There're plenty of certification exams in the tech field though they're never required by law, and most companies wouldn't use them as a primary criteria in making decision of new hires.
Not sure about Americans, but more and more Chinese are moving back to China when they could have lived in LA or New York or anywhere they want. Also, Hong Kong is not as important as it used to be. It's also very common to see people from Hong Kong and Taiwan moving to China mainland to work nowadays, especially if they work in tech.
The only fact reported by this article, is that a Singapore company is trying to acquire a US company, and the author has to make it ALL about China. If people didn't read the article careful enough, they'd probably not see the word "Singapore" at all
No, read the article again. The article is reporting on the activity of the US (government panel called CFIUS), it is in the second paragraph:
> The clash erupted in public on Tuesday after the United States government, citing national security concerns, called for a full investigation into a hostile bid to buy the American chip stalwart Qualcomm — a review that is often a death knell for a corporate deal.
And the end of the third paragraph:
> But a government panel said the takeover could weaken Qualcomm and give its Chinese rivals an advantage.
If the US government panel wasn't making a fuss over this, the NyTimes would have nothing to report. The author is actually reporting the facts that exist (US concerns over this acquisition with a focus on China), they aren't making these facts up.
If you want to criticize about why this article is all about China, your beef is with the US government panel, not the author of this article.
My guess is that many of those hackers willing to take much lower salary for ethics and morality are either already rich or do not have the burden of supporting a family yet. It's already hard for someone to take low salary job when plenty of much better paying jobs are available, it'd be way more harder for someone to do that consistently throughout their life.
Come on, a "much lower salary" compared to a Google or Facebook salary is still a pretty good salary compared to a lot of other jobs. I don't make Google money (I also don't live in the Bay Area) and I need maybe a quarter of the money I'm making. If I had a family I might need half.
You might be surprised at how much family changes things. You have to factor in:
- Assuming two working parents initially, either lose one salary or pay >$1000/month on child care per child until school (unless you're lucky and grandparents live nearby)
- Larger house, larger mortgage. In the UK at least, you probably end up looking for one in the catchment area of a good school which means even more expensive, or go private which is a lot more expensive.
- Kids are just expensive. Clothes, book, activities, clubs, holidays, books.
And yet a lot of plumbers, bus drivers, cashiers and people with other jobs that pay a lot less than whatever a software developer gets successfully raise children.
Those jobs still exist in large numbers in places with low costs of living. Programming jobs generally only exist in places with high costs of living, where someone with any of the jobs you listed (except maybe plumber; those folks make bank) would be struggling to get by, and wouldn't think it was wise to start a family.
> You might be surprised at how much family changes things.
Every expensive hobby that you start probably changes things a lot. Starting a family has the disadvantage that you cannot simply stop it if money starts to lack.
It is not lost. There are still plenty of tools that helps individuals publish their own web content, yet most people would simply post on social media now.
I think most people only want to get their ideas published. Whether it is in the form of tweets, blogs or their own sites, it does not matter much. If social media were available in this early era, average people wouldn't need to publish their own sites.
I'm not a super Obama fan, but I will say that it would have made Obama's second term better as he would have been more responsive to his base. Trump has continued or intensified many Obama policies, which were in turn inherited from the Bush administration.
On the other side of the coin, imagine a Trump in his second term. If he seems to be acting against his base now, wait until he is free of electoral pressure.
