor English-speaking skills. I found myself having to explain to an H1-B visa holder what a "pen" was, or a "shelf." Granted, some H1-B visa holders underwent formal education in the US, obtaining PhDs and whatnot, so you'd imagine their English would be better, however... \- Many countries look down on the US. I have worked for many foreign employers in STEM, and have been insulted just for being an American, and their views of America are largely stereotyped (Americans love guns, they eat hamburgers and pizza and are fat, etc.) \- It changes the workplace culture; I've worked in a variety of STEM environments that had a lot of internationals, and more than once I was out-grouped for being an American. I have had opportunities closed off to me simply because my group's sense of belonging was rooted in being "non-American." This was detrimental to my aspirations in entering the STEM field as an American.

I don't believe there is a shortage in STEM. The fact that it's hard to even get a well-paying job in STEM, especially tenure positions in STEM, and that once you do land a STEM position you can face discrimination for being an American in AMERICA, H1B visas should be obsolete.

Get rid of the internationals. Focus on your American workforce and create incentives to enter STEM. Create a better system for learning math, and inspiring aspirations in science Create environments that will nurture American students instead of block their opportunities. Give Americans a chance to contribute to their economy instead of shoveling money down the pockets of people who don't even like America or Americans and would go back home if they could.

</comment><comment><USER99> we need to get rid of the executive order or at least severely limit its scope. both Obama and Trump have abused it -- presidents should not be able to hand down sweeping regulatory change like this at the drop of a hat without going through the legislature.

<comment><USER100> By abuse do you mean use? If not, O admitted he was doing something unconstutional with it, numerious times. Which T example are you thinking of?

Many laws are written to deligate rule making authority to the executive branch, clearly the president has ultimate authority there. Perhaps you want the legslative branch to write more specific language?

<comment><USER99> The constitution is not the end all be all —- I'm saying that the use of executive orders to accomplish partisan policy objectives is overreach by the executive branch and should be curtailed. I don't care much if it's the legislative or judicial branch that does it.

<comment><USER100> I cant understand your comment unless you define partisan.

If the legslative branch deligates the rule making to the executive branch, then take it up with the legslative branch... right? Blaiming the executive branch seems pointless. Am I missing something?

The Constitution is the law of the land. Are you referring to the Magna Carta?

Humans have inalienable rights, can we agree?

I believe people have the inaleinable right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"... someone could call that a partisan policy objective.

<comment><USER99> Rights protected by the constitution are definitely not partisan. I don't agree with some of the rhetoric in this oped wrt COVID, but I do like the case it lays out: [https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/5/executive- orde...](https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/5/executive-orders-are- not-laws/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> thank god, I've seen a lot of americans rejected especially POC of varied backgrounds turned down in favor of some H1B nonsense to often it really impacts the ability for folks to rise up and move to new industries

<comment><USER92> Please explain more, your comment is suspicious given your sign-up time.

<comment><USER101> what's to explain? h1bs are widely used to gain access to bodies instead of training/developing local talent it's a joke every interview template i've been given seems like it was made to exclude many people who would otherwise be fine

it's not like immigration is bad or anything but the balance is screwed up and and it's causing long term damage it's bad for immigrants and bad for americans

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> Most countries have suspended immigration at this point havent they? Hard to argue against such a thing amid covid.

<comment><USER103> I don't know that that's true, any source for that? If countries are opening up for tourists (!) I don't see why not for immigration.

<comment><USER104> Name one country that has opened for tourists or has recently (as in the last week or two) said they will open for tourists.

<comment><USER103> Greece [https://www.greece-is.com/when-can-i-travel-to-greece- again/](https://www.greece-is.com/when-can-i-travel-to-greece-again/). Also, I'm based in the Netherlands and heard that Amsterdam already sees tourists from Germany etc. Of course it's nothing like the masses that usually come there, but it's not closed.

<comment><USER102> Amsterdam and Germany are both in the Schengen area. Certainly there is more to border shutdowns between the two states other than government fiat?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER105> As a former H1-B: makes sense. H1-B is abused a lot, and importing new entry- level workers when unemployment is at record highs after COVID makes zero sense. Although I'm sure Hawaiian judge will disagree.

<comment><USER106> Stopping workers coming in from one place isn't about making sure Americans have jobs tho. It doesn't magically change the cost of rent. It doesn't magically educate the uneducated. Nor should it. This is about being able to report to middle class white people that 'immigration stopped'.

<comment><USER107> I'm not sure if you are right: [https://www.blackenterprise.com/will- limiting-h1b-visas-help...](https://www.blackenterprise.com/will- limiting-h1b-visas-help-african-american-tech-workers/)

BTW 500k people on the H1B1 visa is a hell lot of "skilled people": [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/us/foreign-workers- visas-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/us/foreign-workers-visas- immigrants.html)

<comment><USER105> What's also hidden behind the numbers is that a lot (most?) of H1-Bs come from India and China, both of which have insanely long green card backglogs. Because changing jobs while on H1-B is a perilous affair (and employers know it), those folks end up basically in indentured servitude to their original H1-B sponsor employer, especially if they have families and/or property in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> Erratic government decisions can have severe consequences on businesses.

