Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting(robert.ocallahan.org)
robert.ocallahan.org
Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting
http://robert.ocallahan.org/2017/01/tripling-down-against-conference.html
175 comments
The part about an initiative to look up visitors phones and social media is BS. This measure was introduced in June last year when the president wasn't Trump. Went into effect in December, when Trump already won but had no authority.
One random link from google: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/foreign-travelers-soci...
It would only be bullshit if it wasn't an actual measure. It still counts as a con when considering the US for an international conference.
Virtually all of what Trump is being called out on has been consistent bipartisan policy, or at the least supported consistently by recent Republican administrations and by every Republican primary candidate, all of whom were openly racist, xenophobic and anti-science. I think it's a good thing. Finally an ugly, stupid face on ugly, stupid policies.
all of whom were openly racist, xenophobic
Thank you for taking the first step at bringing both sides together! If we can just convince one side they are wrong and frankly evil, we can start the healing process.
Thank you for taking the first step at bringing both sides together! If we can just convince one side they are wrong and frankly evil, we can start the healing process.
I actually think we suffer from false equivalency in the US. The two parties are radically different, the rhetoric is radically different. It's not that we suffer from a lack of consensus, it's that the right in the US has swerved sharply right, while the left has meandered a little left lately (but rightward across a ~30 year time span).
The first source I could find, it's not universally agreed upon, but here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-pola...
It's really easy to try to be bipartisan and blame both sides, but the Republican party has been changing rapidly. You could argue the Democrats haven't been changing fast enough... but whatever is going on, it's not symmetrical.
The first source I could find, it's not universally agreed upon, but here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-pola...
It's really easy to try to be bipartisan and blame both sides, but the Republican party has been changing rapidly. You could argue the Democrats haven't been changing fast enough... but whatever is going on, it's not symmetrical.
Yes. A fine example is that Obamacare is basically Romneycare (the health care system Mitt Romney had instituted in, what, Massachusetts?). That is, the most progressive health insurance scheme that Democrats could politically push through is basically an old Republican scheme, and they now denounce it as some terrible socialist abomination (even though it is far less comprehensive than what nearly all other developed nations have, with better results).
The irony of your comment is that while you might well be right about the trends, by global political standards the two main parties in the US are barely distinguishable, except for a few clear dividing lines like guns or abortion.
I think that's the point.
I'm going to make a derisive comparison: A parent trying to cooperate with their child (if they can't assert dominance) will in many cases resort to move closer to the childs position, like getting them a candy as a reward if they put their shoes on. It doesn't matter much if the parent is in the right, if there is no way to convince the other party. Then diplomacy on your part is the last resort.
I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, but it does make logical sense.
If the GOP relentlessly moves to the right, and refuses to be bipartisan on anything (even something as basic and frankly obvious as public healthcare), then you're forced to move to the best they can agree on, as someone mentioned earlier: romneycare. I'm in no way knocking the core ideals of: less government spending, sane tax legislation, less hurdles to start a business, more freedom over what to put in your body, etc. But that's not what any of the GOP brass is about, at least not anymore.
It's fucked, but somehow tens of millions of people keep voting to fuck themselves, on basically all issues other than gun control and abortions. As a non-native, it's beyond baffling. But I guess Republican Jesus loves guns, female subservience and anarcho-capitalism.
I'm going to make a derisive comparison: A parent trying to cooperate with their child (if they can't assert dominance) will in many cases resort to move closer to the childs position, like getting them a candy as a reward if they put their shoes on. It doesn't matter much if the parent is in the right, if there is no way to convince the other party. Then diplomacy on your part is the last resort.
I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, but it does make logical sense.
If the GOP relentlessly moves to the right, and refuses to be bipartisan on anything (even something as basic and frankly obvious as public healthcare), then you're forced to move to the best they can agree on, as someone mentioned earlier: romneycare. I'm in no way knocking the core ideals of: less government spending, sane tax legislation, less hurdles to start a business, more freedom over what to put in your body, etc. But that's not what any of the GOP brass is about, at least not anymore.
It's fucked, but somehow tens of millions of people keep voting to fuck themselves, on basically all issues other than gun control and abortions. As a non-native, it's beyond baffling. But I guess Republican Jesus loves guns, female subservience and anarcho-capitalism.
As a native, it's baffling. I think the only explanation is the breakdown between input and output; when spin and now outright confabulation carry more weight than facts, people can easily be swayed to vote against their own self interest.
Basically, Fox News created the Tea Party. Which in turn helped the rise of Breitbart and other, even more insane outlets. It's a howling echo chamber of lies, whose fuel is hate and ultimate outcome is more inequality... which is perhaps the real motive underneath it all.
So that's a series of guesses, but yeah, still baffling.
Basically, Fox News created the Tea Party. Which in turn helped the rise of Breitbart and other, even more insane outlets. It's a howling echo chamber of lies, whose fuel is hate and ultimate outcome is more inequality... which is perhaps the real motive underneath it all.
So that's a series of guesses, but yeah, still baffling.
Yeah, that's true too. A global perspective on US politics is usually depressing.
This is spot on.
i'm lifelong republican, I loathe trump, I voted for johnson. But I can promise you that Trump will lock 2020 up if the left continues down this "Trump is hitler, white men are evil" spiral of insanity.
This has to be one of the most frustrating things I've had to deal with lately: finding that all of the people who have accused the President of being divisive doing exactly what they claim the other side is doing. It reminds me of a Dutch phrase I've heard mentioned on a favorite podcast of mine: "Wat je zegt ben jezelf, met je kop door de helft" (from what I've been told, "he's criticizing others, but he's not innocent himself: he is a hypocrite").
> Virtually all of what Trump is being called out on has been consistent bipartisan policy
No, it isn't. Any of it, really.
> or at the least supported consistently by recent Republican administrations
A very few of the things he's been called out for fit this category, e.g., the Mexico City policy.
> and by every Republican primary candidat
A few more fit this category, but a lot of the things he's been criticized for miss all of them. One might fantasize that others might have, had they had the chance, done some of the things he's been called out for, but, e.g., no past administration or primary candidate of either party has suggested kicking the Joint Chiefs and DNI out of the NSC in favor of additional White House staffers.
No, it isn't. Any of it, really.
> or at the least supported consistently by recent Republican administrations
A very few of the things he's been called out for fit this category, e.g., the Mexico City policy.
> and by every Republican primary candidat
A few more fit this category, but a lot of the things he's been criticized for miss all of them. One might fantasize that others might have, had they had the chance, done some of the things he's been called out for, but, e.g., no past administration or primary candidate of either party has suggested kicking the Joint Chiefs and DNI out of the NSC in favor of additional White House staffers.
I'd go further than that. Given trump's recent actions regarding immigration ban, and INS/ICE going against federal judges, it seems like he's testing for a coup.
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e...
Congress, which is majority republicans, are doing little to stop him. Democrats are still skittering, unsure what to do or how to regroup. And if judges are being ignored, it leaves the Executive branch pretty wide open. After all, they are the ones who control the military. Congress just OK's the budget.
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e...
Congress, which is majority republicans, are doing little to stop him. Democrats are still skittering, unsure what to do or how to regroup. And if judges are being ignored, it leaves the Executive branch pretty wide open. After all, they are the ones who control the military. Congress just OK's the budget.
Either way, it is NIGHTMARE MODE stupidity.
It will net only the most retarded entrapment arrests possible. It's tantamount to searching people's bags for postcards and magazines, because there might be terrorist postcards or terrorist magazines.
Yes, there may be terrorists who send postcards and read magazines (even newspapers!) but, ah... how does that prevent violent actions?
