Fair source sounds like a really bad idea. The problem is if you let someone else define what reasonable limits to competition are, you end up in court and learn that it can be anything. Say a company sells me fair source, but I don’t like the company so I fire them and take over for myself? Well, now I get to try to convince a court that I’m not competing, despite clearly having cost them one customer. Just study the history of the constitutions commerce clause, where everything can and has been construed to affect interstate commerce.
100% is a bit uncommon. Take that at face value though. BigCo tech companies have much lower salaries than what you can get elsewhere. Compare a salary of X/yr plus a 4-yr RSU grant of X/yr to a salary of 3X. You absolutely can get a 50% partially secured loan for 4X to obtain similar payment characteristics to the BigCo offering (speaking in round numbers to keep the math simple, and ignoring fees, hedging, ... because they change exact thresholds and other minutiae rather than the core of the argument).
These articles scare my mom and she gets convinced she will be hacked. I wish there was a way to write stories like this to make it clear it's a real, important issue, but not directly to you. Mom banking on an iPhone is the safest way to bank yet invented, but she sees articles like this and ends up thinking exactly the opposite.
Also, recommending to normal people that they should use their iPhone in Lockdown Mode (as this article does) is terrible advice. It comes with some significant tradeoffs: https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120
> Mom banking on an iPhone is the safest way to bank yet invented,
Maybe second safest. Nothing beats Android's mobile record.
Are you unaware of Pegasus/ NSO Group? They are doing laps around Apple with 0 clicks. Android still requires you to manually go to a website, download something, approve installs from browser, etc...
>Mom banking on an iPhone is the safest way to bank yet invented, but she sees articles like this and ends up thinking exactly the opposite.
I do not know why people think this. I make sure nothing Financial Related is on any kind of Cell Phone. With the closed system, you have no idea what Apple or Google is seeing.
I miss the days before Cell Phones, where there were a lot of regulations surrounding Land Lines.
With the closed system, you have no idea what Apple or Google is seeing.
I think you have the 'inaccurate bits of conventional wisdom' reversed. People have a pretty good idea of what Apple and Google see and banking on your iPhone is safer than driving to the bank.
You are exactly the audience being misled by these articles. Apple or Google aren’t secretly screen recording you and couldnt care less about your bank account.
If on Linux or a BSD, people can analyze what is happening by inspecting packets, seeing what is saved and being sent on the system. That cannot be fully done on phones.
Not to the degree that a full-on conspiracy theorist will believe it - like the people who actually think that Apple telling us not to "close" iOS applications is actually some 5th dimensional chess Tim Cook is playing to get people's phones wear down more or something.
But enough to convince the best security experts I know and have heard of. That's enough for me.
Devil's advocate: User data is now more valuable than user consent or user trust, seeing as consumers are locked in to a few brands and AI is the way of the future.
I find it especially difficult to believe that Google has any moral qualms about extracting every bit of data possible.
I'm not saying they are, I'm saying it's based on trust and that trust has been broken.
Google wants all the data it can get on you that won't get it in serious legal hot water. Which is all quite sketchy.
But, extracting your financial information is so far into the boiling ocean of criminal prosecutions and mass customer abandonment, that they are heavily incentivized as an ad company, and operating system developer, to make sure that neither they nor anyone else can get that information.
That doesn't mean there can't be security gaps that could reveal financial information, but Google is the one looking to prevent them, and plug them when found, not leverage them.
So basically: law intended to encourage domestic industry via economic pressure has intended effect.
It's just a one sided argument that any form of trade protectionism is bad.
Would you argue the same way against a one-sided argument that slavery is bad?
Some things are one-sided for a reason: There isn't much to support the opposing side.
That doesn't mean that nobody would support the Jones Act, or protectionism in general, but those people are likely to be the benefactors and discount the negative consequences for society at large.
In general, protectionism is like taking $100 from each of us, burning 99% of it, and giving the remainder to one lucky winner. And what's worse is that it's not really money that we lose (we could always create more), but real-world value. We all collectively have far less as a result of protectionism, even though a select few might benefit from one piece of protection. Of course, they also lose to all the other forms of protectionism that apply to others. In the protectionism game, it's a dog-fight all the way down to zero.
Edit: And by the way, while the Jones Act was originally protectionism for the domestic shipping industry, which it immediately killed, now it is actually protection for the domestic TRUCKING industry. It would be much cheaper, with a much lower carbon footprint to ship things by boat up and down the coasts, or even from coast to coast sometimes, than trucking.
> That doesn't mean that nobody would support the Jones Act, or protectionism in general, but those people are likely to be the benefactors and discount the negative consequences for society at large.
For the record, I support the Jones Act, and I'm just part of "society at large" and have nothing to do with shipping or logistics. Personally, I think it should be strengthened and made more strict to block some of the workarounds this article cites as reasons for its repeal.
I think that idea that the only people who support protectionism are those who personally gain from it is lazy and stupid. I'm really tired of that sort of thing in support of libertarianism.
> In general, protectionism is like taking $100 from each of us, burning 99% of it, and giving the remainder to one lucky winner.
Lets end protectionism, stop burning that $99, and outsource all military production to China and Russia. What could go wrong? /s
The only way libertarians can go on and on about many of these "inefficiencies" is because they're willfully blind to a lot of significant considerations, which they utterly ignore in their propaganda.
What if you want to buy the best ship? Not necessarily the cheapest, but the safest/biggest/most efficient? But you're forced by this law to only buy from one or two companies - they have little reason to compete on those elements.
It makes you wonder if it has actually had the opposite to desired effect and made the ship industry worse in the US. The top 5 shop building countries are South Korea, China, Japan, Italy and Germany. This looks like a game for wealthy nations. Other than China I would expect those places to be paying workers very well.