About time US companies realize that they need to have more fault tolerance to support their employees by open more global offices. This is especially true because the world outside is becoming more competitive and erratic business decisions like this will destroy product competitiveness.

As for foreign companies/entrepreneurs/would be business owners with capital, the US is shut. There is no need to do business here.

</comment><comment><USER103> And yet everyone and their mother wanna move there no matter the price paid in uncertainty, pressure and mental health. They could try go to a country with a straight forward immigration process like Canada, but money is more important than anything else to some people.

<comment><USER109> If you're immigrating for economic opportunity, it would make sense to try to make the most of it.

A lot of people have a plan to make a bunch of money for 10-20 years and then go back and be entreprenerial in their home countries etc. Canada may (or may not) be a better permanent home, but if the goal is to make a bunch of money, that's not the best place to do it.

<comment><USER103> That's fine, as long as they realise there's a big price to pay.</comment></comment></comment>


Fediverse - <AUTHOR> http://fediverse.party <comment><AUTHOR> anyone know of some good instances on the fediverse</comment>


Windows 8 upgrade - consumer confusion regarding installation options - <AUTHOR> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows-8/upgrade-to-windows-8

<comment><AUTHOR> Microsoft is offering a Windows 8 upgrade for £25 in the UK.

There's some confusion over installation options, and process. Especially when one wants to do a clean install.

I have Debian and Vista sharing a partition on my laptop. I boot Vista rarely. I am frustrated as is, that I have the 32bit version installed, which can't take advantage of all of my memory.

I did think about upgrading Vista from 32bit to 64bit but Lenovo pulled their Windows images from the support site. And I didn't get any recovery/installation disks with my Thinkpad.

A while back I'd heard there would be an affordable upgrade option available for Windows 8. So figured I'd just hang on.

Looking at this page though - it would seem that Microsoft are not encouraging upgrading from 32bit to 64 bit OSs via this path. There must be a bunch of people wanting to upgrade from say 32bit XP/Vista, to 64bit Windows 8.

There are work arounds / hacks for the install - but lots of confusion in the forums about how people should attempt a clean installation.

It shouldn't be this hard (or this confusing.) Why can't it be as simple as downloading an ISO and burning it to disk/usb? Activation could occur later by submitting your new product key (that you just bought) - and if necessary your old one.</comment>


Obama launches new techhire initiative - <AUTHOR> http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/09/fact-sheet-president-obama-launches-new-techhire-initiative

<comment><USER2>
      The Administration will launch a $100 million H-1B grant competition by
      the Department of Labor to support innovative approaches to training and
      successfully employing low-skill individuals with barriers to training
      and employment including those with child care responsibilities, people
      with disabilities, disconnected youth, and limited English proficient
      workers, among others.

The bit about H1-B I think means funded by H1-B fees, not that it has anything to do with the H1B program. I have a sinking feeling that Obama thinks an "IT job" is the guy answering helpdesk calls who tells you to check if everything is plugged in.

An 'interesting' bullet at the very end;

      Information Technology Industry-Credentialing partnerships. The President's
      FY2016 budget proposes $300 million to fund IT jobs partnerships between
      regional employers to develop and adopt assessments and credentials that will
      give more people the chance to qualify for a better, higher-paying tech job
      regardless of their pedigree.

Shit, I think Starfighter just got its A round! ;-) But of course Starfighter is the absolute last thing that would ever emerge from a program like this.

What's missing from this press release? Two things in particular stand out to me; 1) Not a peep about getting more software development / hacking / coding / scripting / _building_ more firmly into K-12, and 2) Nothing about encouraging and helping support _startup_ hiring, the actual engine of job creation. How about a program which helps fund community Maker Studios across the nation?

Basically this whole things reads like $400 million of pilot studies which will go nowhere and do nothing. We'd probably be much better off running a highly publicized national / crowdsourced business competition to award 5,000 people $10k - $50k grants over the next 5 years. I'm not saying it would _all_ be money well spent, but probably better than the distinct flushing noise I'm hearing with this one. That, or please just mail $1 back to every citizen.</comment>


Amazon Spain is selling a magnifying glass for more than 13 Million Euros - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.es/dp/B00006JDKQ/

<comment><USER2> It's likely due to two (or more) automated pricing scripts duking it out. Here's how it works:

Seller 1 is a well respected seller. They've got thousands upon thousands of good reviews. As a result, they never price themselves the cheapest, but maybe pretty close to that. Their script finds the cheapest price, makes sure that it's above their cost, and then prices it at 15% above the cheapest.

Seller 2 is not as entrenched in the market. They try to undercut their competitors. They have good reviews, but not as many reviews over all. So, price is their main weapon. Their script seeks out well reviewed sellers and prices at 5% below their competitor.

Both scripts update every 15 minutes or so. You can see where this is going if both scripts don't have an upper bound. Each script is designed to make the most profit, and not be the lowest by too far. For example, if pencils suddenly had a shortage, you'd want your prices to automatically raise to match the perceived demand. You wouldn't want to be the sucker who sells all his pencils at a tiny profit while everyone else gets far more money.

Or, you know, it could just be a data input error. :p</comment>