It will net only the most retarded entrapment arrests possible. It's tantamount to searching people's bags for postcards and magazines, because there might be terrorist postcards or terrorist magazines.
Yes, there may be terrorists who send postcards and read magazines (even newspapers!) but, ah... how does that prevent violent actions?
I think one good criterion (among others) for deciding in what country to hold a conference is the number of countries whose citizen can enter without visa. There's a list on Wikipedia that you can sort by that criterion [1].
For the USA, it's 42 (what else). Canada, 52. For Schengen area (most of EU), 92. Hong Kong, 148, Indonesia, Cambodia even more. China only 12.
So, South East Asia or Europe seem reasonable on that score.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_visa#Visa_policies
For the USA, it's 42 (what else). Canada, 52. For Schengen area (most of EU), 92. Hong Kong, 148, Indonesia, Cambodia even more. China only 12.
So, South East Asia or Europe seem reasonable on that score.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_visa#Visa_policies
Be careful with those numbers.
While they are likely accurate for simply attending a conference, they might not be for presenting at a conference (that often changes the reason for the visit from "education" to "paid work" which can impact the need for a visa).
That said, Schengen area is probably still easier than the US for attending AND presenting.
While they are likely accurate for simply attending a conference, they might not be for presenting at a conference (that often changes the reason for the visit from "education" to "paid work" which can impact the need for a visa).
That said, Schengen area is probably still easier than the US for attending AND presenting.
I'm thinking if I were organizing a conference outside my country of residence, I'd keep payment arrangements for speakers & paid guests outside the conference country, and instruct speakers on The Right Things To Say on visiting the country.
Eek. I would never counsel a somebody to lie at the border. That's a recipe for trouble. My understanding is legal advice is usually along the lines of "tell the truth in as few words as possible."
If you're assuming that I'd espouse lying, how are the "lies of omission" that you imply any different? The Right Thing To Say does not involve lying. It involves being careful; not oversharing.
"Tell the truth in as few words as possible." Exactly this. No need to ramble on about your detailed itinerary. For example: You're here for "education." Will you be the teacher or the learner? You'll be sharing your experience in programming just as you will listen to others sharing the same. It's a "conference" - we will confer on the topic of the event.
"Tell the truth in as few words as possible." Exactly this. No need to ramble on about your detailed itinerary. For example: You're here for "education." Will you be the teacher or the learner? You'll be sharing your experience in programming just as you will listen to others sharing the same. It's a "conference" - we will confer on the topic of the event.
It wouldn't be a lie of omission if you said "I'm a speaker at a technology conference". Then let them ask you other questions if they want more information.
If you said "I'm a well paid speaker headlining DefCon haking conference" or something similar, you'd probably get a different response. DefCon is just an example that could raise an eyebrow.
If you said "I'm a well paid speaker headlining DefCon haking conference" or something similar, you'd probably get a different response. DefCon is just an example that could raise an eyebrow.
Alongside your comment about keeping payment outside the country, I construed your comment to mean you would attempt to hide the fact that the speakers are paid, and avoid the question of work visas completely.
Having organised a pretty large student conference in the past, here are some further considerations:
- Obviously the specific countries behind those numbers matter. If you're organising a conference on 14th century Flemish literature, the Netherlands will be more important than North Korea
- Not all restrictions are created equal. Specifically, the activity I was involved in (University Debating) has a sizeable Israeli community, who would argue that travel restrictions that jews encounter across the muslim world should be considered more harshly than most other travel restrictions, which tend to emanate from a fear of economic migration.
- beware self-fulfilling prophecies: If you chose a location that is hard for sub-saharan african nationals to reach because they're underrepresented in your audience, you are also perpetuating that underrepresentation.
- Obviously the specific countries behind those numbers matter. If you're organising a conference on 14th century Flemish literature, the Netherlands will be more important than North Korea
- Not all restrictions are created equal. Specifically, the activity I was involved in (University Debating) has a sizeable Israeli community, who would argue that travel restrictions that jews encounter across the muslim world should be considered more harshly than most other travel restrictions, which tend to emanate from a fear of economic migration.
- beware self-fulfilling prophecies: If you chose a location that is hard for sub-saharan african nationals to reach because they're underrepresented in your audience, you are also perpetuating that underrepresentation.
Self-centered American here, but wouldn't it make sense to weight it by population, or even population of likely attendees? Not clear why, say, Suriname (to pick a country out of a hat) should rank equally with Japan.
That said, I think the point of your post (and the original post) is just to call out how ridiculous and sad the US's sudden policy swerve is. I hate how often the US compares unfavorably with the rest of the developed world on all sorts of indices; we're so strange. Strangely illiberal, even before November. (I mean 'illiberal' in the political theory sense of the word, not left/right political sense of the word.)
That said, I think the point of your post (and the original post) is just to call out how ridiculous and sad the US's sudden policy swerve is. I hate how often the US compares unfavorably with the rest of the developed world on all sorts of indices; we're so strange. Strangely illiberal, even before November. (I mean 'illiberal' in the political theory sense of the word, not left/right political sense of the word.)
That said, I think the point of your post (and the original post) is just to call out how ridiculous and sad the US's sudden policy swerve is.
One of the most alarming things about this whole issue is that it's taken this long for "normal people" to realise something is wrong and do something about it.
We're seeing mass protests now, when large numbers of people are literally being held in handcuffs for extended periods despite obviously doing nothing wrong. However, it's not as if border security at the US (and, to be fair, here in the UK and in various other countries) hadn't completely lost the plot already before Trump arrived.
Then again, I have long said things would have to get worse before they got better. Let's hope that at least we have now reached that point and ordinary people start questioning the whole way we look at security again.
One of the most alarming things about this whole issue is that it's taken this long for "normal people" to realise something is wrong and do something about it.
We're seeing mass protests now, when large numbers of people are literally being held in handcuffs for extended periods despite obviously doing nothing wrong. However, it's not as if border security at the US (and, to be fair, here in the UK and in various other countries) hadn't completely lost the plot already before Trump arrived.
Then again, I have long said things would have to get worse before they got better. Let's hope that at least we have now reached that point and ordinary people start questioning the whole way we look at security again.
> wouldn't it make sense to weight it by population, or even population of likely attendees?
You're right, of course.
> the point of your post (and the original post) is just to call out how ridiculous and sad the US's sudden policy swerve is.
Yes, getting visa can be a time-consuming, expensive, even humiliating hassle - I've seen it with
* friends (one friend was planning to visit the USA for the first time this Christmas, was twice denied visa (no reasons provided), so did not go),
* colleagues (a colleague working in Hong Kong could not get permission for his wife to join him there), and
* myself (and I travel on a German passport, which is the best in that regard: 177 countries visa free/visa on arrival).
So, I genuinely think that among the things to consider (among others) when planning an international conference is easy entry for attendees.
However, the sad thing is that it's not a sudden policy swerve. The USA has had a rather restrictive visa policy for decades. It has obviously historically been wide open, but increasing suspicion of economic migrants, and then after 9/11 increasing suspicion of terrorists seems to have made it more and more defensive of the borders.
I personally find US CBP (custom and border protection) among the potentially least pleasant (and I've been to 100+ countries). ("Potentially" because you can be lucky and have a friendly reception and no problems at all, but you sure can have grumpy questions and more serious problems.)
The Recurse Center, a great programming retreat in NY, used to be called Hacker School. With the old name, attendees regularly had trouble with CBP (the dreaded secondary inspection), and I seem to recall that some have been denied entry. I believe that was one of the factors behind the name change.
So, yes, your perceptive observation that this is another index on which the US compares less favourably to the rest of the developed world as sometimes assumed also contributed to the post. Recent events have made it even worse - and I'm glad to see that the resistance is rising :-)
You're right, of course.
