It's not pointless from the perspective of any given engineer. If a given engineer is willing to accept a lower relative quality of life in the Bay Area, the absolute amount they save as a result of that decision is larger at a larger absolute salary. This is relevant as long as the probability of living outside the Bay Area in the future is greater than zero.
Commute for hours every day and live in crappy shared housing for a couple decades so that eventually you can walk away from all your friends and colleagues and start over somewhere worse.
Seems like a pretty obtuse way of obtaining a Midwestern house. You could also just mortgage one, like everyone else does, while working any white-collar Midwestern job.
You think all or even most of your friends and colleagues are still going to live in the Bay Area in a few decades? :( Sorry, that ain't gonna happen. And it doesn't take decades to save up enough money to be financially independent elsewhere if you're getting paid in the Bay.
This might be a problem for one or two of the top areas, but there are not enough Bay Area emigres to materially move the needle in the vast majority of non-Bay Area localities.
Try "tens to twenties of 'top areas'". Just look at the housing market in any other city in the US that's started to build a tech hub. Austin, TX in particular is a good example where the average cost of a decent house has basically doubled in the last 10 years.
This is what has happened in Austin and Portland, just to name two. As another commenter said it isn’t enough to affect every market but I think it affects many markets, and there is a domino effect as people cash out of those second level cities and move into third level, etc.
Our family just uses a Google Photos album where we put pictures of ourselves and our son. We send the link to people who might be interested, and then they get notifications when we put in more pictures. The rest of our family often posts things to their own albums and we get notifications of that. And anybody can comment on any of the pictures. It's not perfect, but it's a reasonably good experience. I can only imagine it would be even better if there were a single album shared by the whole extended family.
> This underlying misapprehension is at the root of the self-driving car hubris.
I will basically guarantee you that no one working on self-driving cars thinks human perception is lackluster or an easily matched capability. Journos interpreting their work might impute that belief to self-driving engineers, but nobody could work on the problem for even the shortest amount of time without realizing that it is an incredibly hard problem.
I don't think this makes sense, while the C-level exec may have a lot more to lose measured on an absolute scale, the quality of their life will not change significantly following their resignation. However, the janitor potentially has his or her entire livelihood at stake and will likely struggle to support themselves until they manage to find another job.
For this reason, I think if the lower-level staff at your company are quitting over moral/ethical issues, you probably have much worse problems than if your highly-valued employees are leaving.
However, I'd imagine this particular employee has a lot more in common with the VP than the janitor and I don't imagine he will have any trouble finding new employment following this.
My claim is not about what makes sense. My claim is about actual reality. People in general care more when powerful employees resign. It would be a huge deal if Sundar resigned over this, or Page. It is not a big deal that this rank and file research scientist resigned. I could propose a few hypotheses as to why, but I'm guessing you're capable of coming up with your own.
No need to guess. You can look at the treatment Jack and Sheryl received. A bunch of ignorant, annoyed blowhards basically talked at them for a few hours, accomplishing nothing and expanding the pool of useful knowledge exactly zero.
The citizens might be idiots, or the human social system might be so broken such that no matter who you vote for they are game-theoretically forced to behave this way. Whatever the case may be, I don't blame Page for declining to inflict that experience on himself.
I'm sure it's a little bit of both, right? If 99% of Gmail users had voluntarily migrated to Inbox, I'm quite certain it would not be getting shut down. That doesn't preclude that there is a significant contingent out there that loves Inbox.
(BTW the same goes for the old HN hobby-horse, Reader. If it had had a billion users, it would never have gotten shut down.)
They're identical to dictionaries/hash tables in pretty much any language, unless I'm missing something. Besides C, every language I've worked in comes with one of these things built-in. It's surprising to me that so many people consider this noteworthy today. Would someone please enlighten me as to why it is?
Because `.foo` means `[‘foo’]` and because you can easily make sequences out of them (if you write `{ ... i1 = v1, v2, ... }` then `v2` automatically gets the “next” natural number as a key) the ergonomics make them usable as structures and arrays easily. Also the ‘:foo()` syntax binds the LHS of the operator as the first parameter for a method call, and metamethods allow you to easily implement inheritance / dispatch / etc.
>Besides C, every language I've worked in comes with one of these things built-in.
JavaScript? When talking about a language most refer to as "JavaScript-like", it's definitely a noteworthy feature. Otherwise, you're right, it's pretty much expected to be available. Although, I'd say beginner developers might forget about it since the typical use case has string or number keys.
> Would someone please enlighten me as to why it is?
Both Lua and Javascript attach protocols to their hashmaps which most languages attach to other bits (classes, typeclasses, traits, …) — even if those other bits are underlaid by hashmaps at the end of the day.
They're more like general-purpose objects which can act as hashmaps (badly in the case of javascript).
one can "overload" operations on table instances, most importantly, accessors by forwarding them to another table, which is somewhat similar to prototype-based inheritance
It's true that Arnold is quite a specimen. And on Reddit there was recently a video of a ninety year old man deadlifting 400lb. https://www.facebook.com/SPORTbible/videos/1131499677007260/ He doesn't quite get the full range of motion but it's still damnably impressive.
I read the articles as well, and this commenter is right that, on their face, they don't seem like they would apply to a site like Google News. That said, everyone, including Google, seems to think they do. And as far as I am aware, nobody at the EC has said anything to the contrary, even though it would be easy to do so. So it seems most likely to me that the naive reading of the text is incorrect, and that both this reddit commenter and myself are missing something.
Both are missing the point of how this kind of "law" works.
The wording is less relevant than the application of it. You can argue that something is outside of scope, according to the wording, and be correct while at the same time I can argue that the same is covered on how is expected to be applied.
Given my understanding of the copyright lobbying-state officials work in the EU, Google News will be covered. Why? Because news organizations having being crying for long and have strong political connections.
To understand article 11, I think you should look at the reason it was created: Journalists (and newspapers) are looking for a way to get paid for their articles beyond luring people to their sites with clickbait titles and tons of ads.
They want their own "article version" of Spotify, where they get a set amount for every article read. Obviously that's difficult to implement given the current way of the Internet (= Facebook sharing) and this is their attempt at getting their dream.
Is this a good idea? You could say it may improve news reporting if it was well implemented. Or it could be completely abused. Anyway, looking at it like this, explains some of the legalese in article 11.
"Parliament’s text also strengthens the negotiating rights of authors and performers, by enabling them to “claim” additional remuneration from the party exploiting their rights when the remuneration originally agreed is “disproportionately” low compared to the benefits derived."
"The text adds that these benefits should include “indirect revenues”. It would also empower authors and performers to revoke or terminate the exclusivity of an exploitation licence for their work if the party holding the exploitation rights is deemed not to be exercising this right."
