Is that right? My understanding is the physical AppleCard has a fixed number that is simply not printed and relies on rotating CVV via the standard chip reading like most standard chip cards. The device-based ApplePay can rotate its number but that too only rotates CVV by default.
In what way the state is the hand that feeds you? Arguably California bit one of the hands that fed it, as evidence by the ability to move, since it is not that special of a place to do business. The state’s existence is afforded by the residents not the other way around.
Mountain View is just an example, and not an extreme one like Atherton or Palo Alto. Even if you go as far as say Pleasanton the market is still in another league compared to Austin.
Totally--was not diminishing <strike>A14Z</strike>M1 at all--just to moderate expectations from the quite astonishing video editing capability to "measly" ~2x. Even two year old iPad Pro A12X kicks ass on Clang benchmarks (see Geekbench), although I am not sure how sustained the performance is in that thermal envelope.
While a valid workload for a segment, I would be a bit skeptical of generalizing the extraordinary video editing capability to general purpose computing, as those things are facilitated heavily by hardware decoders.
> I think you're going down a slippery slope...
> let's look at what Hamming counts as "selling"
Ironically, above is a textbook example of "slippery slope"; redefining selling to include any communication about the work. (Besides, the context Hamming seems to be targeting is academic/semi-academic formal research, which is different from purely artistic/solo efforts; it's another form of business with a somewhat different currency). One might enjoy multiplayer games more than single-player; is that "selling" too?
Look, I am not arguing at all with the statement that if "impact on the world" in the external sense is your North Star, you have to "sell" in the broad sense of the word. I also am not arguing that there is pleasure in that act for some people (I, too, in fact enjoy it, sometimes more than the contribution, but that's just me). In fact, I stretch the argument even further that capturing value of the work is more in the sales aspect of it than the "real" contribution, as you can empirically see in the world.
What I vehemently disagree with is the default and universal framing, that everyone's goal is, or ought to be, external projection of the work--and that otherwise the work is "valueless". I also disagree with the universal perception that all people would equally gain more satisfaction by the "impact" than the inherent pleasure associated with the work.
Without that mindset, extremely long term investments and contributions will never be made. Okay, maybe you'll redefine "selling" to explaining your vision to people living 500 years from now, but I don't. And I doubt that is the intent of the article. I read it as much more pedestrian: "if you want to get promoted, gotta sell your work to your bosses."
I see your point, but I think the framing is important: yes, you generally want to benefit from some of the things you do, and most of your work is generally not your marvelous work. I indeed believe the best work is done when you are not constantly looking over your shoulder thinking about how to sell.
The paradoxical thing about this typical simplistic Western-society benefit maximization framework is if you actually think about it in principle, to maximize benefits, you are usually better off minimizing doing the real work altogether (almost to a halt), and singularly focus on the selling whatever shit you get your hands on and focus on coordination and leveraging other people's work to capture the value, which empirically works, but is somehow crass to rewrite the article and just say so. You certainly won't hit HN first page that way.
Well, I see that as a false dichotomy, and an important one at that. The most marvelous work the world has seen is a product of love, not a desire to maximize money or exposure. If you were doing number theory in 1500s, you were not thinking of how I would apply it to make the world a better place with secure communications. You do it for its own sake. ffs, I'm writing this comment on a website titled "Hacker News" after all, which I hope implies some audience care about the spirit of "doing something for its own inherent pleasure".
> If you lock yourself in a room and do the most marvellous work but don't tell anyone, then no one will know, no one will benefit, and the work will be lost. You may as well not have bothered.
That's a questionable premise and an entitled perspective from "the world" in my opinion. If one decides that they don't really give a fuck about the "impact" of the work on the world and doing it for its own sake, the "world" has no right to push them to release/advertise for their benefit. The premise also implies all entertainment is completely useless. Devil's advocate might argue it's quite the opposite: everything else in the world exists for you to focus on joy and entertainment and not be bothered with the bullshit the world brings on to you :)
The term Immigrant Visa in US immigration specifically refers to a visa that would confer permanent residency (i.e. green card) upon entry to the US. H-1B is definitely not one. It is a non-immigrant visa. Immigration intent, e.g. “dual intent” that you are referring to is distinct from the fact that H-1B is a non-immigrant visa. It simply refers to whether you are eligible for the non-immigrant visa if you have a predisposed intent to immigrate permanently in the future. For example, if you are applying for a non-immigrant visa with non-immigrant intent like F-1, you are asserting that you do not intend to permanently immigrate at the time of your application. Dual intent visas do not have such restriction, thus you can apply for a green card without jeopardizing your eligibility for a dual-intent non-immigrant visa, but that does not mean the non-immigrant visa comes with the privilege or path of immigration in and of itself or confers any such benefit.