> the point of your post (and the original post) is just to call out how ridiculous and sad the US's sudden policy swerve is.
Yes, getting visa can be a time-consuming, expensive, even humiliating hassle - I've seen it with
* friends (one friend was planning to visit the USA for the first time this Christmas, was twice denied visa (no reasons provided), so did not go),
* colleagues (a colleague working in Hong Kong could not get permission for his wife to join him there), and
* myself (and I travel on a German passport, which is the best in that regard: 177 countries visa free/visa on arrival).
So, I genuinely think that among the things to consider (among others) when planning an international conference is easy entry for attendees.
However, the sad thing is that it's not a sudden policy swerve. The USA has had a rather restrictive visa policy for decades. It has obviously historically been wide open, but increasing suspicion of economic migrants, and then after 9/11 increasing suspicion of terrorists seems to have made it more and more defensive of the borders.
I personally find US CBP (custom and border protection) among the potentially least pleasant (and I've been to 100+ countries). ("Potentially" because you can be lucky and have a friendly reception and no problems at all, but you sure can have grumpy questions and more serious problems.)
The Recurse Center, a great programming retreat in NY, used to be called Hacker School. With the old name, attendees regularly had trouble with CBP (the dreaded secondary inspection), and I seem to recall that some have been denied entry. I believe that was one of the factors behind the name change.
So, yes, your perceptive observation that this is another index on which the US compares less favourably to the rest of the developed world as sometimes assumed also contributed to the post. Recent events have made it even worse - and I'm glad to see that the resistance is rising :-)
The best criterion is "where are the customers"?
The probability of most US based people attending an international conference is dramatically lower.
The probability of most US based people attending an international conference is dramatically lower.
Sure, I was thinking international conferences. More domestically oriented ones do domestically, obviously, unless the purpose is more of a funded vacation.
Seems to me "proportion of your target community that can attend without a visa" would be a more valid metric than "number of countries from which people can enter without a visa".
But even better would be to also factor in the difficulty of getting the necessary visa for others.
But even better would be to also factor in the difficulty of getting the necessary visa for others.
As an American citizen living in Cambodia -- book events here. It's cheaper and the conference facilities are getting better every year.
It's time for Americans to stop thinking all roads lead to them.
It's time for Americans to stop thinking all roads lead to them.
You're speaking as if getting to Cambodia is the same as a quick/cheap flight for most people, especially those who use English as a lingua franca. You're suggesting a very unrealistic alternative to NYC, Seattle, or Austin.
Americans don't think that "all roads lead to them", but America is a hugely important country with a large number of its population working in the tech field and "convenient to get to" is impossible to underestimate as a priority when organizing a conference.
Americans don't think that "all roads lead to them", but America is a hugely important country with a large number of its population working in the tech field and "convenient to get to" is impossible to underestimate as a priority when organizing a conference.
I'd like Americans to think all road lead to them because we offer the best destination. Presently we think all roads lead to the US because they do, but we've forgotten why. We think that is just the way of the world. We need to pursue the solid, innovative research in all fields and disseminate that accordingly.
I fear this is the warning shot across the bow of those tech executives who supported this president. First, they come for your conferences. Then, your H1B visa-holding employees. Then...?
Innovation thrives on freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom of markets. And tech, in its best form, is about freedom, rather than market-capture and rent-seeking. Needless to say, none of these recent developments are good.
Innovation thrives on freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom of markets. And tech, in its best form, is about freedom, rather than market-capture and rent-seeking. Needless to say, none of these recent developments are good.
Innovation thrives on the rule of law, independent courts and neutral arbiters of contracts, habeas corpus and due process, the right to a lawyer, and the right to uncoerced testimony.
Consider Jethro Tull, the farmer. In 1700 he was 26 and he was taking over the family farm. He hired some local hands to seed the fields that spring. As had happened for thousands of years, the workers took bags of seed and cast handfuls on the ground. Jethro Tull became angry, because there were patches of ground that had too much seed, and other patches of ground that had too little seed. He went over to the workers and asked them to be more careful. But they proceeded as before. Tull became more angry, and went to speak with them again. But they still ignored him, and kept doing their work in the traditional manner, as they had since they were children, and as had their parents before them, and their parents before that. Tull was in a rage, but saw he could not change how the workers did their work. Instead, he decided to build a machine that would plant seeds at regular intervals. This was the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_(agriculturist)
But now ask, why did this happen in 1700, and not in 1680 or 1660 or 1500, for that matter? Was Tull simply smarter than any farmer that had ever lived before that time? Or was their a new legal system on his side?
In the time of Tull's father, England was still burning witches. The last great spasm of irrational fear and witch burning swept over Britain in the mid 1600s. But then Britain passed the Bill Of Rights, in 1688. Now everyone had the right to a fair trial, and a right to a lawyer, and no one could be tortured into confessing to a crime, such as witchcraft. And Tull belonged to the first generation of entrepreneurs in history knowing that they could depend on the rule of law -- the government could not take arbitrary action against him, but was constrained by its own processes. Therefore Tull could shatter tradition, and do completely new things, without the threat of being burned as a witch.
I could cite an endless number of examples. Galileo made brilliant discoveries in an illiberal nation, and was put under house arrest, Newtown made discoveries in a nation of laws, and he became a national hero. Simply knowing that laws will be enforced fairly defeats a lot of the kinds of evil scheming that spring up under authoritarian regimes.
"Freedom" is an empty word. When talking about the kinds of environments that cultivate innovation, it's best to try to be specific about that environment. History teach us the raw ingredients: the rule of law, fair and independent courts, habeas corpus and due process, the right to a lawyer, the right to uncoerced testimony.
Consider Jethro Tull, the farmer. In 1700 he was 26 and he was taking over the family farm. He hired some local hands to seed the fields that spring. As had happened for thousands of years, the workers took bags of seed and cast handfuls on the ground. Jethro Tull became angry, because there were patches of ground that had too much seed, and other patches of ground that had too little seed. He went over to the workers and asked them to be more careful. But they proceeded as before. Tull became more angry, and went to speak with them again. But they still ignored him, and kept doing their work in the traditional manner, as they had since they were children, and as had their parents before them, and their parents before that. Tull was in a rage, but saw he could not change how the workers did their work. Instead, he decided to build a machine that would plant seeds at regular intervals. This was the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_(agriculturist)
But now ask, why did this happen in 1700, and not in 1680 or 1660 or 1500, for that matter? Was Tull simply smarter than any farmer that had ever lived before that time? Or was their a new legal system on his side?
In the time of Tull's father, England was still burning witches. The last great spasm of irrational fear and witch burning swept over Britain in the mid 1600s. But then Britain passed the Bill Of Rights, in 1688. Now everyone had the right to a fair trial, and a right to a lawyer, and no one could be tortured into confessing to a crime, such as witchcraft. And Tull belonged to the first generation of entrepreneurs in history knowing that they could depend on the rule of law -- the government could not take arbitrary action against him, but was constrained by its own processes. Therefore Tull could shatter tradition, and do completely new things, without the threat of being burned as a witch.
I could cite an endless number of examples. Galileo made brilliant discoveries in an illiberal nation, and was put under house arrest, Newtown made discoveries in a nation of laws, and he became a national hero. Simply knowing that laws will be enforced fairly defeats a lot of the kinds of evil scheming that spring up under authoritarian regimes.
"Freedom" is an empty word. When talking about the kinds of environments that cultivate innovation, it's best to try to be specific about that environment. History teach us the raw ingredients: the rule of law, fair and independent courts, habeas corpus and due process, the right to a lawyer, the right to uncoerced testimony.
