If you had comcast business assuring you, in writing, that they could install to your house and then their error subsequently caused you to suffer financial damages, I'm pretty sure you have standing to sue.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.

It is absurd to expect a corporation of any size to "toss something your way". He should have told apple, when it mattered to them, that they could pay a service fee to have him delay the patch for their benefit. No, this isn't how you want to deal with individual people. Yes, this is how you must deal with a corporation.

Life lesson: mega corps don't even care for the people they employ, and much less people outside the corporation. A corp is an abstract non-human entity. It doesn't deserve your charity.

What are you talking about? Android switches between tasks trivially. Android phones have a button similar to the alt+tab on a windows machine which brings up all the active apps and lets you just touch one to switch. It's even easier than using an iphone for switching apps.

Maybe you're using some hacked bloatware version of android? Go buy a nexus.

Cue Streisand effect.

I would love to start an ISP. I have the resources to lay fiber through certain municipal areas that aren't well covered. It would take 10 years to start seeing profit, but after that, its almost 100% profit. I would do it in a heartbeat if I could.

But guess what? In our great "free" market that the telcos are trying to protect, I can't. You see, the telecos have convinced (see: bribed) many municipalities into signing deals which prevent any competitor from moving in. Google is attempting to deploy fiber nationwide, but they are forced to first spend insane amounts of money in lobbying themselves in order to be able to do it (they are forced to do other things as well, but this is a big problem). There are big truckloads of money that would dump into infrastructure in a heartbeat. The problem is that no one legally can because of how totally f-ed up the market has become with lobby $$$.

It isn't about money.
The market isn't free. It is a duopoly, and it is corrupt.

Clearly the shortage of tech workers has gotten so bad in the USA that the laws of supply and demand no longer hold true. Cats and dogs are living together, and pigs fly through the air with reckless abandon!

Congress must act to raise the H1B cap even further before it's too late.

The pdf (IMO it shouldn't even do pdf, but should create an html page.) should be an automatic result of wherever they update their menu. There should be no extra steps from their point of view. If you mean the extra step of having to create the workflow process which does it, you're doing that anyway by writing crazy ad-hoc webcam software.

It isn't interesting to compare your wealth with someone in Africa, because people in Africa are not a threat to you. They are incapable of competing with you in any meaningful sense. No, H1B does not introduce pitchfork level competition (taking off rich people's heads).

If you have 77k in assets in your 20s then you're doing well, but you are by no measure wealthy in our society (USA). You're solidly middle class. If you are 40 and are at 77k in assets, you are doing very poorly. I'm talking about wealth gathering here. If that isn't your thing, then the phrase "doing poorly" might not apply. A lot of people have rejected the notion of wealth gathering because they have rightly recognized that they are incapable of achieving it in any meaningful sense. Look at the tiny house movement, for example. These people have decided that sacrificing their happiness for 30 years in exchange for a net worth of around 300k (at best) isn't worth it. In my opinion, they are correct.

Humans are bad at abstract logic. Not just bad, but shockingly, horribly bad. It requires many years of teaching to get them to learn how to reason according to logical principles and to avoid logical fallacies. Most people never get there at all.

OOP is a step in the right direction, for some kinds of programming. You don't always need to tell a story about your concept space. Sometimes what you're doing is so simple, and so shortlived, that it doesn't matter. However if you want long term maintainability and something that other people are going to be able to learn as quickly as possible, OOP wins. Consider the following example:

English:
John loves Sally. People like to spend time with others that they love. Does John like spending time with Sally?

If you are human and not deeply mentally impaired, you will quickly answer "yes" to the above question

Symbolic logic:
Derive Q (John likes spending time with Sally)
P (Assertion)
P -> Q (Modus Ponens)

Did you immediately think in your brain the following:
Q (Consequence of premises 1 & 2)

A lot of people who stare at that sequence of symbols will require a few moments to process it. Very few will read it as trivially as they read the English expression, although both expressions communicate the same relationships and information. Why is that? It is because the logical derivation is an abstraction above the English expression (which itself is of course an abstraction of something else). Every level of abstraction adds to how difficult it is for a human to comprehend something. It doesn't mean they can't get it, it means it will take longer (though depending on the person it might mean they can't get it).

Do you want people to be able to read your code in the future? The best chance of them succeeding is to use object oriented programming, and to create a class model that closely resembles what most people intuitively understand as the concept space you are working in.

