Absolutely nothing. I've had my personal site reach the top a couple of times and its been totally fine each time. My site is static and runs on a $5 Digital Ocean droplet. The traffic barely even made it blink.
I'm the original author for this post, and there are a few things I've realised since writing it (despite the fact that it was only 2 days ago).
The first is as allwein says below: Just because I made an assumption that source control is ubiquitous, it doesn't mean that it actually is, and it probably shouldn't be removed from the list.
The second is with regards to quiet working conditions. I've seen here, and on Reddit, that most people seem to vehemently disagree with me. I didn't imagine that there would be this level of disagreement. The popular opinion is that everyone should have quiet working conditions. My statement was that working conditions are tied to open office vs closed office, and it was a personal preference. So, my question to HN is: Am I wrong in thinking that this is a personal preference and that it benefits everyone to have private offices?
I think it should be revised to, "Do the office conditions satisfy YOUR needs?"
Some people like having lots of noise/people around them (all the noise blends together at some point) or they just put headphones on anyway so they don't care. Others want their own office, or could do a shared office. It's such a personal choice these days.
This argument is no different when Joel first wrote the test, so to say the question is "out of date" isn't very accurate.
Furthermore, I would suggest that five years ago people were arguing about whether open plans were better. Seems to me like that argument is over, with the resolution being "nope, but they're cheaper!"
I personally often like to work in public areas. Having an office doesn't keep me from doing that, but it does let me retreat when I want to.
I think private offices can be helpful, sometimes.
Anecdotal: At a previous job, I found a coworker quite furstrating, and he found me frustrating. The CTO told me the two of us were loud enough to be distracting the others, so I immediately tried to moderate myself… but the fact we were still aggravating each other was a contributing factor to me deciding to leave. I had enough respect for everyone else there that I was embarrassed to be noticeable in that way.
Part of the way the Joel test works is to determine if companies value developers. Companies that will pay for developers to have their own offices are likely to treat them with respect. Companies that treat offices as status symbols and then deny them to developers are likely to treat developers with contempt.
The same applies to the "Do you use the best tools money can buy?" and "Do you have testers?" questions.
I am quite sure that noise level is a personal preference. I know people who use industry grade ear protectors (only few) and much more who just use headphones with loud music. Note that open office is not only about noise, though.
My answer would be - open office is the best, as long as you can have quiet time when you need to focus (headphones, protectors, whatever suits you.)
From what I've read, it seems that open offices reduce productivity. The only real advantages I can think of are projecting coolness and saving money on office space.
Yes, you are wrong, if we are take the test for what it's worth--that is, Joel originally defined quiet as a value, and you have to assume that that's still correct. Otherwise, Joel doesn't know what he's talking about ("Noise is sometimes good!") so just drop the test completely.
Anyway, the baffling contemporary move towards open offices only increases the importance of the rule.
What would the alternative be? Allow anyone to request that an account is deleted? Facebook needs some form of verification due to the password being breached (and its great that they are checking for that sort of thing)
Additionally, the only info they need is your name, birthday and photo. Anything else can be blocked out. I don't really consider that 'giving them my government issued id'.
This thread is great. Whenever H-1B threads come up on HN, I prepare for the onslaught of what can only be described as hatred. It's the view of many people on this site that all H-1B holders are "cheaters" of the system, and they don't deserve to get a job in the US. As a former H-1B holder, the threads always made me feel guilty, and feel bad about wanting to work for a well regarded, successful company. It's nice, and refreshing, to see that it's not the view of everyone, and that H-1B holders are equals and deserve the same rights as everyone else.
You're confusing this site with Slashdot.I don't think any HNers believe that all H1-B holders see cheaters. We do realize the H1-B scheme is relatively easy to cheat.
I have seen both sides to this. I've worked with brilliant developers on H1-B visas who were brought in as the system intended. I've also seen lots of job postings that were tailored to meet the requirements of a H1-B position, i.e. Poorly formatted, unintelligible, word salad with impossible requirements.
Disneyland firing their IT staff and replacing all of them with an exclusive H1-B outsourcer raised all kinds of alarms. It was stories like these that made the government scrutinize those visa schemes further. Glad to see people going to jail for it.
