Right. Demand is fairly rigid from companies who need the labor. But they, as for-profit entities, want to maximize shareholder value, so instead of paying market rate for labor when the market rate is high, companies attempt to decrease the market rate by increasing labor supply through a variety of means - lobbying for modern indentured servitude (H1b's), shipping jobs overseas, etc.
This stands in direct contrast to the stated arguments they use to justify such moves, like "there isn't sufficient talent inside the US". There is sufficient talent inside the US, it just comes with a price tag they don't like.
Can confirm those targeted by H1B visas, etc don't think like that at all. I was in the US for a while on a F1 visa, which allowed me to work for a couple years, and I was super grateful for the opportunity. Had a couple positions with wages I heard some ranting was "too low", while I found it very livable and was even able to save a significant amount. I can imagine it being very similar for others who've come from places where earnings really are a pittance for many.
That description is more about the power dynamics at play. H1b workers are often expected to work longer hours, and to do so with lower pay than American citizens, and not even think of complaining about it. In the US visa system, if an H1b worker loses their job, they have 90 days to get a new job (next to impossible when visa sponsorship is required) or else they lose legal residency rights and must either self-deport or be in violation of immigration law (which is a great way to screw yourself over on future opportunities). The resulting dynamic is one where both the h1b employer and the h1b employee know that the employer can basically ruin the employee's life whenever they want, for any cause (including no cause), at the drop of a hat. This shapes the working relationship in negative, coercive ways. That coercive aspect is the basis for describing it as "modern indentured servitude".
And at that point they simply... shift the bulk of their operations somewhere that still gives incentives, and maybe just leave a lightly-staffed satellite office in the US.
That's great. They should do that then. They're not providing value to the US economy at that point. They're purely extracting value from it. They should leave.
Of course, in reality, they never actually leave because the vast majority of their profits is from the American economy.
End of the day, given roughly equivalent talent availability, cheaper is where companies go. Maybe some will call it "cost discrimination" or something just as strange, but the many will know it as "sound business strategy".
That doesn't explain away all the H-1B hires though, who move to places where the pay must be drastically higher than my asking rate. Edit: Turns out if you hire an H-1B you must pay them a higher rate, it cannot be lower just because they're H-1B, so they're definitely making way more than I would have asked for. If cost is the factor, then either HR departments are stupid, or some other shenanigans is going on.
I've also been told for a company I will not name that had I been asian they would have called me, I just assume there's an overwhelming number of asian employees, not that there's anything wrong with that, but if they're discriminating against everyone else from being hired, that's not ethical or legal in the US.
I agree that there are many companies that hire H-1B (and other non-immigrant visa holders) over equally qualified US citizens and permanent residents in order to pay less, work them harder, etc.
But, I often see this presented as all or nearly all that is going on. There are lots of non-immigrant visa holders who get hired who are better qualified then 90+% of others, and are getting the same pay and conditions and their American teammates. These people are improving the employment prospects for Americans, not hurting them.
People riding horse buggies probably thought the same when powered vehicles first came about, and look at the world now. You won't know unless you give it a honest try.
QWERTY won't be replaced on phones until there is a full phase change in how people interact with their phones that absolves us of keyboards entirely. Anybody here who thinks otherwise is welcome to make an offer to buy my two decades of notes on the topic.
>People riding horse buggies probably thought the same when powered vehicles first came about, and look at the world now. You won't know unless you give it a honest try.
This is a ridiculous non-analogy.
I'm flying a jet airplane, and you're telling me to give Ford Model T a try because you don't understand flight as a concept.
Or, in this case, Flow typing.
From Keybee's website:
>Some syllables and some words can be inserted through a simple combination of tap & swipe (we call it twipe) greatly reducing the number of touches for typing a text. For now the twipe is limited to the adjacent keys.
Keybee Keyboard is swipe friendly.
I am typing an entire word with one "twipe" on GBoard.
Each word.
I'm done with touchscreen input methods that require me to think about tapping letters. I don't think in individual characters, and I don't type in them either.
Also gboard is the best keyboard for that. Nothing else implements a prediction model over a number of words as far as I can tell. Or if they do, they fail really badly at it.
adults make mistakes and the situation was murky without clear guidance.
this was the experience for some claude subscribers just a couple weeks ago:
1. download opencode
2. select claude as a model
3. browser window opens, asking you to sign in. typical oauth screen.
4. everything works, prompt away
5. some days/weeks pass
6. you get permanently banned
now if you add one warning email just before step (6.) then that doesn't really help. what if it bounces? what if people don't check their emails? put a big flashy red warning into claude code? sure, but what if users accidentally dismiss it or simply do not understand it (non tech folks, non native english speakers)
its just the friendly and correct thing to do, in my opinion
For the last few days I've been working on a personal project that's been on ice for at least 6 years. Back when I first thought of the project and started implementing it, it took maybe a couple weeks to eke out some minimally working code.
This new version that I'm doing (from scratch with ChatGPT web) has a far more ambitious scope and is already at the "usable" point. Now I'm primarily solidifying things and increasing test coverage. And I've tested the key parts with IRL scenarios to validate that it's not just passing tests; the thing actually fulfills its intended function so far. Given the increased scope, I'm guessing it'd take me a few months to get to this point on my own, instead of under a week, and the quality wouldn't be where it is. Not saying I haven't had to wrangle with ChatGPT on a few bugs, but after a decent initial planning phase, my prompts now are primarily "Do it"s and "Continue"s. Would've likely already finished it if I wasn't copying things back and forth between browser and editor, and being forced to pause when I hit the message limit.
I actually don't have a subscription; just started ramping up my usage, and still primarily evaluating. TBH also the main reason I'm using ChatGPT for this project is because Claude kept timing out on my initial prompt, maybe because too much for their free plan. But it turned out well as ChatGPT has a higher message limit, and I still use Claude to resolve bugs that stump ChatGPT (and me); I consider it my "big gun" that I resort to in extraordinary circumstances, or for things I'm pretty sure it'll handle in a few rounds. ChatGPT is more for "grunt work".
Researching and planning a project is a generally usefully thing. This is something I've been doing for years, and have always had great results compared to just jumping in and coding. It makes perfect sense that this transfers to LLM use.
Can't say I feel even a drop of sympathy here; ads are the bane of the internet. Also very ironic that the company that's built on ads seems to have such disregard for a big spender.
reply