> unless said workers have the same skills and experience.

At Microsoft, its usually the hypocritical scenario.

There were very few specialized dev roles at Microsoft. Either you're thought to be smart enough and adaptable enough to work on whatever you're told to do, or, you aren't hired.

Exceptions would be "face characters" - unique individuals with unique contributions; people slashdot might have heard of. But those are far less than 1% of the company.

When you are cutting staff by thousands and hiring staff by thousands, none of them are special, none of them are differentiated. Its just bodies.

The layoff policy at Microsoft when I was observing it was pretty brutal. Each round was slightly different, but the mechanisms were usually similar: Each layer of management hierarchy, starting at the top, would get an "NTE" number, "Not to Exceed". As in, "your headcount is NTE 514" or whatever the number was for that manager. And whatever number you got, you subdivided it amongst the mangers beneath you, they subdivided to their child managers, and on downards, so most people in certain org-trees had some quota of people they were responsible for cutting.

Often, the layoffs were not based on the skills the person had, or how good or bad they were at their job, or anything like that. Usually entire teams would be eliminated, even if they had great people the company should have wanted to keep.

Yes, you did sometimes have awful situations where you lost really outstanding people just because they were on the wrong team when it came time to conduct random firings/layoffs.

The company seemed to have the idea that if they were good, they would reapply and find their way back in at some point.

The mechanism had a certain sort of "trapped by corporate America stupidity" feel to it. "We need to cut xx people and we can't be very intelligent or selective about it.. we cant make it about the specific person [because that invites lawsuits], so we make it about 'reducing investment in product [xyz]"

I am aware of possibly 2-3 RIF ("reduction in force") actions where the performance of the affected individuals was a factor in them getting chosen. More often it was whole-team cuts.

I was a dev lead at Microsoft. I believe I was asked to support immigration fraud.

I had an employee on a VISA. He was in a junior level role.

The immigration attorney asked me to verify that the job requirements for his job were:

- masters degree
- expertise in python
- (a few other things)

He had a masters degree. He had the other things on the list.

Problem was, the job he actually had was an entry level dev job. It was the exact job I got hired in at at the beginning of my career. For the level/job he was at, a 4 year degree is normal. Python (or any other specific language) is not needed.

So i said "no, that's not right. You don't need this, or this, or that"

And the immigration attorney was like "OH! My mistake! It sounds like this is more of an entry level position! Well, I guess based on what you've told me, we cannot sponsor the Greencard process for this employee at this time"

I had no idea that's what was going on or what was at stake when I answered the question. My employee wasnt mad at me - he quit MS and transferred to Google - who promised to push through his Greencard process. He said once he got done at Google he looked forward to working for me again at Microsoft some day.

So you tell me what you think was going on.

I think I was supposed to rubberstamp Microsoft immigration fraud, and I accidentally didn't, because I tried to accurately answer the question I was actually asked.

But look at how the lawyer responded. "Oh, shoot, what a silly mistake - nevermind!".

So no matter how I responded, he has plausible deniability. And if I had said, "yes, these are the required skills", nobody would have known otherwise.

I was gutted that I had ruined things for my employee without realizing it. The fact that he wasn't furious with me surprised me. To him, it was all a transaction. He wanted a Greencard; so he was going to go where he could get it - no hard feelings.

It's all transactional.

>OK, you don't work in software. Good tech companies don't outsource core development. They hire in house.

I was a software engineer at Microsoft for 22 years.

For all 22 of those years, Microsoft had core developers on every product who were not Microsoft employees.

You may want to look up the "permatemps" lawsuit from the early 00s. Microsoft had so many permanant contractor "non employees" that they were succesfully sued for the practice.

Microsoft has all kinds of legal sub-structures and "at a distance" legal entities for various employment arbitrage reasons. The technical talent of the people is not a determining factor in whether someone is a contractor, vendor, or full time employee.... Or if they are employed at an overseas subsidiary or domestically here in the USA.

And Microsoft plays a LOT of games with hiring/employment laws.

For instance, Microsoft had (has?) a large Vancouver development shop because, as I understand it:
1) its faster to get Chinese/Indian nationals into Canada than it is to get them into the USA
2) Vancouver is just up the road from Redmond, so easy to come down to Redmond for in-person meetings once in a while
3) It's very fast, legally to get people from Canada to the USA

So It was an open secret that MS would hire foreigners into the Vancouver office and park them there for, IIRC, 1 year, before moving them into the US.

Is it just me or is a doctor who can't figure out how to turn off an audio setting scary? What happens if his shoe becomes untied on the way to the operating theater? Does he call tech support?

That might be true, except everyone who has been paying attention knows that all they have to do is buy enough Trumpcoins and the problem will dry up and blow away without fanfare.

Or we could point to the confounding factors they obviously did not address in the study, say "this study is trash no one should ever refer to or even read" and move on. You don't necessarily need a new study to invalidate a study, and this is one of those cases where you don't.

Because the article is about censorship?

It's too bad you don't know dick about luddites.

"Leaving aside the fact that you don't know the difference between an LLM and a frontier AI model"

One thing is a subset of the other. That was a weird attempt, and it failed.

We didn't used to carry telescreens in our pockets, so that's different.

Before streaming it wasn't feasible to deliver different media to different viewers, either. They all got the same things from the same channels.

TBF the stupid Nazis have been around. They were just a little quieter most of the time, except when they were burning a cross, or dragging someone behind a pickup.

Maybe they can get compilers for some more architectures first

The Emmys are advertising. If fewer people consume them, that's a loss.

I wish I had a local PBS station. I get one broadcast with three digital channels, at least one of which seems Christian and all of which are shit. And since they split their bandwidth three ways, they all look like shit, too.

No, edge is the least safe browser. It's even worse.