I don't think I, or most other people who are against the H1B visa system, have anything against H-1B holders themselves. They're obviously everyday people who are doing what's right for themselves and taking a big risk that generally pays off pretty well for them. If I was in their place, I hope I would have the cojones to do the same thing. Picking up and moving to another country is a big deal.
What I have a problem with is the companies who employ them. The intent of the H1-B visa is for companies to be able to hire workers with skills they can't hire for in America. The reality is that 99% of H1-B programmers are hired because they're cheaper or some other anti-labor reason. There is not a shortage of programmers in the US - I'll grant there could be in Silicon Valley or California - these companies are not looking very hard for programmers, and they're more willing to get someone from a foreign country than pay for relocation for someone from say, Iowa, or to open an office there. So, frankly, I see virtually every tech company hiring H1-Bs as committing immigration fraud in order to screw over people like me.
Unlike other people in this thread, I don't give a fig for free markets, except to the extent they make people's lives better, which they do have a decent track record of doing in many instances. Since I live in America and only the US government has direct power over the lives of Americans, I judge US government policy by that criteria. It seems clear to me a global free market for labor is the worst thing imaginable for Americans in the short term, and the world population in the very long run. Free immigration is a handout to corporations, who want to expand the labor pool as much as possible so they can play us all off against each other on a grand scale. It disgusts me enough to watch corporations and businesses play off state and national governments against each other for tax incentives and subsidies. I'm not interested in programming being a minimum-wage job or living under any more of a global techno-corporate system than I already do.
American companies are not a welfare state. A corporation can only expend so much time and money in the search for good workers. So you can't expect the companies to actively go out to every little town in Iowa and see if there are workers willing to relocate at a reasonable pay (more on the reasonableness of pay later). The workers themselves need to apply, to be proactive in their search for jobs. I think this last fact is overlooked a lot. Many (not all, of course) workers are extremely unwilling to move, and may even be really unhappy about moving away from the social structures that they are comfortable with.
Every US company I've worked at has favored hiring locally, hiring US citizens etc. if only because there is less uncertainty relating to the visa situation, and the process of applying for H1B and green card is not cheap. However, if you have qualified workers applying to your company and you determine they are a good fit, you will try to hire them. Because ultimately you, the company, does want to stay competitive and hire good workers who are motivated enough to 1) Get the technical skills and 2) Actively seek out great opportunities.
Her is another thing I noticed about the tech companies I've worked at: Once you're an employee and in good standing, the company will do almost anything to help you remain that way. Paying extra for the visa and green card process is just another expense; spending extra time and money to convince joe tech worker to move from nowheretown is just a lot more complex.
My solution to this problem would be more comprehensive. Instead of reactive policies like increasing the minimum salary requirement or decreasing visas, create a more comprehensive job matching program/board. Have a system where companies looking for engineers must register and get matched with Americans looking for jobs and interview them. If you're really serious about helping Iowan programmers, then make it more convenient for companies to find the kind of workers they are looking for.
I said I would address "reasonable pay" more. A lot of people seem to think that if you can't find employee at salary A, you just need to increase the salary and employees will magically appear. This is just not the way the market works. If American workers become too expensive, it becomes more cost effective to open a satellite office in another country and the jobs move overseas.
> American companies are not a welfare state. A corporation can only expend so much time and money in the search for good workers. So you can't expect the companies to actively go out to every little town in Iowa and see if there are workers willing to relocate at a reasonable pay (more on the reasonableness of pay later).
I agree. That's why I support the abolition of the H1-B visa program, at least in the form it currently takes. As long as it exists, companies will abuse it. Part of the problem is to some extent, the government has been captured by corporate interests.
> Many (not all, of course) workers are extremely unwilling to move, and may even be really unhappy about moving away from the social structures that they are comfortable with.
This is absolutely true. It's also true that programmers, especially, can work remotely or in cheap satellite offices, and that this is probably preferable to them moving all around. Strengthening social structures for American workers should be a priority of the government. It makes for happier, healthier, better-adjusted people. It makes for people less prone to mental illnesses like depression and drug addiction, less likely to become homeless, and more likely to be deeply involved in their community and local politics. (Something I have been considering for a while now is the flagrant corruption in local US politics that is becoming increasingly enabled by transient populations who haven't lived in the same place for decades, and therefore lack deep knowledge and experience of local issues and local politicians, and who aren't much interested because they don't expect themselves, their children, or their grandchildren to remain in the area.) It also often has the side-effect of making life a lot cheaper. If your retired grandparents are willing to watch your kids while you're at work, that's a lot cheaper than paying for daycare.