Regardless of whether or not Jethro Tull is a perfect example, the larger point about rule of law is absolutely correct. Any catchphrase or byword can be co-opted, none more so than 'freedom.' Rule of law is a much better way to think about this, so thank you.
It's also generically true that having a good legal system is a prerequisite for a stable economy and good growth, not just innovation. I recall an article in, I think, the Economist that contrated mango farming in Haiti from the Dominican Republic -- same climate, same island, huge difference in productivity. Because in DR, farmers believed they would benefit from their hard work. In Haiti, unclear land title and corrupt courts meant a productive mango orchard could be confiscated by those in power, so the farmers had no incentive to invest in their own farms' productivity. Subsistence farming becomes the norm, and everyone loses.
Not sure why both examples that spring to mind are agricultural, but there you go.
It's also generically true that having a good legal system is a prerequisite for a stable economy and good growth, not just innovation. I recall an article in, I think, the Economist that contrated mango farming in Haiti from the Dominican Republic -- same climate, same island, huge difference in productivity. Because in DR, farmers believed they would benefit from their hard work. In Haiti, unclear land title and corrupt courts meant a productive mango orchard could be confiscated by those in power, so the farmers had no incentive to invest in their own farms' productivity. Subsistence farming becomes the norm, and everyone loses.
Not sure why both examples that spring to mind are agricultural, but there you go.
> Innovation thrives on the rule of law, independent courts and neutral arbiters of contracts, habeas corpus and due process, the right to a lawyer, and the right to uncoerced testimony.
Those are some of the bare requirements, just like agriculture is a requirement for civilization. Thrive isn't really the right word to describe subsistence living.
Also, it's not even clear whether they're requirements. We should be wary about confusing correlation with causation. The UK enjoys those things only at the pleasure of their elected Parliament. How long do you think those rights would have been maintained in America without a written constitution? Maybe the real requirements are more obscure cultural phenomena, and that there exists a wider universe of systems that could equally undergird widespread wealth creation in the presence of those same cultural forces. Don't discount the path dependent behavior of political evolution.
Those are some of the bare requirements, just like agriculture is a requirement for civilization. Thrive isn't really the right word to describe subsistence living.
Also, it's not even clear whether they're requirements. We should be wary about confusing correlation with causation. The UK enjoys those things only at the pleasure of their elected Parliament. How long do you think those rights would have been maintained in America without a written constitution? Maybe the real requirements are more obscure cultural phenomena, and that there exists a wider universe of systems that could equally undergird widespread wealth creation in the presence of those same cultural forces. Don't discount the path dependent behavior of political evolution.
That would be a compelling line of reasoning if Jethro Tull had actually invented the seed drill, but he didn't. He perfected the design but the device had been around Europe for 150 years before Tull's version, and in China for 2000 years before that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_drill
The same argument applies even more strongly. If a technology is known, but fails to come into widespread use until there is a legal system that protects people from persecution, then the new legal system clearly played a large role in emancipating that technology from obscurity.
Do I need to list every example? I was assuming they were well known.
Consider what France lost by driving out the Huguenots. Consider what England gained by offering protection to the Jews.
Consider this famous summary by Voltaire:
"Although the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian are the two main sects in Great Britain, all others are welcome there and live pretty comfortably together, though most of their preachers detest one another almost as cordially as a Jansenist damns a Jesuit. Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt. There the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Church of England man accepts the promise of the Quaker. On leaving these peaceable and free assemblies, some go to the synagogue, others in search of a drink; this man is on the way to be baptized in a great tub in the name of the Father, by the Son, to the Holy Ghost; that man is having the foreskin of his son cut off, and a Hebraic formula mumbled over the child that he himself can make nothing of; these others are going to their church to await the inspiration of God with their hats on; and all are satisfied."
That such a great market could come into existence was thanks to the legal system set up in Britain during its revolutionary period, which ended with the passage of the Bill Of Rights that gave most British citizens the basic rights we nowadays assume.
Also consider what Britain lost, 90 years later, when Parliament suddenly asserted that the Bill Of Rights was not a universal set of human rights, but a specific set of liberties given to people living in the British Isles, but not applying to the Colonies of North America. The people living in the Colonies of North America were so outraged by this that they rebelled against British rule and broke ties with the British government.
Do I need to list every example? I was assuming they were well known.
Consider what France lost by driving out the Huguenots. Consider what England gained by offering protection to the Jews.
Consider this famous summary by Voltaire:
"Although the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian are the two main sects in Great Britain, all others are welcome there and live pretty comfortably together, though most of their preachers detest one another almost as cordially as a Jansenist damns a Jesuit. Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt. There the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Church of England man accepts the promise of the Quaker. On leaving these peaceable and free assemblies, some go to the synagogue, others in search of a drink; this man is on the way to be baptized in a great tub in the name of the Father, by the Son, to the Holy Ghost; that man is having the foreskin of his son cut off, and a Hebraic formula mumbled over the child that he himself can make nothing of; these others are going to their church to await the inspiration of God with their hats on; and all are satisfied."
That such a great market could come into existence was thanks to the legal system set up in Britain during its revolutionary period, which ended with the passage of the Bill Of Rights that gave most British citizens the basic rights we nowadays assume.
Also consider what Britain lost, 90 years later, when Parliament suddenly asserted that the Bill Of Rights was not a universal set of human rights, but a specific set of liberties given to people living in the British Isles, but not applying to the Colonies of North America. The people living in the Colonies of North America were so outraged by this that they rebelled against British rule and broke ties with the British government.
> Do I need to list every example? I was assuming they were well known.
That's not an argument, that's snark. I agree with onion2k that you do not provide a compelling line of reasoning. You provide a just-so narrative but not a line of reasoning. Sure those events may have happened in chronological order but that does not in any way imply causation.
Innovation and invention have both preceded and post-dated any notionally enlightened legal landscape.
Also, the dire situation for Catholics and the existence of discriminatory laws on the books within the British Isles puts paid to Voltaire's chummy story of a motley crew worshipping before the altar of Mammon, likewise the Bill of Rights.
You paint a good picture but I remain unconvinced.
That's not an argument, that's snark. I agree with onion2k that you do not provide a compelling line of reasoning. You provide a just-so narrative but not a line of reasoning. Sure those events may have happened in chronological order but that does not in any way imply causation.
Innovation and invention have both preceded and post-dated any notionally enlightened legal landscape.
Also, the dire situation for Catholics and the existence of discriminatory laws on the books within the British Isles puts paid to Voltaire's chummy story of a motley crew worshipping before the altar of Mammon, likewise the Bill of Rights.
You paint a good picture but I remain unconvinced.
I understand your point, though, I don't see it as diminishing Tull's contributions or lkrubner's story's allure.
I'm not very convinced by your argument. I don't see how the rule of law affected Tull. I think it's more important that he was influenced by the rise of scientific thinking during the Enlightenment and sought more efficient means of agriculture using the scientific method. Also, the Wikipedia says that the seed drill was known in Europe for about a hundred years before Tull refined it and it took another one hundred and fifty years before it was in widespread use. The correlation with the rule of law seems pretty weak to me.
You assume the outcome when you write "the rise of scientific thinking during the Enlightenment". Why didn't the Enlightenment happen in Italy? Why was Galileo arrested whereas Newton became a national hero? The regime of human rights was very different in Italy versus England, and that influenced where the Enlightenment happened. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, whereas Edmond Halley had the liberty needed to study comets, and even predict when Halley's Comet would return.
Why didn't the Enlightenment happen in Italy?
The Enlightenment did happen in Italy.
