I've been running an email server for some vanity domains + my old consulting company for like 12 years now, and honestly, the solution today isn't _all_ that different from what it was when I started. Postfix, courier-imap, cyrus sasl, and an authentication backend of your choice (I use mysql, but you can pretty much do anything). A combination of spamassassin and client-side filtering for spam. Procmail for filtering. I don't think I've had to touch anything about the setup since I migrated it to its most recent server in like 2010.

Really, "VC privilege" and "gender implications"? Come on. Worker productivity isn't a new field of study, there's a lot of empirical evidence (in both directions, really) that address this question. I _think_ that the literature tends to show that while burnout is a very real thing and absolutely devastating to long term productivity, occasional "crunch mode" periods can actually be very productive. Whatever the actual answer is, though, it's super depressing that people fall back on ad-hom attacks (which is essentially what all identity-based args are) vs referencing the huge body of research that exists.

To be so bad at your job that you're terrified of 80,000 non-native English speakers (out of a workforce of 160m) who generally tend to work in growth industries. If you can't beat out an Indian making 60k, maybe the problem isn't them, it's you.

Unless you're crying about all the unemployed farriers out there, hush.

I agree that both arguments are silly, which is why I made the comparison. Free trade and open borders are indeed the natural and correct state of things.

The purpose of the economy is to serve consumers.

Here's a list of per-capita GDP (PPP) by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Pick a reasonable place on the chart to start the third world, and tell me that's what US companies are paying H1-B programmers. India, for example, is about $7k USD per capita. Are programmers working for that here? No, they're working for like 5x that. I bet most H1-B workers are either at or above the US level (55k).
So, what's your complaint again?

Just this one, and my account # is lower than yours, so nyaaaaaaaah.

They're only price-competitive for their market if you define their market as "American IT workers", in the same way that US steel is price competitive only if you're talking about a certain type of steel produced in the US. I agree that the lock-in part is bullshit, and should be abolished, but the overall ideal is still completely open borders and a free flow of goods, services, capital, and labor. Question: if not for the lock-in part, which I agree probably exerts a downward pressure on wages (although I don't know the significance of that pressure), would you be fine with importing foreign workers?

No, but you could easily argue that the relatively free trade we engaged in even in the 70's and 80's was as much a "government-run program to import foreign goods" as the H1-B program. In fact, the auto workers probably have a better case, because we didn't have absurd quotas on how many BMWs and Toyotas we could import. In fact, the government, via those quotas, actually provides a subsidy to American tech workers by preventing them from having to absorb the full impact of competition in the labor market. H1-B is a restriction, not a gift. So, the analogy maybe falls down a little bit, but only because it's giving IT workers too much credit.

Do you feel the same way about manufacturing jobs lost to foreign competition? If not, why? If so, how do you explain that trade and prosperity have, at every point in history, gone hand in hand?

Is your argument that all foreign trade is harmful and destructive to (Importing Country)'s living standards, or just labor imports? If the former, you're empirically wrong. If the latter, what's the difference?

Well, I said what I meant to say, but I also agree with your statement. In the same way that I have no problem with people buying foreign goods that non-competitive American firms provide, I have no problem with American firms buying foreign labor that non-competitive American workers could provide. If that ends up being a temporary negative for me for a time, that's a.) my own responsibility, and b.) a price I'm happy to pay for the benefits of a globalized economy. An Indian or whatever is no less a person than an American, no less worthy of a job to sustain themselves and grow. There's nothing inherent about geographical boundaries that changes the moral calculus about whether or not someone "deserves" a job.

It's amazing how much tech folk can sound like auto workers in the 80's bitching about Americans buying foreign cars. The only thing lamentable about the H1-B visa is how it turns foreign-born employees into virtual slaves of whoever their sponsoring employer is. Every other complaint is just a variation on "I shouldn't have to be price competitive because I was born in America".

I'm curious as to the design decisions that led to the way that Go objects are implemented, which feel and seem to operate like C structs w/ function pointers. Yes, all objects are essentially structs with function pointers, but most languages provide a good deal of syntactic and functional candy on top of them to make them more useful. With Go objects, you get sortof-inheritance, sortof-polymorphism, and sortof-encapsulation, which requires re-thinking a lot of design patterns that people learn working with languages like C++, Java, and even PHP. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I can see arguments for forcing people to get out of their comfortable patterns, I'd just like to know why.