> A lot of people seem to think that if you can't find employee at salary A, you just need to increase the salary and employees will magically appear. This is just not the way the market works. If American workers become too expensive, it becomes more cost effective to open a satellite office in another country and the jobs move overseas.
If you can't afford the labor costs, then your business doesn't get to exist. That's the way the market works. If I could hire people for ten cents an hour, I could start a great software business. I can't. Too bad for me.
Your statement in general is representative of the race-to-the-bottom thinking I referenced in my earlier post - the idea that we have to do this, or the jobs will go elsewhere, where labor is cheaper. Well, that's how you get savage cuts to labor protections, stagnant wages, and massive corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. What's the endgame, here? Essentially, a global, common market with freedom of movement, a world where democratic governments are entirely subordinate to large corporate interests, a world where wages start plummeting because someone, somewhere, is perfectly willing to program for 5k/year and live in a one-bedroom apartment with five other people, all the while the company involved is getting massive tax breaks lest they start move somewhere else even cheaper.
No thanks.
The reality is that American workers are highly educated and there's a huge amount of social capital and financial capital that will keep businesses operating in the US. If they really wanted to, it's already cheaper open foreign offices and hire locals elsewhere - there's more than just immediate financial considerations already in effect. In a future with more expensive American labor, brilliant US programmers will still be starting their companies in the US, because they already live here. They will hire their friends and alumni from their college in the US. They will hire people those people give references for. They will hire people who live near them.
Most businesses will not leave the US in the near-term, H1-Bs or no H1-Bs. If they choose to go elsewhere to evade American labor prices and American labor protections, there is a simple solution. They can be forbidden from selling their products and services here. Access to the American market can be predicated on worker wages and benefits. I don't see any other solution that prevents a global corporate oligarchy.
> If you can't afford the labor costs, then your business doesn't get to exist. That's the way the market works.
True for a small local business, but with larger outfits an entire department gets outsourced to a cheaper country. This brings the headache of extra overhead, project management, travel and difficulty in scheduling meetings due to time zones, but at certain scale the companies can handle that.
Do we as a society
* want an economic policy that disadvantages small businesses in favor of large businesses?
* want to initiate a long-term migration of entire departments and then companies and then industries offshore?
If we as a society are completely okay with this, then this seems like a reasonable economic policy.
> If you can't afford the labor costs, then your business doesn't get to exist. That's the way the market works. If I could hire people for ten cents an hour, I could start a great software business. I can't. Too bad for me.
Its rather ironic that you advocate for free markets when it suits you but later in your same post you want protectionism. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want it.
> Your statement in general is representative of the race-to-the-bottom thinking I referenced in my earlier post - the idea that we have to do this, or the jobs will go elsewhere, where labor is cheaper. Well, that's how you get savage cuts to labor protections, stagnant wages, and massive corporate welfare in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. What's the endgame, here? Essentially, a global, common market with freedom of movement, a world where democratic governments are entirely subordinate to large corporate interests, a world where wages start plummeting because someone, somewhere, is perfectly willing to program for 5k/year and live in a one-bedroom apartment with five other people, all the while the company involved is getting massive tax breaks lest they start move somewhere else even cheaper.
> No thanks.
Eh? The world is heading towards a global common market, whether you are willing to accept it or not. Do you expect the current imbalance in wealth and development between countries to continue in perpetuity? This imbalance has been the product of some very unique circumstances in world history and will not last for very much longer.
Anyways, the example you give is a strawman. Please find me a qualified developer who will work for that amount anywhere. Critical thinking and creative programming skills are hard to develop for most people and its definitely not that easy to find good developers.
> The reality is that American workers are highly educated and there's a huge amount of social capital and financial capital that will keep businesses operating in the US. If they really wanted to, it's already cheaper open foreign offices and hire locals elsewhere - there's more than just immediate financial considerations already in effect. In a future with more expensive American labor, brilliant US programmers will still be starting their companies in the US, because they already live here. They will hire their friends and alumni from their college in the US. They will hire people those people give references for. They will hire people who live near them.
