Double down. Tell all competitors that USADA will be handling drug testing for any Olympic event held in the US and if there's any pushback, we won't grant a travel visa for it. WADA and the Olympic Committee can figure it out on their own.
I was an internal Tech Recruiter for almost 10 years focused on pre-IPO tech companies. Hit the lotto a couple of times but after the most recent company (which was an awesome place to work) IPO'd, COVID, and just general career trends in that role, I burned out.
Then I spent 6 months doing nothing and decided to learn to code. It currently pays nothing because after a year, I'm only just on the cusp of starting to apply. I enjoy coding a lot more than recruiting, but my educated guess is that I'd enjoy entrepreneurship more than working at a company. Either way, it's exciting and challenging in a way that recruiting never was.
Weird that they'd do this with so many SWEs out of work. There are definitely non-SWE STEM occupations that need this but hard to see this overly-broad definition as anything but an attempt to drive down wages.
Rescheduling STEM occupations allows companies to skip attempts at finding domestic workers to fill openings before they're allowed to hire folks on visas.
There are definitely many non-SWE STEM roles that need foreign talent but this seems overly broad.
When I was a tech recruiter, I might have been more ambivalent about this but the market has changed so drastically over the last couple years. I'm sure leadership at many companies would prefer to hire cheaper foreign talent and drive down salary spend.
Elon is truly the genius that we deserve and I tip my fedora at him.
I don't know about what chips Tesla uses but if they're using the right chips and have enough storage on board, this might actually be the first time this idea pays off (other than the plethora of crypto miners).
I mean who hasn't come up with "what if we use peoples' phones, computers, etc. to do compute while they're not using it?!?" as a startup idea?
With equal evidence, one might say that you didn't even spend one minute thinking about how such a scheme would necessarily be implemented before going "wooha, awesome!"
The idle compute power of millions of Tesla idle vehicles _does not belong to him_. The electricity in their batteries _does not belong to him_. The line power charging those batteries _does not belong to him_.
I just want to point out that there have been stop and start efforts to regulate tiktok for years. Also this exact bill (or verisons of it) has/have been kicked around the hill for at least 2 months so its not like it came out of nowhere.
There's also no "free speech at all costs" clause. I've always wondered why we allow Chinese companies almost unfettered access to our market when we don't get the same in return. It used to be part of the deal but China was a special case and we held out hope they'd moderate. They have not, so we no longer have to be the one playing by the rules.
That aside, we're not forcing Tiktok to shut down, just forcing them to find a new owner. We're not stopping anyone from posting online, nor are we stopping anyone from posting on tiktok. If anything, this will be good for speech on tiktok, surfacing topics that were banned or deboosted by a company that has to follow the CCP rules.
There's very clear jurisprudence on when free speech can be abridged, and it's not "vague suspicions of being nefarious".
In the 2000s it was the arabs, in the 90s it was the Japanese, in the 80s it was the Russians. What would it look like if we had accumulated laws inhibiting speech from each group? We'd practically have a great firewall by now.
Tesla and Apple aren't social media companies. They're also American companies. I'd be against the bill if American companies had as much access and freedom to operate in China as we give Chinese companies operating in the US. Since that's not gonna happen, fine with forcing bytedance to divest.
