I don't remember Elon ever stating something does something it's not actually doing. His future timelines are off but it's never his competence that's been a problem with anything relating to SpaceX. And calling SpaceX (the entire industry leader) anywhere near "incompetent" beggars belief.
WDon't believe everything you read in headlines written by people with no understanding of the space industry. If you want to read about the industry, read about it on industry specific sites (like spacenews.com) or from industry specific reporters (Eric Berger or Stephen Clark at ArsTechnica). Davenport at Washington Post is good too.
It is interesting to see most people lay the blame at the feet of developers.
The reality is that these are all business decisions:
1) Move to the cloud because the business likes the steady payout of subscriptions. Business customers love not having to hire IT teams and demand six 9s of uptime because it is someone else’s responsibility. But performance needs to just be acceptable to end users.
2) Customers refusing to upgrade on-premises software, that led to long maintenance cycles and endless patches
3) Developing once for the web vs. Multiple times for different platforms – each needing its own developers and testers.
No amount of expertise on the part of developers is going to address these fundamental forces.
> Customers refusing to upgrade on-premises software
After a certain period of time, that software worked just fine for those customers. Photoshop is a great example. Sure, you won’t get the flashiest features, but CS4 will still work for you on a Win7 machine without any additional fees paid.
Once I commit to buying a version of Software X, I'm happy with it. As a user I expect Software X to work as-installed for decades to come. I don't want new features. I don't want the UX to change on me all of a sudden. I don't want it to get slower. Bugfixes and security fixes are fine, as long as everything else remains the same. I wish more developers understood and respected this.
When it comes to native apps, in the 2000s, this was the common attitude of users. But it's much harder to implement from a business perspective! Both in terms of business models, and in terms of dev time - having a bunch of possibly-incompatible versions lying around is a lot of overhead.
On the web, where most technical users understood this is technically impossible, they were willing to allow businesses to act differently, keep the software always-updated, and charge per usage. And since that's much easier and more lucrative for companies, they all switched to that.
(Now everyone kind of accepts that model, which is why today's Photoshop works via subscription, but the "damage" was done and the web won.)
> Bugfixes and security fixes are fine, as long as everything else remains the same.
Devs absolutely do not enjoy backporting bug fixes to 5 different LTS versions of their software and then getting user complaints because there's inevitably an important customer who is six versions back. It's inefficient with expensive dev time and it's better for the business to use that time to create new features.
edanm is correct, a lot of this is historical caused by very loud and angry tech users around the turn of the millennium. Want to know why Chrome won? When telling that story people tend to focus on performance or security, but that's not really it. Chrome won because Larry Page overrode all the internal screaming about silent web-style auto update for desktop apps. Oh boy, a whole lot of people really hated that idea, in fact Google had to develop their own software update engine from scratch to make it happen. Page didn't care. He understood that the ability to release a new version of web apps every week without the user noticing was a huge competitive advantage for the web, IE also updated in the background as part of the OS, and he wanted Google's desktop apps to have that same advantage.
Meanwhile Firefox stuck with the old model of rare releases and letting users choose whether to upgrade or not. It was a disaster. Old Firefoxes constantly annoyed web devs by preventing them from using new features. Security patches got reverse engineered and exploited. Still, Firefox's passionate fanbase loudly rejected the Chrome approach because they felt it took away their control.
Eventually the Mozilla guys accepted that they were wrong, their fans were wrong and Larry Page was correct. But it took years and in that time Chrome had built up a huge reputational advantage.
This is the real reason I use linux and open source, I want stability and flexibility not inevitably enshittifying SaaS. I am not an OSS or FOSS die hard, and I even advocate for a return to selling software as a deliverable so making small applications is a viable small business. But SaaS is the only viable business model it seems.
You can have efficient web apps running on the cloud, it's just a server after all. The issue lies with developers developing on machines their users can't afford and not caring about performance and efficient code.
i think many developers would make these same decisions. it’s painful to have to maintain separate platform versions of the same software, dealing with servers takes away development time, etc
Why do they all keep saying H1-B workers are underpaid? The government determines minimum pay for each application. My experience has been that this number is quite high.