I completely agree with the huge amount of social and financial capital in the US. But I don't believe its the operating factor in keeping businesses local. One of the main advantages of SF is that it acts as a magnet for talent from all over the world. Cut that off, and you won't have that anymore.
The wiser strategy would be to exploit that capital to continue to build on existing structures and strengthen the position of the US economy to attract the best talent. I must admit I simply don't understand why you want to kill the Golden Goose just because you think maybe possibly protectionism will help you when historically it hasn't.
> Most businesses will not leave the US in the near-term, H1-Bs or no H1-Bs. If they choose to go elsewhere to evade American labor prices and American labor protections, there is a simple solution. They can be forbidden from selling their products and services here. Access to the American market can be predicated on worker wages and benefits. I don't see any other solution that prevents a global corporate oligarchy.
That is protectionism. And it never helps. Sure, you can try it, but when the rest of the world retaliates, suddenly you're cut off from the rest of the world and operating in isolation.
Smart protectionism does help. It's how Japan, South Korea, and now China have developed advanced manufacturing industries where free traders would have told them to specialize in what they did best at the time like grow rice. We need to look more holistically at free trade.
> Its rather ironic that you advocate for free markets when it suits you but later in your same post you want protectionism. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want it.
I'm for free markets where they work, and against free markets where they don't. I do not care whether free markets exist or not. I care about whatever improves the lives of people. When free markets help that cause, I am for them. When they do not, I am against them. Free markets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They are a tool. If a hammer will help me drive in a nail, I'll use a hammer, but I don't care about hammers in themselves.
I don't see anything ironic about this position.
>Eh? The world is heading towards a global common market, whether you are willing to accept it or not.
That is a decision that's entirely up to the people of the world. It is not some kind of fatal inevitability. Corporate interests in the West have been pushing strongly for it, but there are plenty of examples of powerful economies controverting this thesis, and, to all appearances, plan to do so for the indefinite future. Of course, recently, we see on top of this where previously pro-common market economies are withdrawing from that ideal - the UK with Brexit, the US from the TPP, and the immigration debate in both countries.
> Anyways, the example you give is a strawman. Please find me a qualified developer who will work for that amount anywhere. Critical thinking and creative programming skills are hard to develop for most people and its definitely not that easy to find good developers.
Good programmers are all over the place. Of course, everyone wants to hire the very best programmers, which are by definition limited, but good, productive programmers exist in tremendous numbers all over the world, including in very poor countries where five grand is a lot of money.
On top of that, considering the direction the world is going in (automation of manufacturing and services), and the continual cheerleading of STEM and programming in particular as a profession, we can only expect the number of good programmers to increase.
> I must admit I simply don't understand why you want to kill the Golden Goose just because you think maybe possibly protectionism will help you when historically it hasn't.
Because, frankly, the "Golden Goose" has absolutely zilch to do with H1-B visas. There are a lot of tremendously talented H1-B developers, absolutely. But the number of H1-B developers that are tremendously more talented than unemployed and flyover-country US programmers is approximately nada. (But only approximately. A real H1-B visa that worked only for unique talent might be worthwhile.)
In addition, you're quite simply wrong. Protectionism sometimes hurts. Free trade sometimes helps. Protectionism sometimes helps. Free trade sometimes hurts. Sometimes, a little protectionism ameliorates severe short-term pain and turns it into mild long-term pain. Pragmatism should always be preferred to free-market ideology or protectionist ideology.
> Sure, you can try it, but when the rest of the world retaliates, suddenly you're cut off from the rest of the world and operating in isolation.
People like to paint these doomsday pictures of protectionism, where all the rest of the world cuts you off. The reality is there is plenty of protectionism being engaged in already by the free-market West and nobody cares. Let alone the degree of protectionism engaged in by countries like China, which is presently nurturing multitudes of multi-billion dollar businesses without any kind of horrible punishment.
> I'll grant there could be in Silicon Valley or California
I'd be willing to relocate there if it made economic sense. If H1B were not available and bay area salaries higher, it would be more in the realm of personality.
I know a lot of great engineers in "flyover states" that more than understand that they'd have to take a decrease in standard of living to move to the Bay Area so don't even consider it.
> I know a lot of great engineers in "flyover states" that more than understand that they'd have to take a decrease in standard of living to move to the Bay Area so don't even consider it.
