There's serious room for improvement in the salary calculator, calculator to account for growing metro areas, and I think most of this comes from trying to rely on numbeo for your rent indexes. Eg. Why in the world doesn't Portland OR have its own rent index vs rest of OR?
The 'Hot Markets' adjustment should also take a wider account for cities / towns / suburbs that are probably also booming. For example, I'm in the PDX metro area, but on the WA side of the river. My housing costs have gone up 41% to 2.5 years thanks to the booming housing market here, but the current gitlab calculation doesn't account for it thanks to the combined factor of being in the metro area but not in the right city/state, combined with the fact that the big growing metro area doesn't have it's own rent index.
Of course, this could be smoothed over and fixed as part of the hiring process, but it would be nice to know up front that you were using up to date data in your attempts to pay market rate salaries.
diamondpriceinfo.com - right now it's a consumer facing site, but the core value would be the pricing model and domain with the idea has been to turn this into a nice lifestyle business type SaaS for small shops that are under/over pricing their diamonds, but I haven't had time yet.
Digital Ocean has the advantage of new hardware being cheaper. They can compete on price and force the margins down for amazon and friends. Right now Digital Ocean is incredibly attractive from a price standpoint and they continue to build out their software to add more features.
I think in the past 5 years there's been a ton of realization from non SF/NYC/VC-tech companies in the fact that they are competing from the same pool of talent and thus have to offer competitive salaries on a national basis, not just competitive for their area/city. There is still a ton of progress to be made in this regard, but it is changing.
for example, a hypothetical newly graduated programmer with some skills and experience should be able to land a starting position for at least ~$80k+. companies that would have previously been trying to pay ~$40k in their area are now realizing that by offering a competitive dollar amount, the actual cost of living makes their offer the most compelling one. Whereas before, they'd offer the $40k and say, well, our offer is lower because it's cheaper to live here. The right attitude is matching the ballpark competition in dollar amounts, and saying, you should accept our offer because your money goes further here.
Hmm, a lot of young people have the mentality that they'll learn more and go farther in their careers if they go to SF/SV to start, even if their adjusted salary is lower. I can't say whether they're right for sure, but it sounds right to me. I think my career has "suffered" for never having lived there. (I'm still doing just fine.)
the question is one of responsibility in the case of accident. is it the owner of the car? or the driver? what happens when there is no driver? well, my guess is that TSLA the manufacturer of the auto-driving software is going to be liable in place of the driver, and as such, they have every right to say, nope, no using our auto-pilot for commercial activity unless it is on our own network where we can self-regulate to make sure we are liable for as few of problems as possible.
When Tesla say you can't drive passengers commercially it is probably because of liability concerns. Insurance for taxis are much higher than insurance for personal vehicles.
Volvo CEO said already in 2015 that Volvo will accept full liability whenever one of its cars is in autonomous mode.
>what happens when there is no driver? well, my guess is that TSLA the manufacturer of the auto-driving software is going to be liable in place of the driver, and as such, they have every right to say, nope, no using our auto-pilot for commercial activity unless it is on our own network
Why does this argument hold true only for self-driving cars, and not current cars ? As such, self-driving cars are just a point in continuous evolution. Current cars are already quite different from what they were a few decades ago. Why is now a good time to draw a line ? Every change in this eveolution goes through government approval. If it is approved, it should be safe enough for everyone.
It sort of does hold for current cars. Generally a driver (in most cases, a human) must obtain a further license or some form of government permission/authorization to drive a vehicle for commercial purposes like a taxi or other passenger carrying service. This seems to be simply pointing out that the same restriction will apply to the software-based driver in a Tesla...?
There is no legislation about ride sharing/taxi with self driving cars. So whether or not an extra authorization is needed by the owner of the car is a different issue. Here Tesla is asking you to not engage in ride sharing unless Tesla gets a cut. i.e., Even if the government and insurance companies allow you to do so, Tesla won't unless you hand over your cut to them. Is there more to it than that ? Tesla is getting approval to make a car road legal. An insurance company may underwrite insurance for various purposes including taxi. Why do I need tesla's permissions to combine a road legal car for taxi purposes ?
Because Tesla is assuming responsibility (that is, guaranteeing fitness for purpose, and all the ramifications that come with that) for the car being able to drive you under the same circumstances as any other private person driving. They would be taking on much more (legal, insurance, etc.) risk if they were to allow the car to drive as a passenger carrying, fare accepting, commercial entity, therefore it seems fair that they require you to use their managed system to (I assume) mitigate and/or manage that risk. I would guess that it would also be possible, eventually, to license the autopilot software for your own arbitrary commercial use.
This has been happening slowly in a lot of areas already. We went from manual transmission to automatic transmission without much fanfare. Even with the current self-driving trend, it is happening pretty slowly with various assisted technologies. I doubt things will change overnight.
In that it wasn't as such... but it was also totally understandable.
To use a German example: I don't think anyone would argue that the firebombing of Dresden was moral. It was effective... but that's not the same thing.
Of course... this is war we are talking about. So, morality is already about shades of grey.
If you wage war on foreign nations, and allow your government to do so, then you shouldn't be so surprised when it comes back to roost. No, the WTC attacks were not justified. But they were definitely to be expected, given the carnage around the world that the USA has been propagating now, for 80 years. When your nation maintains its moral authority to indiscriminately wage war around the world, you should not be surprised when that war comes to your footstep.
How can you even say that when you are replying to a comment talking about totalitarian regimes like nazi germany? This is one of those horrible "im more cartoonishly pessimistic ergo realistic than you" internet ideas.
Can you really maintain such ignorance in the face of the political reality, that governments gain no powers from the ether but rather - directly - from the support of their civilian populations? Are you stupid, or just young and haven't gotten to that part in civics lessons yet?
Whats unsubstantive about their point of view that the people are responsible for their governments?
This is a widely accepted truth, throughout history and international law - so while I do agree that the poster you're warning is a bit rude, I don't agree that their position is unsubstantive, one bit. I can understand their exasperation at the many claims that "governments can just get away with whatever they want to do because the people are powerless anyway."
There are many in the HN crowd who would like to see civilisation improve itself for the better - failing to take responsibility for ones government and its crimes against humanity is not going to produce that result. I would urge you to reduce your comment to pointing out the posters' rudeness - and remove your tacit censorship of their, very valid, point.
On HN that point is unsubstantive because it's generic. We've learned from long experience that generic ideological discussions go nowhere interesting. Worse, users compensate for the inability to say anything new or interesting by fulminating, which leads to rants, incivility, and flamewars. That's how you get to arguments that population X deserved atrocity Y in one or two hops, and then outraged responses and outraged responses to outraged responses.
It's quite a reliable effect, which is why we're so clear about asking people not to do it.
Seems to me that its something that should be written up somewhere, since it is such valuable knowledge. I mean, I've read the posting guidelines, but your succinct description of the effect is far more useful.
However, it has to be stated that the entire basis of American society started with the Declaration of Independence, which frames the argument in entirely substantive terms leading to the conclusion that there is no government without its people - thus the people are responsible for their government whether they like it or not.
I feel that this point is valid in this conversation, because there is most definitely groupthink involved in not taking any responsibility, whatsoever, for ones governments' actions. Especially in the HN crowd, this is a vital issue and one that is no doubt bound to create diversion. But, doesn't that mean we need to continue the discussion, not censor it?
Perhaps in your weathered age you've heard of and maybe even read the Declaration of Independence (in the case of the USA)?
"According to the Declaration of Independence, the government gets its power to govern from the people that it governs. As the Declaration says, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