> Why was Galileo arrested whereas Newton became a national hero?
Because of the Jesuits, and not for the reason you imply. Read Infinitesimal by Alexander Amir.
Galileo was a national hero in Italy, in fact he was an enormous figure across the whole of Europe. Giodarno Bruno was burned at the stake in Rome in 1600, Edward Wightman (for heresy) in jolly olde England in 1612.
The Enlightenment did happen in Italy.
> Why was Galileo arrested whereas Newton became a national hero?
Because of the Jesuits, and not for the reason you imply. Read Infinitesimal by Alexander Amir.
Galileo was a national hero in Italy, in fact he was an enormous figure across the whole of Europe. Giodarno Bruno was burned at the stake in Rome in 1600, Edward Wightman (for heresy) in jolly olde England in 1612.
Property rights. It was Tull's land and "they still ignored him" so he fired them.
And yet, people book Uber still. Unfathomable.
Well, to be fair, it's because someone's handing out free money in the form of subsidized rides. The fact that hailing a taxi is more expensive (nevermind less convenient) is a strong argument when the consumer is making a choice.
Wrapped in that argument is the obvious idea that Uber is burning investor money to capture the market, but you can't expect consumers to protest by paying more. That's what's so insidious about market capture; everyone is behaving rationally in their own self interest, but the outcome can become monopolistic, with increasing returns to the monopolist.
That's why it's traditionally been the role of the government to break up monopolies, because the market won't sort itself out. It's just that today's digital monopolies smell a little different, and the appetite for government intervention is lower than it used to be (perhaps because we don't remember catastrophic failings of the market quite as sharply as we used to -- 401ks being decimated is one thing, but bread lines and starvation are another).
So yeah, I think Uber's potentially dangerous. But I use it. Definitely some mental frisson, but I've spent time trying to fathom it and this is the best mental gymnastics I can manage.
Wrapped in that argument is the obvious idea that Uber is burning investor money to capture the market, but you can't expect consumers to protest by paying more. That's what's so insidious about market capture; everyone is behaving rationally in their own self interest, but the outcome can become monopolistic, with increasing returns to the monopolist.
That's why it's traditionally been the role of the government to break up monopolies, because the market won't sort itself out. It's just that today's digital monopolies smell a little different, and the appetite for government intervention is lower than it used to be (perhaps because we don't remember catastrophic failings of the market quite as sharply as we used to -- 401ks being decimated is one thing, but bread lines and starvation are another).
So yeah, I think Uber's potentially dangerous. But I use it. Definitely some mental frisson, but I've spent time trying to fathom it and this is the best mental gymnastics I can manage.
Agreed. As I like to say, Uber screws their drivers (already, but wait for autonomous cars...), Uber screws their competition (subsidised), and their investors, too.
For now, they don't screw their customers, but let's see what happens when they've gotten to monopoly market share.
I've also argued before that it is somewhat of a natural monopoly insofar as the biggest player will typically have more cars nearer you, and their app will offer the shortest waiting time. To combat that, one could regulate taxis like a public utility, and require that all providers submit their data to a register that collates the data and lists all cars and all riders centrally. Then one could have different companies and different apps compete on a level playing field.
Some people disagree with that. I think it boils down to the definition of monopoly (barriers to entry? decreasing marginal cost? network effect? ...?), but at the end of the day definitions don't really matter -- what matters is a better outcome for consumers, and I fear regulation is required for that at some point.
For now, they don't screw their customers, but let's see what happens when they've gotten to monopoly market share.
I've also argued before that it is somewhat of a natural monopoly insofar as the biggest player will typically have more cars nearer you, and their app will offer the shortest waiting time. To combat that, one could regulate taxis like a public utility, and require that all providers submit their data to a register that collates the data and lists all cars and all riders centrally. Then one could have different companies and different apps compete on a level playing field.
Some people disagree with that. I think it boils down to the definition of monopoly (barriers to entry? decreasing marginal cost? network effect? ...?), but at the end of the day definitions don't really matter -- what matters is a better outcome for consumers, and I fear regulation is required for that at some point.
> For now, they don't screw their customers
Dismantling the rule of law in my book counts as screwing up the entire society.
Dismantling the rule of law in my book counts as screwing up the entire society.
How about mp3.coms "Beam-It' offering:
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/1999-...
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued both MP3.com and Napster on behalf of the record labels that they represent (Sony, BMG, EMI, Universal, and Warner). They are keen to point out thought that they are not against MP3 technology, but against the illegal use of it. MP3.com is being sued for their Beam-it online service which allows users to insert a CD into their disc drive, and then download those songs in mp3 format from MP3.com's database of over 80,000 CD's. The RIAA sued them claiming that the company was violating copyright laws by allowing users to download copyright-protected songs. On April 28th, New York District Court Judge Jed Rakoff sided in favor of the RIAA, ruling that MP3.com was liable for copyright infringement. On May 4th, a federal court also sided with the RIAA. According to Cary Sherman, general counsel for the RIAA, "The foundation on which these services are built is an unauthorized digital archive of the most valuable copyrighted recordings in the world. Frankly, it's astonishing that a publicly-traded company would behave so recklessly."
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/1999-...
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued both MP3.com and Napster on behalf of the record labels that they represent (Sony, BMG, EMI, Universal, and Warner). They are keen to point out thought that they are not against MP3 technology, but against the illegal use of it. MP3.com is being sued for their Beam-it online service which allows users to insert a CD into their disc drive, and then download those songs in mp3 format from MP3.com's database of over 80,000 CD's. The RIAA sued them claiming that the company was violating copyright laws by allowing users to download copyright-protected songs. On April 28th, New York District Court Judge Jed Rakoff sided in favor of the RIAA, ruling that MP3.com was liable for copyright infringement. On May 4th, a federal court also sided with the RIAA. According to Cary Sherman, general counsel for the RIAA, "The foundation on which these services are built is an unauthorized digital archive of the most valuable copyrighted recordings in the world. Frankly, it's astonishing that a publicly-traded company would behave so recklessly."
How many H1s are from Somalia or the Sudan?
I agree with your basic points, but on a practical level, how much does this actually affect things for H1 companies? We are talking 7 countries very few of which produce many H1 employees.
I agree with your basic points, but on a practical level, how much does this actually affect things for H1 companies? We are talking 7 countries very few of which produce many H1 employees.
Just the first ripples against the shore of what I expect to be a tsunami of unexpected consequences.
Seems like a golden opportunity for another country to step up and become the "conference center of the world". I'd LOL extra hard if it turned out to be Mexico.
Seems like a golden opportunity for another country to step up and become the "conference center of the world". I'd LOL extra hard if it turned out to be Mexico.
Seems like a golden opportunity for another country to step up and become the "conference center of the world". I'd LOL extra hard if it turned out to be Mexico.
Can I suggest Canada for this purpose? We're a cheaper conference destination than the USA, Europe, or Japan; have a fluently English-speaking population anywhere conferences would be held (most people in Montreal are bilingual); have good infrastructure; and most international visitors to the USA already fly over Canada anyway.
This would be unfortunate for conference attendees from Central and South America, but they're far outnumbered by the conference attendees from Europe and Asia.
Can I suggest Canada for this purpose? We're a cheaper conference destination than the USA, Europe, or Japan; have a fluently English-speaking population anywhere conferences would be held (most people in Montreal are bilingual); have good infrastructure; and most international visitors to the USA already fly over Canada anyway.
This would be unfortunate for conference attendees from Central and South America, but they're far outnumbered by the conference attendees from Europe and Asia.
> already fly over Canada anyway
But holding conferences in Canada would leave many people with few good options, other than to transfer in the USA.