> Lets end protectionism, stop burning that $99, and outsource all military production to China and Russia. What could go wrong? /s
the problem is that laws like the Jones act are a bad form of protectionism. If the goal is to have more ships made in America, the government can always start building and selling ships (potentially at a loss if that's what is needed to make american shipping competitive). The problem with laws like the Jones act is that it solves one problem (American ships are expensive), but creates a worse one (American shipping is expensive).
> So basically: law intended to encourage domestic industry via economic pressure has intended effect.
Where is the domestic industry that was intended to be encouraged? Where are the US shipbuilders capable of building viable ships? Where are the US registered ships?
This 2019 press release from the department of transportation kind of says it all [1]:
> U.S. commercial shipbuilding of large merchant-type ships has been locked into a downward spiral of decreasing demand and an increased divergence between domestic and foreign shipbuilding productivity and pricing.
> In the case of large self-propelled oceangoing vessels, U.S. shipyards still lack the scale, technology, and the large volume “series building” order books needed to compete effectively with shipyards in other countries.
I'm not against the intent of the the Jones Act, but it hasn't resulted in a viable domestic industry of shipbuilding or water transport. Instead, water transport within the US is very limited and there's a lot of unnecessary import/export of fungible products. There's probably some amount of unnecessary import/export that's useful for other purposes --- economic relations between countries does have value, and maybe there's some additional flexibility this way.
Fundamentally, I think the question is: Is it better to have a barely viable shipyard industry and very limited domestic water shipping capacity or a military only shipyard industry and greater domestic water shipping capacity? And/or --- is there a better way to encourage the US shipyard industry than this?
100%. The Jones Act is more than a regulatory hurdle for offshore wind projects; it's a crucial pillar for our national security and maritime strength. By requiring U.S.-built and registered ships, it guarantees high safety and quality, which is really important for complex operations like wind farms. It's about investing in our infrastructure, creating jobs, and keeping the U.S. competitive in the global maritime industry. It's a strategic move for our economy and national defense.
>By requiring U.S.-built and registered ships, it guarantees high safety and quality, which is really important for complex operations like wind farms.
It certainly doesn't - there are enough "cowboy" US operators who are working far below the quality and safety standards which are practiced by European contractors. It's really a struggle sometimes to ensure that things are done properly and safely in the US. It's a practically new industry in the US and there is a lot of catching up to do.
> By requiring U.S.-built and registered ships, it guarantees high safety and quality, which is really important for complex operations like wind farms.
As the article says, there are currently no WTIV ships that meet the requirements of the Jones Act. So you can't really say the law guarantees something that doesn't exist.
We suck at building ships. We can't build them quickly or resource-efficiently. They frequently break down (remember Windows NT problems on Destroyers?). Washington State can't even figure out how to buy new ones.
> ...it's a crucial pillar for our national security and maritime strength...It's a strategic move for our economy and national defense.
B...b...but I want to monomaniacally focus on short-term market prices, like they're the only thing that matters in the world! Quit cramping my ideological fixation with complicating factors!
> law intended to encourage domestic industry via economic pressure has intended effect
Is it though? It sounds like the one company that got a contract in this situation is so far unable to come through on it and is well over budget already. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement for protectionism.
Going to college is still the most successful route towards landing an interview. My managers generally won’t let me schedule an interview with somebody with no degree, even with personal recommendations. And all of my coworkers have college degrees.
I hope people don’t read stories like this and draw general conclusions based on rare outliers.
Even if they have years of experience in the industry? I understand for people without experience, but it seems crazy to not hire someone who has been doing the work for 20 years just because they don’t have a degree.
That's pretty uncommon in the industry to wholesale only allow those with degrees. I've even seen people without degrees in defense and aerospace, probably the most hard ass niche concerning degrees.
I've had it take 80 applications to actually get one on-site interview before (and I have a pretty good resume). I would not be suggesting people consider major life changes based on a few dozen attempts not progressing, it can definitely take more than that without reflecting on you.
it’s weird. The WARN law requires notice, but, the penalty for violating the law is you have to pay people 60 days of pay. So paying instead of providing notice is technically illegal, but enforcement is pointless if you pay people with no additional conditions. That being said, if you make the pay conditional such as requiring a non disparagement clause, that can be a problem, and is likely going to be a problem here. (Can’t be sure yet, I don’t believe anyone has the details from Twitter yet)
I have given over 100 on site interviews for a large well regarded company, and I’d say about 20 percent can’t seem to program at all. I have only actually asked FizzBuzz once because it feels terrible to go with that simple a question, but they were failing another easy question and I wanted to calibrate if the easy question was too hard or they really couldn’t program. They completely failed fizz buzz - they started a for loop but couldn’t decide what to do in it, and the idea of directly translating each instruction in fizz buzz into a line of code in the for loop didn’t seem to gel with them. I know there is no way to know for sure, but it didn’t feel like just nerves - it really felt like they had no idea how to do word problems in math class, they couldn’t turn a description with a few bullet points into code implementing them.
So, for what it’s worth, I’ve definitely seen it. I don’t even think it’s particularly uncommon.
The candidate ratio I’ve seen has been all over the map depending on the company. At one place it was more like 90% of candidates who couldn’t write any code, another place it was closer to 50%, and I’ve worked at some places where nearly every candidate we got was at least somewhat competent as a programmer. The obvious answer is better pre-screening or candidate sourcing, but one of the places with generally high quality candidates was a small startup with no recruiting to pre-screen (although we mainly recruited from local meetups so perhaps that was good sourcing)
