I know this is really late to reply, but

I don't specifically have any work experience with either VMWare or Hyper V as they have never been part of a job I've had. I do have some experience using VMWare on spare hardware at home, but if it is not part of your job it's exceedingly hard to get solid experience that is useful for a corporate environment that does use them.

As for Linux and Apple 'experience' 9/10ths of the systems I've managed (even currently) are windows so I don't feel comfortable saying more than 'I have experience with'. If 9/10ths of the system I have worked with ran linux I'd probably be an expert at such things. Same with macs. However neither while I'm familiar with them and can solve a number of issues related to them, I'm hardly an expert. What terminology would you suggest to imply competence without expert knowledge? 'Experience with' sounds right to me.

And I have non-work related experience in information security (upon graduation my focus was IT security, then my first job above entry level was network administration). However few places seem to acknowledge non-work experience these days. Certification is almost equally iffy, you need to pick the certification your potential employer wants to go with. It's not like networking where a Cisco cert goes a long way because they buy out anyone who produces a better product.

As is my last job bridged management and administration (highest ranked in the IT totem pole that lacked a CIO/CTO reporting directly to the executives), I've been aiming for heading another step up. However my stumbling block there is a lack of a masters degree which seems to somehow now be a requirement for so many IT management positions (which makes zero sense).

While I've specifically worked for places that are mostly dominated by windows systems (it's the most common operating system out there), I have experience with Apple and Linux systems as well as windows though no one ever asks me about linux and few ask me about Apple. I also have a considerably amount of experience in networking with both Cisco and non-Cisco routers, switches, and network appliances. I can be a systems admin or a network admin currently and have a lot of history in helpdesk work before that (though I'm not considered hireable in a helpdesk role since being an admin).

To be very specific I can look at the IT department for big companies locally like GE and Erie Insurance (both fortune 500 companies) and their local IT teams are all foreign. You may see one or two token white guys and the rest are indians. Even most of the little guys around here seem to be going that route, with several local colleges/universities hiring IT workers who are indian and I'll assume are H1-B's unless I see otherwise. I also see more and more groups of US IT workers gathering together and going the consultant route locally (1 company for over a decade now 16), so I'm guessing I'm not the only one to see the writing on the wall.

No. This is not simply 'are you legally allowed to work in the US' this is 'Do you require us to sponsor your continued ability to live in the US'. The other question still exists, but is a different question. It only started to appear on apps within the last year or so where I live and even then I can apply for non-IT jobs and I don't see it. However all IT jobs I've applied for in the last year do.

This actually reminds me of a couple 'big places' in my local area that are fortune 500 companies with campuses across the country. I won't name names, but both companies initially stopped hiring new IT staff from the US and increased their basic employment requirements for IT. When older IT employees didn't retire quick enough 'early retirement' plans were offered. Those who were still there eventually just got 'let go' and the IT departments are now often 100% indian guys.

I'm an admin by trade and It's been years of looking without finding anything. Even when I broaden my options to include everything outside of programming specifically (I can code, but it hasn't been my focus in over a decade). To many places want 'requirements' that are becoming insane. Why do I need to have a masters to act as a sys admin? Or 5 years experience on someones custom software package? I've even tried to bs my way into some of these by hinting I know xyz package they want and I'll get an interview where they end up ruling me out because I really don't know what 'excelsior' is or what it does, even though i can bet I've used a dozen similar packages.

It is hardly just 'major brands', I live in nowhere Pennsylvania and for all IT jobs I'm now asked on the application if I'm an H1-B visa holder and so need the company to authorize me to work in the US... The assumption across the country now seems ot be that IT workers are H1-B employees...

I personally get a lot of brown outs, power surges, and flickering. I've had multiple pieces of electronics go even on surge protectors as they get a charge higher than they are rated for... And full home UPS is out of my price range, but seems to be my only solution.

