If the company has 3 founders with equal ownership, it would not have to be disclosed? Is there a requirement that one founder be in the USA and be either a citizen or green card holder?
If my back of the envelope math is right, in the last 6 months he’s been attending more meetings at possibly odd hours; he lives in Australia and Intel is based in the USA.
Two different numbers, no? The resignation posts specifies 110 customer meetings, the blog post you linked to about meetings during odd hours does not.
Yeah, different numbers, 110 customer meetings, the other post tracked 1-6am meetings. I'm glad I tracked 1-6am meetings since I've shared that number when people think that remote workers aren't making an effort.
Those 1-6am meetings are crazy. I’ve been fully remote for over 16 years now and my only 1-6am meetings are incident response, if I’m on call.
And I’m a nobody; that you have to do that makes it feel even crazier to me.
I admit I was a bit more flexible with that in the past, but once I had a heart attack at 40 it dawned on me any company would just replace me and keep on going while my family was going to have a much tougher time (and no help from whatever company would be employing me at the time).
There's no reason to run agents on expensive AI platforms or on GPUs - when you can have the AI create an agent in JS and thus runs with very high performance and perfect repeatability on far less expensive CPUs.
At the very least there must be some part of the agent tasks that can be run in JS, such as REST APIs, fetching web results, parsing CSV into a table, etc.
Monroe LA is the former headquarters of Lumen, they realized that their corporate headquarters was a white elephant and donated it to the local university I think. However that means there is available power capacity from the local power company and of course, fair amounts of fiber optic cable nearby.
And especially importantly, on per capita GDP. Immigration would almost certainly cause GDP to go up, but the per capita effects are important, especially on the original population. (Qualifier added because if the original population experienced an increase in per capita median GDP they might consider it net positive even if the recent arrivals had a lower than median per capita income, who might also be satisfied if that’s still 3x what they were earning elsewhere.)
I agree, directionally. To be even more precise we probably want an even better metric, but that’s closer yeah.
By a better metric I mean something that would even more accurately capture quality of life, healthcare outcomes, social ties, productivity within the home or family that isn’t tied to an income from an employer, etc.
One thing that frustrated me around this time was that the UK's "stop the boats" campaign (although launched under Sunak) was just a lazy clone of an anti-immigration slogan first launched in Five Eyes partner Australia back in ~2013.
At the time I remember seeing a meme of Captain Cook's ship off the coast of Australia with 'Stop the Boats' stamped beneath it to highlight the hypocrisy.
i now buy deliveroo slop basically every day, and every day the delivery driver is a barely literate global south immigrant.
in other words, its a huge positive impact. unfortunately for the delivery driver, well, hes basically an indentured servant... i have no idea how these guys survive. especially now in 0 degree weather.
i recently started tipping them in the hopes that they don't dekulakize me in some future bolshevik overhaul (that they would be entirely justified to!)
Immigrants from richer western nations are net contributors to budget while those from poor countries are on average a drain. Uk locals land somewhere in between.
Brexit lead to more immigrants from poor countries but I doubt it moves the needle overall
So an unskilled worker from the EU contributes more to the economy than an African doctor?
The big change has been that it has shifted the balance from unskilled to skilled immigration. Generally you need money or skills to get a UK residence visa. Brexit removed a huge exemption to that for people from the EU.
I'm not GP, but I took their comment as a provocative way of questioning your (unsourced) general claim "Immigrants from richer western nations are net contributors to budget while those from poor countries are on average a drain. Uk locals land somewhere in between."
> My comment was in aggregate by origin regardless of profession or skill
It makes no sense to compare the aggregates in countries of origin rather than in the immigrant populations.
Non EU immigrants tended to be higher skilled or well off because that is the only way they could get a visa. Unskilled immigrants could come in freely if they were from the EU and many did.
Therefore your claim that the EU immigrants contributed more to the economy than the non-EU immigrants who replaced them is false if you assume skilled immigrants make a grater contribution.
> Therefore your claim that the EU immigrants contributed more to the economy than the non-EU immigrants
I suggest looking at the numbers instead of guessing (incorrectly). I’ll save you some time - it’s on page 4. see also page 57 - comparison to other studies finding the same.
It says that non EEA immigrants are higher skilled than EEA (page 11) although immigrants from rich member states are higher skilled an non-EEA.
It includes students. They clearly benefit the country by spending lots of money but they do not have income of their own (usually funded by parents) so pay little tax - but the subsidise universities by paying high fees, and inject money into the economy from living expenses on top of that. Fees alone can be many tens of thousands of pounds a year for a STEM subject at a good university (IIRC computer science at Oxford is £60k/year). The definition of overseas students also includes many British citizens, even some of those who have been back long enough to pay UK fees.
It excludes visa fees, NHS charge etc.
A lot of the revenue contribution is estimated.
It says non-EEA immigrants make a much larger contribution then UK natives.
The big expense for non-EEA immigrants is educational expenses because they have children. If those children remain in the UK as adults that is an investment and benefits the country in the long term.
That reflects a fundamental flaw, in that it only looks at direct effects for revenue, not the total economic effect. A skilled worker is of far more value to the economy than just their taxes.
On the other hand they do include "public good" as a cost.
It looks very much like a consultancy company telling the client what they wanted to hear. It was commissioned when Theresa May, who was pro-EU and anti-non-EU-immigrant, was Prime Minister.
This study doesn't prove what you said though. It just says that non-EU immigrants contribute less than EU immigrants on average. It also says that both EU and non-EU immigrants make a net contribution to the UK public finances on average. Non-EU immigrants It also clearly says that Non-EEA migrants are from any country outside of the EU which could include US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.
How much credence do you give it? I'm not an economist, and my general approach to any government's publications (especially in economics) is one of scepticism. Especially if it aligns with the party line (published in 2018, under May, who was very strongly anti-immigration).
Edit: this isn't made by the government but by a university, so scepticism is lessened slightly.
I think that interview is actually historically notable: the first example of a western leader saying that immigration was deliberately increased to push down wages
reply