Transiting through an American airport requires a visa, and [1] had her transit visa cancelled last week, leaving her stranded in Costa Rica.
It was policy at my previous employer, which had lots of work in Central America and an international staff, to avoid transiting through Florida, and use Madrid or Panama instead. The hassle wasn't worth at most a minor saving in cost or time.
Southern Europe would be a cheaper location for conferences, with few visa issues, and is also a lot closer to Asia.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38786119
But holding conferences in Canada would leave many people with few good options, other than to transfer in the USA.
Transiting through an American airport requires a visa, and [1] had her transit visa cancelled last week, leaving her stranded in Costa Rica.
It was policy at my previous employer, which had lots of work in Central America and an international staff, to avoid transiting through Florida, and use Madrid or Panama instead. The hassle wasn't worth at most a minor saving in cost or time.
Southern Europe would be a cheaper location for conferences, with few visa issues, and is also a lot closer to Asia.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38786119
As I said, Canada is not ideal for people coming from Central or South America. But I can't think of any other starting point where you'd want to transit the USA rather than taking a direct flight to Canada.
I've noticed a lot of flights from Montreal to Asia will transit through the US. So having to avoid the US probably increase some flight expense?
Of course if the US becomes even worse to transit through airlines will probably route around it.
Of course if the US becomes even worse to transit through airlines will probably route around it.
Let the market decide. There are conferences and trade shows for everything and anything all the time, all over the world. Take your favourite programming thing, there may be some meet up in your local town, it may be just a couple of people, not exactly a 'conference'. You might not be able to go to the big conference in Las Vegas (or wherever) but the conference in Berlin (or wherever) might be the one to attend this year anyway.
There is money in conferences and, if the USA wants to make itself as attractive as North Korea for foreign visitors, then the 'second tier' conferences held elsewhere will become the more important events to attend for non-Americans.
I think this is progress in a way, too many industries have some big U.S. trade show event as the focal point of the year and it is a long way to go to get new customers from your own country/town.
There is money in conferences and, if the USA wants to make itself as attractive as North Korea for foreign visitors, then the 'second tier' conferences held elsewhere will become the more important events to attend for non-Americans.
I think this is progress in a way, too many industries have some big U.S. trade show event as the focal point of the year and it is a long way to go to get new customers from your own country/town.
> This would be unfortunate for conference attendees from Central and South America, but they're far outnumbered by the conference attendees from Europe and Asia.
Then surely, somewhere in Europe or Asia or perhaps wherever the centre of mass of the conference participants happened to fall would be the cheapest destination? I, for one, do not live in the USA, so Canada would definitely not be cheaper than Europe to visit.
Then surely, somewhere in Europe or Asia or perhaps wherever the centre of mass of the conference participants happened to fall would be the cheapest destination? I, for one, do not live in the USA, so Canada would definitely not be cheaper than Europe to visit.
Maybe it's just a matter of which conferences I attend, but my impression is that "conference attendees per capita" is highest for the USA, lower for Europe, and much lower for Asia. If you want to be closest to people in general you'd probably aim for somewhere around Nepal (mind you, it doesn't have very good connectivity for air travel); but being closest to conference attendees is probably going to be between the USA, Europe, and Asia... in other words, Canada.
(As for the cost, when I said "cheaper" I meant in terms of the cost of conference facilities, food, and hotels. Obviously the cost of travel will depend on where someone is starting their trip.)
(As for the cost, when I said "cheaper" I meant in terms of the cost of conference facilities, food, and hotels. Obviously the cost of travel will depend on where someone is starting their trip.)
How much of that is a product of it being much more expensive for someone from Asia to travel to US conferences? I'm in the often forgotten pool of people who can't just expense conference travel with their employer, and that means I don't even consider conferences outside Europe as they'll be prohibitively expensive.
Asia is on the opposite side of the world from the USA. Their cost to attend is highest, when the conference is in the USA.
Check the distances on a globe -- "between the USA, Europe and Asia" is actually the Middle East. If we need to account for additional attendance from North America, then somewhere in Europe is better -- and the south or east cheaper than the north or west.
Check the distances on a globe -- "between the USA, Europe and Asia" is actually the Middle East. If we need to account for additional attendance from North America, then somewhere in Europe is better -- and the south or east cheaper than the north or west.
Check the distances on a globe -- "between the USA, Europe and Asia" is actually the Middle East
You sure about that? Let's take Denver, Frankfurt, and Hong Kong as representatives of USA, Europe, and Asia, since they're somewhat central to the regions and have major airports.
You sure about that? Let's take Denver, Frankfurt, and Hong Kong as representatives of USA, Europe, and Asia, since they're somewhat central to the regions and have major airports.
DEN-YEG: 1019 miles
FRA-YEG: 4559 miles
HKG-YEG: 6504 miles
Total distances to Edmonton: 12531 miles
DEN-DXB: 7771 miles
FRA-DXB: 3012 miles
HKG-DXB: 3684 miles
Total distances to Dubai: 14467 miles
LOL @ Edmonton vs Dubai comparison.
A big chunk of Edmonton internatonal connections route through the US airports -- SEA, MSP, DEN, ORD, SFO, etc. Unless Edmonton airport becomes a major global air hub like Dubai, this is just plain laughable. The actual distance in miles is not the primary concern by far. Not to mention the sheer uncompetitiveness of Canadian airline industry and airports in general. Canada is the most expensive air destination in the world.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2931748/international-flights-from...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commen...
A big chunk of Edmonton internatonal connections route through the US airports -- SEA, MSP, DEN, ORD, SFO, etc. Unless Edmonton airport becomes a major global air hub like Dubai, this is just plain laughable. The actual distance in miles is not the primary concern by far. Not to mention the sheer uncompetitiveness of Canadian airline industry and airports in general. Canada is the most expensive air destination in the world.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2931748/international-flights-from...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commen...
> We're a cheaper conference destination than the USA, Europe, or Japan
Errr, our field's major conf is in Vancouver every other year and those hotel rooms are crazy pants expensive.
Errr, our field's major conf is in Vancouver every other year and those hotel rooms are crazy pants expensive.
Canada can require you to give up your phone password when entering. As far as I heard, the US does not require that (but can confiscate your phone). Is there possibly another country that doesn't require it?
US CBP definitely can ask for your passcode/passwords. There was a post on HN last week about a guy who refused to turn over his passcode: https://vc.gg/blog/so-its-been-a-while.html
Yes, the US can ask for you password, but they can't require you to give up your password. If you don't give your password, they confiscate your device. In Canada, if you don't give your password they can charge you with a crime and you can spend up to a year in jail.
Kidding? Ref please?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/alain-philippon-phone-password-case-p...
For more sources google canada phone password. Tons of results.
For more sources google canada phone password. Tons of results.
There's this show about the Canadian border services and they regularly go through people's phones: 'Border Security'
And computers too, some French guy was caught with "anime porn" on his hard drive at the border, went to prison for a few month.
Canadian customs once searched my brother's laptop at the border, in his presence, and their method was as trivial as doing a Windows file search for "boy" and "girl".
Well, Mexico and Chile also have visa free entry into Canada now, so it would actually be a net improvement for Latin American countries as well (and I see no reason, specially with the current government, that Canada could not eventually negotiate visa-free transit with Argentina and/or Brazil next)
A strong "+1" to this. Plus, there are quite a few strong CS and engineering universities in Canada, so it's not as if the intellectual environment will have to be created from scratch.
Why do you think Canada wouldn't be as good for Central or South Americans? There are flights to Central and South America from almost everywhere in Canada. I speak Spanish in Canada often.