I can't say for sure, but hot water heaters already store explosive compounds (steam) at sometimes high pressures. Compressing natural gas doesn't make it more dangerous then natural gas in general and a good storage container should minimize the risk of explosion. So it shouldn't really raise any extra risks, however as a 'new' technology being introduced into homes I doubt it would be trusted.

Just look at the overreaction to a couple of Tesla's that caught on fire (in very controlled manners) and how politicians wanted to have committee hearings on these 'unsafe' vehicles. All the while normal gasoline powered cars catch on fire regularly and their are rarely congressional hearings and often not even legal hearings on it. New things are intrinsically untrusted until a number of years after being introduced.

It's not an xbox one though and you can't play DAI on it. It's also not running full graphics settings even on xbox one. My monitor is the only reason I can't play at a higher res (I could do widescreen 1080p on my TV, but kinda hard with a game setup for keyboard and mouse on a PC). I'm just saying you are overstating how much money needs to be spent to have a PC that can play games at a higher res than a console.

I built my PC for under $1k 3 years ago and I can still run DAI at 1600x1200 at ultra settings on it. I haven't spent any money on my system in those years accept to add a extra HDD or two.

We have very specific reasons for wage floors. The big reason for those is that we (as a people) believe every person should be able to meet basic requirements for life in our country. Things like food and some form of housing. We have pretty much said we would like to avoid having people living on the streets as much as we can. A wage floor is meant to guarantee some level of access to these things.

A lot of municipal broadband offerings in the US have actually been 'private' companies with municipal backing (ie a municipal contract specifically to do the physical connections). Some people have just argued that these are not 'private companies' because of the 'municipal backing'. I'd rather avoid the argument then take sides.

In the US for a time the FCC mandated the phone companies offer DSL to any company that wanted to offer services over it, however those companies killed it by setting prices themselves with little government oversight. Also it meant to companies you had to deal with when having service issues, because the phone company was competing as an ISP as were the ones providing service over their connection. So they prioritized their own customers over their rivals to make things even worse. So with the 'ammo' of bad performance and bad service to wave around the phone companies said to the government "See that was a horrible idea, stop making us provide our competitors with access!" Hence that has basically been tossed out in the US right now.

This is less a theoretical natural monopoly as discussed by that economist, and more a physical and political natural monopoly because we would rather not have cables for 50 companies all running through our property. Also from a financial perspective, few companies want to own those physical connections as they cost a lot to lay in the ground or on a pole. So a very real type of natural monopoly emerges in that the public wants a limit on the hassle and bother caused from tearing up their lawn every year or less depending on demand for services.

Also some areas are not deemed as sufficiently profitable and without government involvement may never have any access if left to the companies to decide. I mean this is the cause of limited availability in many areas. A lot of this is not really 'not profitable' it is instead 'it's mildly profitable in the long run, but has a high initial investment'. We are way to focused on short term returns and not nearly enough on benefiting customers.

The European model has long been that because running the cables is a natural monopoly it is best for the government to handle the cable and let private business compete on top of that. The fact that most of Europe has wild ISP competition without impacting provided speeds suggests that their model may in fact be better.

Also attempts at this in the US have had mixed results. Well run municipal broadband has succeeded at providing low cost physical infrastructure and even ISP services without needing any tax money. Badly run ones have been financial disasters wasting both fees and municipal funds. Which honestly is pretty much the same record as most private corporations before the consolidations began leaving us with what is often a dozen monopolies spread across the country who never directly compete.

Ok AC... How about the corporations do the same? If a company owes me money I'm lucky if I ever see it, let alone 'on time'. Hell many bills I have such as my cell phone and internet access require me to pay them a month in advance! I don't agree with doing that and so they always consider me a month behind and in their terms I am. However this 'deal' was a completely one sided one where I could not have my say in what rights and responsibilities we both had. I don't have a choice in providers either beyond 'this company that wants to screw me' and 'that company that wants to screw me'.