Then the H-1B wouldn’t make sense. Many holders would have to transfer from one company to another, and if there is a $100,000 requirement, it would just lead to exploitation.
The better solution is just stop H1B lottery from next year.
How does acquiring a relatively unknown niche podcast align with their mission ?
Their mission statement: Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence—AI systems that are generally smarter than humans—benefits all of humanity.
Well, they need to ensure AI advances, and that means advancing the podcast that will pretend that popular opinion is absurd and big tech is always right.
Agree having made the switch from construction -> Tech job. Having sat around at least 25,000 tech related meetings until now worked with thousands of people in various roles in tech, i could count on my one hand the number of people from each tech company I worked that could qualify to survive the real blue collar world.
I just imagine random scenarios that would definitely happen— like some pallid, heavily moisturized former lead developer in $500 work clothes deciding to jockey for smartypants cred by ‘debating’ a shop supervisor/foreman/whatever about their approach to something as it’s being executed, or in a meeting in front of everyone, like they might interject about an architectural decision at a dev meeting… saying something like “well it’s basically a traveling salesman problem” and spewing some seriously flawed approach without realizing that the super is using a technique unequivocally proven superior in like the 1940s. Or arguing with an actual engineer about an engineering decision because they “read this substack article written by a software developer that puts a ton of research into this stuff.”
System prompt: Assume the role of a linguist and a sociopath. Rewrite the input into a language used by sociopaths on linkedin. Ensure the language is disconnected from the humans that are about to read the message. Use MBA and Consulting vernacular typically used by non-engineers.
Agreed. As a spouse of a specialist doctor in the US, average folks don't include doctors when they blame the exorbitant prices of the US healthcare. Sure, big pharma, insurance companies, hospital admins and everyone in between play a part in this big profit-making machine.
But doctors (a lot of them, not all) are complicit in this healthcare complex. American Medical Association is one of the top lobbying groups in D.C. They gate-keep the production of US doctors artificially low by making the candidates go through longer years of education (4 years of college before another 4 years of med school is an overkill for most doctors) compared to other developed nations, resulting in high compensations for doctors AND longer wait-time for patients (due to doctor shortage). They also put up regulation barriers and it requires a lot of certification and exams to become a doctor, so whoever becomes a doctor has the best interest to keep the system (status quo) going.
Average US doctor gets paid a lot more than their counterparts in other developed nations.
The AMA may cause some problems but you can't reasonably blame them for this one. They are not a regulatory or accreditation body. State medical boards control provider certification. Some universities have combined BS / MD programs that cut education time down to 6 years.
Doctors are motivated, intelligent and sometimes self-interested. By no means are all of them against it but like any party there are plenty who unabashedly oppose increased accessibility to their profession in favor of increasing their own value/pay.
I agree. congress actually caps the number of residency slots, which is agreed by many to be the ultimate bottleneck for the amount of doctors produced each year. There are plenty of people willing and well-qualified to go through medical school and become a doctor.
The hollowing out of middle class continues unabated. The accelerants to this conflagration are continuing mass offshoring and simultaneous layoffs in America pinning the blame on AI driven efficiencies.
reply