Two reasons. First, flying to Canada is simply a longer flight. Second, the USA has some rules concerning passengers on flights in US airspace; it's possible that people who couldn't attend a conference in the USA wouldn't be allowed to fly over the USA either.
They mostly seem to have issues with flights that transit through the US, which you can avoid.
But the TSA requires airlines to list all passengers on flights travelling over US airspace, and can instruct an airline not to allow specific passengers onto that flight (or, presumably, not allow that airline to fly over its airspace).
That seems grossly excessive.
The TSA are just the goons who search passengers at the airport. They have nothing to do with what you've talking about.
The TSA are not goons. They are just doing their job. If you have a problem with what they do, talk to their boss or vote for the right person.
Most of the TSA people I know are normal people and have families,kids and stressful job with passengers being aggressive at them for no fault of theirs.
Most of the TSA people I know are normal people and have families,kids and stressful job with passengers being aggressive at them for no fault of theirs.
They're only following orders? I feel like I've heard that one before, I just can't remember when.
TSA employees are free to quit and find another job that doesn't involve fleecing the public to create security theatre, harassing people for no good reason, etc. They choose not to, and they are responsible for their choices.
TSA employees are free to quit and find another job that doesn't involve fleecing the public to create security theatre, harassing people for no good reason, etc. They choose not to, and they are responsible for their choices.
> They are just doing their job
The US does not regard this as a valid excuse. Cf. the Nuremberg trials.
The US does not regard this as a valid excuse. Cf. the Nuremberg trials.
[deleted]
A few years ago I raised the idea (on Twitter) of Iceland being a nice "neutral" venue that's equally (in)convenient for both US and European attendees, very liberal and progressive, and, at the time, cheap for a Nordic country.
I have since seen a handful of industry conferences take place there, but it hasn't really blown up (one reason, I suspect, is it's reasonably expensive to stay there now - Iceland's decline did not last long!)
I have since seen a handful of industry conferences take place there, but it hasn't really blown up (one reason, I suspect, is it's reasonably expensive to stay there now - Iceland's decline did not last long!)
I've actually organized a machine learning conference in Iceland (AISTATS and MLSS 2014), and I can probably shed some light on this.
One, it's hideously expensive now, for almost anyone in the world. Second, it's incredibly small -- 320,000 people in the entire country, and maybe 220,000 of those in the Reykjavik area. Due to the "big fish in a small pond" aspect of Reykjavik being the capital, there's more infrastructure than you'd expect from a city of 200,000 people, but not that much more.
NIPS draws something like 3500 attendees now. I'm not sure there are 3500 hotel rooms in the country of Iceland. I struggled to find a venue that could host 10% of that for AISTATS. AISTATS is single-track which requires one big room, but there would have been very few options for finding a room big enough for just the deep learning breakaways at NIPS.
Aside from that, it's great. We did draw more people from the US than typical AISTATS European years had done, and it's a beautiful country for visitors to enjoy. But I don't think it's capable of becoming a major world conference center at the moment.
One, it's hideously expensive now, for almost anyone in the world. Second, it's incredibly small -- 320,000 people in the entire country, and maybe 220,000 of those in the Reykjavik area. Due to the "big fish in a small pond" aspect of Reykjavik being the capital, there's more infrastructure than you'd expect from a city of 200,000 people, but not that much more.
NIPS draws something like 3500 attendees now. I'm not sure there are 3500 hotel rooms in the country of Iceland. I struggled to find a venue that could host 10% of that for AISTATS. AISTATS is single-track which requires one big room, but there would have been very few options for finding a room big enough for just the deep learning breakaways at NIPS.
Aside from that, it's great. We did draw more people from the US than typical AISTATS European years had done, and it's a beautiful country for visitors to enjoy. But I don't think it's capable of becoming a major world conference center at the moment.
Fantastic response and insights. Thanks!
The next most important start-up hub after SF is Beijing. It's much more affordable than SF, but there are other concerns with hosting conferences there such as pollution, speech and media controls and a lot of regulation in general.
edit: I had no idea there was so much China hate here. I'm no fan of certain policies of the government, believe me. I hate the GFW with a passion. But the entrepreneurial community is incredible. There's a lot of skill at the high end and awe-inspiring levels of fearlessness and ambition.
edit: I had no idea there was so much China hate here. I'm no fan of certain policies of the government, believe me. I hate the GFW with a passion. But the entrepreneurial community is incredible. There's a lot of skill at the high end and awe-inspiring levels of fearlessness and ambition.
I've been to a conference in mainland China. The firewall made it completely miserable (it was a tech conference). People from the west expect to be able to use Google/gmail/hangouts/github/ssh for more than 5 minute random bursts of connectivity.
You can't expect people to go to tech conferences in those garbage conditions.
You can't expect people to go to tech conferences in those garbage conditions.
DevCon2? Lots of people on /r/ethereum were upset that videos of the talks were not available for weeks afterwards because it was in Shanghai.
No, it was for developing infrastructure tooling (e.g. K8s, docker, etc), all of which was mainly hosted on github.
Sounds like it's not an uncommon problem. Frankly I think the conferences are only as successful as they are because of the volume of mainland Chinese citizens and the novelty of a trip to mainland China for people outside of the country.
Sounds like it's not an uncommon problem. Frankly I think the conferences are only as successful as they are because of the volume of mainland Chinese citizens and the novelty of a trip to mainland China for people outside of the country.
That would be great for conferences if it wasn't for everything you mentioned plus high levels of govt corruption and IP theft. The lack of open Internet alone is enough that the vast majority of conferences simply cannot be held there.
It's not "China hate" when there's legitimate reasons.
It's not "China hate" when there's legitimate reasons.
In what way is Beijing a legitimate counterpoint to an American lurch toward despotism?
..like being able to use unfiltered internet?
pollution?
CamperBob2(1)
Like the 20+ hours of travel to get there?
From where does it take 20 hours to get to Beijing? SFO to Beijing is just over half that.
You're already on the Pacific coast. Not everyone on the planet is.
Under optimal circumstances, not including airport time which can be considerable, flight time between New York and Shanghai is 15 hours.
Add in a few hours to check-in, clear customs, plus other nonsense and you're up to 18. Under ideal circumstances.
Under optimal circumstances, not including airport time which can be considerable, flight time between New York and Shanghai is 15 hours.
Add in a few hours to check-in, clear customs, plus other nonsense and you're up to 18. Under ideal circumstances.
I'm not sure what Shanghai has to do with a discussion about travel time to Beijing. New York to Beijing is about 13-13.5 hours.
You claimed 20 hours. I'm asked 'from where' and you weren't able to answer.
I'm not suggesting Beijing is the ideal conference location, even though I live there, but there's no need to spread FUD about how it can take such a long time for a developer to reach there.
Oh, and it takes me the same time to get to SF as it takes an SF-based developer to get to Beijing. Hotels are cheaper in Beijing. Salaries are higher in SF.
You claimed 20 hours. I'm asked 'from where' and you weren't able to answer.
I'm not suggesting Beijing is the ideal conference location, even though I live there, but there's no need to spread FUD about how it can take such a long time for a developer to reach there.
Oh, and it takes me the same time to get to SF as it takes an SF-based developer to get to Beijing. Hotels are cheaper in Beijing. Salaries are higher in SF.
While it is a great location, Iceland is not "cheap for a Nordic country" anymore. They picked up, and isolation does not come for free.
No one has mentioned Singapore yet. It's easier for most people to get there than to Australasia. And, in the scheme of hereditary fascist dictators, the Lees are comparatively sane ;-)
Spain makes the most sense. Geographically, more or less. And economically too, I think.
