It's because we have been so far successful in getting the a large chunk of the 95% to move the US.

But, new programmers are being minted everyday and if we don't get there here, they will start creating their own software companies in their own countries. It doesn't take long for a company to start with nothing and become one of the largest company in the world in a decade.

I'm only half serious though. There are enough reasons why the next Google can or can't come from outside the US. Can we confidently say that the next Google will be an American company? Can we do anything about it or just sit and wait?

I've seen certain fortune 500 companies advertise software engineering job positions that do not require any experience, do not list any requirements (except high school) and job description is as vague and all-encompassing as desire and ability to write software. That does not make getting that position easier to get.

The biggest unwritten requirement is if you'd want to spend and interact 40+ hours a week with that person. That is why most women programmers no matter how inexperienced will always get hired very easily. Programming ability matters very little when the guy is a weirdo and awkward to deal with.

Not that I'm implying you're a weird or anything, but when a guy walks in the door, people fear for the worst. Until you get to know someone, guys think other guys are creepy or bad. Thus, it is very easy to get a friend hired in your company but if a friend doesn't want to give you the recommendation in his company, that probably means your friend doesn't like you and wouldn't care to work with you.

Despite what Slashdot and their parent Dice would like you to believe, job hunting is largely done through connections. If you are reading job requirements and fuming over not enough experience and what not, you're probably exhausted your contacts. Employers also fear the worst of the applicants coming through random job searchers and will scrutinize them more than if they came through connections.

It is blatantly false that companies will not consider hiring anyone who already doesn't know the tool in depth. The biggest tool to learn is the company software repo, the business and culture of the company which is the least documented. Any commercial tool can be learned in weeks or months since there are thousands of resources on it. Learning the company source code base and all the ways the company works is the hardest part.

My psychology book said that in most cases people make up their minds unconsciously and then go find reasons to justify it. I read somewhere (and it could be completely false) that an interviewer decides to offer a job or not very quickly and spends the rest of the time confirming it. I have found that it's the weird things that get people hired. If they were in the same fraternity, attended the same university or some other commonality. I hate to say it but if a team leader is Chinese, you will find that a lot of junior Chinese developers and this is because ethnicity is a super-obvious observation. Sometimes, entire teams have hidden commonality like an fraternity, an ex-employer or a university.

Anyway, I've been turned away from many jobs that I was qualified for and had the technical skills for. But, if I want to land that job right after an interview, I have to have connections or be a super-charming person. Everyone thinks they are geniuses in their own right but others think differently. The most qualified candidate isn't the one who always gets hired. In the end, in software development, it is the team effort than the individual that matters.

The cool thing about governments is that they can post emissions standards or face fines, non-renewal of licenses. Then, there is an incredible incentive to make technological advances that significantly decrease emissions.

Anyways, with cars, manufacturers are required to meet emissions standards. Then, in some states, owners are also required to maintain the vehicle to the emissions standards.

When the oil prices went up, it was effectively a tax on emissions. However, did we see "technological advances"? Nope. Many airlines went bankrupt and had to be bailed out.

This is not true.

I know recruiters and they love hiring new graduates. New graduates need jobs, experienced engineers already have jobs.

Training does not take long at all. Revenue generation isn't a factor since there is not even a way to measure how someone directly generated revenue when hundreds of people work on a single product.

The article says,

The summary says 1/3 has smoking and environmental effects, while the article says the 1/3 doesn't have smoking and environmental effects.

Lately, slashdot summaries have gotten worse and worse and completely change what is being claimed.

The problem is that they are enabling it without consent.

Comcast should give a large discount to incentiveize people in enabling them. Since they are Comcast, they just said fuck you and turned it on to rake in the sweet sweet profit.

Human societies are now billions of people. Even millions of dollars are just a drop in the sea. There is absolutely no way anyone can know what that drop is good or bad for society. Is the projected funded by a billionaire for his interests more detrimental than a project sanctioned by a government official using taxpayer money?

By the same logic of not everyone should code, then everyone shouldn't need to read and write, do math, learn science? Every scientist now learns to code; engineers code, physicists code, biologists code. Why shouldn't the average person code?

Good engineers quickly outgrow what they themselves alone are capable of to their visions of what is possible. Management is the only way you can get hundreds of engineers to realize your vision.

If you buy a used car, it will run into problems. If you go to a mechanic with even the smallest of problems, they will quote you $500. If you ignore the problem, it will get worse and worse until it is unsafe to drive or the car simply doesn't start at all.

Learning to maintain a car isn't that hard but you can't do it on your apartment parking lot.

Or maybe, just maybe, they innovated and solved key problems to make ti cheaper.

But we can't have that, can we? American steel is stronger than Indian steel.

Let's just give credit where it's due and learn from their success. We can't put our noses up and say our space program is a 2015 Cadillac Escalade whereas yours is a 1999 Honda Accord.

By the same argument, we want high wages through government intervention and artificial barriers to labor just by the virtue of the luck of being born on the right side of the line. At the same time, we want to buy the cheapest parts and gadgets manufactured in China so we can consume more even though it costs the manufacturing sector in the US.

We also want it both ways as well. Everybody wants it both ways.

The goal is to find the balance that is best for everyone.

The greatest challenge is not knowing how to do something but knowing all the ways on not how to do it.

There is always someone who shows the exact way of doing something and the kids follow the step and sometimes produce great results.

Even great university research has someone vastly experienced guiding it.

It is obviously because Apple has engineered iOS so well that it only requires a fraction of the memory that Android does.

And, iOS8 has such wonderful memory technologies that Apple developed that even new apps only need a small fraction of the memory that they would need in Android and iOS7. So, there was absolutely no need to put extra memory that will never be used.

In Matthew Lieberman's book Social, he has a chapter on this.

Especially entertaining is what he wrote regarding the bonobos. They are essentially the free love orgy and hippies of the primate world. And, chimps are the violent and brutal ones.

So, whatever the primates do, there isn't a definite reflection on humans. We all share the fact that society and social connections are the most important things in our lives but it can go in multitude of directions - from hippie to killers.

There are many many double blind review systems.

The world of research on a specific topic is very small. If you write a paper, you can probably guess who will review it. Also, the reviewer can also guess who wrote it.

If that doesn't happen, then it goes to the guy who drew the short straw and you get a pointless review criticizing pointless things from a person who knows nothing about the field but is in the review committee for whatever reasons.