Humans did not evolve to process information regarding Ps and Qs. They evolved to process information about Johns and Sallys. They are much better at the latter than the former.

My best frontend developer is in Germany (I'm in the bay area). I spend about 2 hours a week interacting with him on a really busy week. 30 minutes to an hour normally. At the beginning of a project, I hand him a wireframe and we go over requirements. He asks me questions if anything is unclear. As the project continues, I check on how he's doing once a week. Sometimes I find he is mildly off course and I set him straight, but it is an uncommon occurrence. The stuff he delivers is mostly great, with a few bugs that usually end up getting ironed out the week after the turn in date.

How do I achieve success with a worker on the other side of the planet?
- I pay him very well. His wage ends up being about $65 usd per hour (which is high for a frontend developer).
- I maintain a professional, but friendly relationship with him. He's a person, not my underling, and not a mere resource.
- I made sure I know what he is good at and interested in. I give him tasks he is either good at or can/wants-to adapt to.
- I don't engage him in communication unless doing so would be productive, though I do respond quickly if he wishes to initiate communication for any reason.

This list should seem blindingly obvious to everyone reading this. "OF COURSE you do these things", you folks are saying. Well, I've found that although everyone agrees on the best methods to engage employees, very few people actually follow that course. Many corporations large and small appear to think there are shortcuts around building a strong employee. There are not. If you think there are, you're a bad manager.

You "Only" get to chat 1-2 hours a day? If you are chatting for more than 2 hours a day, you aren't working.

This is the point of view of PHBs who don't understand human behavior at even basic levels. Humans have things like trust, loyalty, nesting instincts, and all the other things that make staying at a company for many years a reasonable expectation. There are software development shops *in the bay area* which have low turnover rates for their staff. Of course, in order to take advantage of those characteristics, you need to the prime them.

You cannot treat people like cogs in a machine and expect them to treat your organization like anything but a machine to draw resources out of until they can find something better. There is a prevailing attitude among people who run software shops that their people are there to be abused and taken advantage of as much as possible. I left one of those organizations early in my career for something much better, and the difference in my own sustained productivity levels really astonished me. I didn't realize how hard I was dragging my feet out of spite, apathy, and god knows what other negative emotions fostered by maximizing the alienation of your workforce.

PHBs think they're killin' it when they hire someone they know is worth 90k and pay them 60k. In fact, that person is probably hanging out until they can find a better job, and because they know they are doing that, they are contributing at the bare minimum level they think is necessary. Since it is impossible to quantify the productivity of an engineer (no matter how much you try to micromanage), this is NEVER a win for the company. And, no, seeing them in their chair for 50 hours a week doesn't mean they're doing more than 20 minutes of work.

Except he didn't tell them that. He didn't say anything remotely like 'Jesus's birthday is unimportant in the grand scheme of things'. However, for the sake of argument, let's say his tweet does convey that message.

He didn't post his tweet on a Jesus loving forum. He didn't make a press release on fox news. He sent this message *to people who follow him on twitter*. Assuming he actually said "Jesus's birthday is unimportant to the grand scheme of things" (which he didn't) in this forum, he is saying it to a group of people who have signed up to hear whatever random crap comes out of his head. Don't want to hear what astrophysicists think about the universe et al? Don't read their twitter feed!

Your analogy to informing someone on their birthday that they aren't significant is extra ridiculous because Jesus has been dead for quite a while.

Saying Jesus is insignificant would be idiotic. Jesus is significant, and NDT knows that full well. His tweet was pointing that other people are *also* significant. In this case he is referring to Sir Isaac Newton, a man of towering intellect and accomplishment.

Because it has happened to every human society that has ever existed. Wealth pools, corruption spreads, the wealthy don't read history books and forget that the unwashed masses have way more power than they do, then the wealthy are killed en masse and everything resets.

Revolution is less likely today in the USA because most people in the USA have a pretty comfortable life (even the unemployed people) compared to people in, say, the most recent feudal systems. Despite being less likely, the unwashed masses are unimaginably more dangerous today than they were 200 years ago. Today it doesn't matter how many body guards you have, how sophisticated your body armor is, or how hard you have tried to suppress the people you exploit. It takes one guy and about $500 to present you with a mortal threat that is very likely to beat you.