The government sets payscale 'tiers' based on qualifications / roles, and these tiers determine the minimum you're able to earn once you obtain an H-1B or PERM. the employer is still able to work w/ the lawyers to get you to fall at a lesser paying tier, and also offer no further growth/compensation as they have no incentive to-- regardless of performance or structure.
Source: My exact role and bulk of responsibilities are valued at at least 2x; but given how difficult it is (for me, at least) to transition out given the job market, I have no other option but to stay or simply leave the country.
Even if the pay by salary amount is fair, these workers can be exploited to work more hours than their non-H1B colleagues such that if their pay was broken down hourly it would be comparatively lower.
Back in their home country they are probably expected to work those same hours (or more!) for a lot less money. By our standards it is exploit, but often for them it is better.
I understand their incentives. But the fact that they are exploited here, just less so still, makes the exploitation wrong. The H1B program needs to end.
This is a joke right? Most remote companies still have timezone restrictions, and the closest places to outsource from America in terms of timezone generally have great worker protections (aka, hard to fire).
For the most part, you'll find American companies that are remote are simply hiring from all over America, not the world.
Most remote companies don’t need time zone restrictions, and many Indian contractors are already working weird schedules to at least partially align with US time zones. I don’t expect that every company can outsource every WFH job, but the idea that they can’t because it might make a conference call hard is, frankly, rank nonsense.
I have fired offshore teams and hired US ones because I prefer people who think, care, look at the big picture, share their experience, and write quality working software, once.
Offshore software felt like someone building a car by spotwelding everything together for record times.
The operating phrase is really good developers. Because most companies are just churning out basic CRUD micro services. Infact companies emphasis on standardized frameworks is part of this trend. It makes rather easy to replace one dev with another. Companies can and are using vast quantities of developers at far away locations.
Those jobs are most likely to be replaced by AI or by skilled developers using AI as a force multiplier.
I already know developers using AI successfully to automate boilerplate and routine code generation, leaving them more free to spend time on the hard stuff.
This is just not remotely true. I am not sure what you are referring to but even between the US and Canada it is completely incorrect, let alone Eastern Europe and the US. What are you possibly talking about?
Burning fossil fuels for X*Y travel to Z place to do the same job they could do at home, is better?
If they can do it cheaper elsewhere in the world then they clearly are not focusing on the premium values of more expensive workers.
Naturally, having native speakers with good education should be seen as better than importing. If importing is ever actually better, then one has to question the value of the education being given to the premium workers.
As others mention, there are a range of reasons why Joe Coder keeps his job. Realistically, one of those reasons (like it or not) is that management can see him every day and can go to his cube for face-to-face meetings. They never could do that with Jorge Coder (who is in the same timezone by the way). Well, now it doesn't matter.
Before the pandemic, I was told by private equity people that if a job can be done from home, it can be done from India. And the job I had back then is now more or less done from India.
If they could, private equity people would reduce you and your family to chattel slavery and Fargo you into a woodchipper when your wasted body finally gives out. They're the problem, not remote work.
That sounds like efficient market allocation of resources. There is no inherent reason you deserve to live in luxury as most do in the West unless you've contributed to society.
> There is no inherent reason you deserve to live in luxury as most do in the West unless you've contributed to society.
I'd certainly love to apply this logic to our wannabe-aristocracy, whose sole contribution to society is gormlessly doling out access to the capital that they fell ass-backwards into without any merit on their part.
There are innumerable ways to avert the worst iniquities of private equity without going Full Communist Revolution. Of course, the longer that plutocrats try to wring the system dry, the more likely the latter is to happen, but I suppose it would be incoherent of me to expect private equity to understand the concept of thinking in the long-term.
That’s the problem right there. We never try to solve problems until it can’t be ignored. We’re tackling economic inequity the same way as global warming; by mostly ignoring it.
I get what you’re saying but that’s not really true, is it? You can ignore social injustice, economic inequality and environmental harm but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem. In fact, one might even argue that just because the decision makers can ignore a certain problem, it doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t impossible to ignore by a large swathe of the population.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here; regardless of what you're for or against, it destroys what this site is supposed to be for.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
The job absolutely can be done from India. The location isn't the question; the right person is, and the sort of people who say that are the sort who suck at hiring, and don't care. "Hire cheap labor."