Yup. According to all the cost of living calculators I'd need upwards of $175k in SF to match what I'm getting at the moment in boring old Tennessee. There's no way it's worth it for me.
They also over estimate how much non housing expenses are in places like SF. Food is often cheaper in those cities, not more expensive, and most non service items cost almost the same.
The Bay Area situation is complicated. Relocating to the Bay Area from a not-low-cost East Coast area looked like a decrease in standard of living to me 25 years ago. (Admittedly other positions might have been different. But Bay Area CoL has been high for a long time.)
I really don't think any of the "blame" is about the person holding an H-1B. They made an economic choice for themselves that is logical and profitable. Trying to live a better life is a good thing.
I have an extreme hatred for the companies that use H-1Bs as body shops to replace American workers. It is definitely not in the spirit or stated goal of the law, and most through trickery skirt the letter of the law. Those people and the managers who hire those companies are scum.
Immigration is a part of the US (well, expect for where I'm typing this, but that's a different story). I believe a lot of rural American has been mischaracterized by the news. Farm country knows a tad bit about immigration. The problem is trickery by body shops which basically gives lie to to the whole STEM shortage, and the worry that folks we are bringing here aren't looking for a better life and actively are seeking to harm. This second point would not apply to almost all H-1Bs.
We need to change how H-1Bs work so that we are getting people that we don't have. This should be at a premium price for those workers (after all, if you have skills not available in the US, then you should be paid for it). I still say a minimum salary requirement of $90,000 for any STEM worker on an H-1B would correct a lot of the problems in the system.
My hatred was earned. I worked in 3 offices with Indians (likely H-1B). Most were not that good, just willing to take anything from the employer.
Most of the overseas ones were incompetent and unable to learn or use logic. Many of them honestly couldn't compete with an average American 5th grader. Yes I'm serious.
Also some weren't potty trained. Seriously. I still have an email containing directions about how to use the bathroom.
Sentiment on hackernews is more pro-H1B than not. Of course, there are a few anti-H1B people here, just like there are a few Trump supporters, but they are by no means a majority.
What? Whenever H1B comes up here everyone is always "Derr H1B Indians taking our jerrbs". I actually don't recall seeing a single comment in favour of allowing any foreign programmers in America. I'm sure there must be some but they are the tiny minority.
I really don't notice that at all. If anything, its more like H1Bs are good for our industry, don't mess with them. I know all my posts on the topic have been pro rather than anti. Ya, the Indian body shops are a problem, but the H1Bs outside of those certain companies are overwhelmingly positive.
One of the 1Password ones (https://team-sik.org/sik-2016-040/) about leaking URLs is marked as fixed, however, that's a little misleading. It's fixed if you use their newer vault format, which has limitations, and is not selected by default when you create a new vault. I wrote this about it a while back: https://myers.io/2015/10/22/1password-leaks-your-data/
yea, but still the problem is that all users who created a vault before Nov 2015 never got any message neither is their database upgraded automatically. They will unknowingly keep using the old database format.
Seems alarming for a company who's business is security/privacy.
> and is not selected by default when you create a new vault.
I was clearly only responding to this part, which is still useful information. Nowhere I said there is no issue, there is no need to always nitpick on everything. I'll go back to not commenting on anything for another year.
I'm really curious to know how this compares to the rest of HN. I'd expect this to be somewhere in the middle, varying depending on country. However, am I going way overboard on what I'm willing to pay for, or are there services I should be using, which I'm not?
One of the more concerning matters on this is that the BBC, for some reason, are choosing not to report on this at all. Gone are the days when the BBC were the most trusted and reputable news source. http://www.bbc.com/news/scotland
Meh. Its not clear to me this is news - its secondary reporting about an Intercept article that doesn't appear on the intercept front page nor on any other Scottish newspaper.
And it's not even the main theme of the Intercept article, which focuses far more on the intelligence agencies collecting far more data than they actually had the capability to use and failing to read harvested emails of identified suspects.
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/mi5-gchq-digint-surveill...
The author quite rightly points out that most of the English speaking countries would treat people exactly the same way, however I find it a little odd that she wouldn't ever go back to the UK, but makes no mention of visiting these other countries. It seems that her opinion of the UK doesn't quite match up with the statement that they are all the same.