Thanks to an increasing supply of jobs in India, salaries have been rising at the top end of the market. In another 5-10 years, it won't be much cheaper to hire in India as compared to the US.
The Indian workers you want are either poached by quality h1-b visa giving US companies (Intel, apple) or are already working for FAANG offices in India, those Indians also want and get US caliber pay.
You’re welcome to try to use TCS/Infosys or worse places to outsource, but the results will be predictable.
That's actually sort of what I'm witnessing happening in my workplace. They day they are onky getting the most qualified candidates, but it has been a while since we've seen a "qualified" new hire from.anywhere but India.
Of course not, unless you move the entire office and all roles. It’s like you’re intentionally missing the point (or at least the stated reason) behind returning folks to the office.
To be clear, this is not a defense of RTO policies.
> "Of course not, unless you move the entire office and all roles."
Yes, do that. If you can close down one role and replace it with an Indian in India doing that role cheaper, then with the same logic you can close down the entire office and replace it with an office of Indians in India doing those roles, cheaper.
Somehow, the first applies and is used a threat for return to office, but the second 'magically' doesn't apply. If you need to keep westerners doing the jobs for any reason, and you can't outsource those tasks to India for any reason, then the people may as well be westerners WFH.
Exec leadership/management doesn't want to move to India, therefore moving the whole office is a ridiculous non-sequitur that has absolutely nothing to do with the ease of moving a few roles or role-sets. This isn’t a complicated thing to understand.
Pretending this isn’t the case because you really want to be angry at me or as a reason to riff on whatever form of Management Bad this is, is weird, but you do you.
Why would they have to move? Are there no Indians who can lead, be executives, manage a team, run an office? Replacing a WFH role with the same role in India doesn't involve the WFH person moving to India.
Is this a serious response? You talked about moving the entire office. Clearly the owner neither wants to live in Bangalore, nor wants to sell the company to someone who does, ergo, the entire business does not move. On the other hand, he has an entire QA team working from home and sees no reason not to offshore them.
I feel like you’re being intentionally obtuse in not understanding why one scenario is fundamentally nonsense, and not the pedantic gotcha you think it is.
I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse and pointing at the obvious case so you don't have to address the point. Yes yes, Billy Bob CEO isn't going to replace himself with someone else, but a company big enough to employ offshore workers and deal with international taxes and employment regulations is big enough to have more than one department and more than one office which could be offshored wholesale. And the financier quoted above, if they can get the same development from an offshore company for less, is going to finance the offshore company instead of Billy Bob.
That is, the implicit threat "if you don't RTO, we will offshore you" comes with the counter "if you do RTO, we won't offshore you" - except if offshore was actually tempting, they could and would offshore your entire office even after you RTO to it, and "the market" would/will offshore the whole company.
To the extent that doesn't happen, "you working from home is indistinguishable to an Indian working from India" isn't true. Timezone, language, culture,
"RTO because we need the extra productivity of everyone in the office - but if you don't, we'll accept the reduced productivity, just with other cheaper people" is also nonsense - then why not offer the WFH American less money to stay WFH? No? Because it's a punishment and not a real business decision.
Before that I survived the first dot com bubble, 2008 housing crisis. I have been through rounds of layoffs and all sorts of outsourcing projects.
At some point it all boils down to numbers. Why hire a Bay Area resource when a Kansas one is cheaper? Why hire a Kansas one when someone globally is cheaper?
I think that the only reason we haven't seen deeper cuts and more tech layoffs and outsourcing is that everyone is skittish about sending work to Eastern Europe. With that venue cut off the remaining tech markets remain higher priced and look a lot less appealing.
There are reasons to be in an office sometimes. Planing, team building, those exchanges around the coffee pot. The random engineer who prarridogs and spouts an answer to the problem you're discussing with someone else. Pick your poison, a week every month, a month every quarter get that team building and face time in, pick up the value it has and then go back to WFH and zero commute... The answer isn't no office its "hot desk when it matters"!
This is true only until insurance decides not to pay arbitrarily. In my case I was stuck with a $112k bill. Hospital offered 50% self pay discount. Now what?
Totally possible that it was an invalid denial, too. I don’t know if insurers face any consequences for just denying some percentage of claims initially, and then only paying out for customers who push back.