I was thinking of Spain too. I went to a conference in Madrid last year and was pleasantly surprised by how many people there were from Spanish-speaking Latin America, far more than I usually see at conferences. At the same time, it's easy enough to get to for most of Europe and not too far from North America either.
Then again, I'm sure it's a nightmare for people from Oceania. Our planet is really inconvenient in that regard, what with being round and all…
Then again, I'm sure it's a nightmare for people from Oceania. Our planet is really inconvenient in that regard, what with being round and all…
Unfortunately for me, being in New Zealand, Spain is literally as far away as you can get.
Sorry, I was thinking global weighted average.
Agree. Barcelona has huge hotel and conference infrastructure (plus easy to fly to directly from most places or connect via Madrid).
It better fucking not be Dubai.
This is a great opportunity for Canadian, Australian and top European universities to step up their game.
Some universities in these regions have solid reputations but lacked the star-power of top US univs. Hosting a few ACM conferences will shoot them on top of global map.
Just checked, ACM is already on it: https://www.acm.org/conferences
Some universities in these regions have solid reputations but lacked the star-power of top US univs. Hosting a few ACM conferences will shoot them on top of global map.
Just checked, ACM is already on it: https://www.acm.org/conferences
Do universities that don't have to rely on the money they get form international students have the same incentives as US universities?
From what I read that's a major consideration for US universities why they want to attract foreign students. For German universities that would only be of marginal concern, even if/when they take some money from foreign students it's just pocket change and not nearly enough to finance the institution to a substantial extend. Sure they still have an incentive, but it's much less and not monetary.
I think, that's what I get from what I've been reading in comments over the years.
From what I read that's a major consideration for US universities why they want to attract foreign students. For German universities that would only be of marginal concern, even if/when they take some money from foreign students it's just pocket change and not nearly enough to finance the institution to a substantial extend. Sure they still have an incentive, but it's much less and not monetary.
I think, that's what I get from what I've been reading in comments over the years.
At least in the UK international students are a big chunk of a decent university's income. Tuition fees for UK residents are capped, while there's no limit to how much a good university can charge Russian oligarchs to educate their children.
There are some issues around that, specifically with business departments being disproportionately well funded, but it does mean that other departments also have more money to work with than they would otherwise.
There are some issues around that, specifically with business departments being disproportionately well funded, but it does mean that other departments also have more money to work with than they would otherwise.
I know that the UK situation for tuition is comparable to the one in the US. My points is about universities in countries that don't have that financial incentive and pressure. The UK is just one small somewhat "special" country in Europe.
The difference between European countries can be quite high (http://www.mastersportal.eu/articles/405/tuition-fees-at-uni...), so my comment wasn't about any one in particular. When I look at just Germany even within the same country there is a lot of variation depending on the university and the particular program. But in general universities in many European countries don't rely on income from foreign students to the extend that US universities seem to do.
The difference between European countries can be quite high (http://www.mastersportal.eu/articles/405/tuition-fees-at-uni...), so my comment wasn't about any one in particular. When I look at just Germany even within the same country there is a lot of variation depending on the university and the particular program. But in general universities in many European countries don't rely on income from foreign students to the extend that US universities seem to do.
"I know that the UK situation for tuition is comparable to the one in the US"
The rules around university tuition do differ quite a bit depending on where you are in the UK.
e.g. Scottish students or students from the EU outside of the rest of the UK do not pay fees at Scottish universities.
The rules around university tuition do differ quite a bit depending on where you are in the UK.
e.g. Scottish students or students from the EU outside of the rest of the UK do not pay fees at Scottish universities.
The top few business schools can also get UK citizens to pay £51,000 for a one year MBA course [1] so I think they'd be pretty well funded even without international students.
[1] https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/programmes/mba/facts-faqs/#item-4
[1] https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/programmes/mba/facts-faqs/#item-4
No, because I suspect most of their students are non-UK, and you're not going to suddenly magic up a several-hundred percent increase in UK citizens wanting to do a ridiculously expensive MBA.
It's a similar situation for Australian universities. Foreign students are considered a major cash cow.
For top schools, money is secondary to building and maintaining reputation and leadership in research. Money comes as a consequence of being leaders,
Think of Carnegie Mellon Robotics professors and grad students poached by Uber. Think of top graph computer scientists who joined Facebook and Google early on.
A lot of this men and women were bright international students/professors flocking to top US univs. These bright people (directly and indirectly) invited budding geniuses from their home countries to come to these univs in the US.
A lot of countries would love to have such a concentration of bright talent (and the network effects) in their univs.
Think of Carnegie Mellon Robotics professors and grad students poached by Uber. Think of top graph computer scientists who joined Facebook and Google early on.
A lot of this men and women were bright international students/professors flocking to top US univs. These bright people (directly and indirectly) invited budding geniuses from their home countries to come to these univs in the US.
A lot of countries would love to have such a concentration of bright talent (and the network effects) in their univs.
> For top schools, money is secondary to building and maintaining reputation and leadership in research. Money comes as a consequence of being leaders,
This is not quite exactly how it works in Europe, though. Money is channeled through national/EU government, one way or another.
This is not quite exactly how it works in Europe, though. Money is channeled through national/EU government, one way or another.
I know from a reliable source that foreign student enrollment for the spring semester is way down in one significant university in the US.
It's not just tuition fees.
Consider that cities with top-league universities also have deep links with industry. Oxford and Cambridge —as examples I'm familiar with— both have off-site science parks, secondary research centres. Many tech companies host labs there and operate PhD programmes that link in with the universities.
That has driven the growth of these cities for a century.
All because these universities have the best and brightest. Take away those, and I can only imagine the business support will dwindle.
Consider that cities with top-league universities also have deep links with industry. Oxford and Cambridge —as examples I'm familiar with— both have off-site science parks, secondary research centres. Many tech companies host labs there and operate PhD programmes that link in with the universities.
That has driven the growth of these cities for a century.
All because these universities have the best and brightest. Take away those, and I can only imagine the business support will dwindle.
I'm a bit amazed by the panic here on HN about the blocked Visa's. I mean, I do agree that the initiative is retarded, but it's not like under Obama residents from Iran or Sudan could get in an out of the USA whenever they wanted.
In my last job in the Netherlands I had an Iranian colleague who tried for seven years in a row to get a Visum to go to the USA, without success. The situation was already very difficult under Obama, Trump's recent initiative is not as big a change as some make it appear.
In my last job in the Netherlands I had an Iranian colleague who tried for seven years in a row to get a Visum to go to the USA, without success. The situation was already very difficult under Obama, Trump's recent initiative is not as big a change as some make it appear.
Situation A: it's hard for me to get a VISA.
Situation B: I have been a permanent resident for years, own a house and a cat, my family are citizens, I went to Europe for a few days and now the border authorities detain me and want to send me to Iran.
How big does it have to be?
Situation B: I have been a permanent resident for years, own a house and a cat, my family are citizens, I went to Europe for a few days and now the border authorities detain me and want to send me to Iran.
How big does it have to be?
Horrible as B is, it's even worse than that:
> Even though they were ignorant of the termination [of their visas while in transit], they were still charged with violating U.S. immigration law and given a five-year ban to future admission.
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/29/trumps-muslim-ban-trigge...
> Even though they were ignorant of the termination [of their visas while in transit], they were still charged with violating U.S. immigration law and given a five-year ban to future admission.
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/29/trumps-muslim-ban-trigge...
My colleague is from Iran but live and work in my country (in the EU). Last year my company were sponsoring a tech conference in the US and him and a few of my other colleagues were going to attend the conference (he's the lead engeener on a product that we were going to publicise at the conference). He was denied entry to the US simply because he was from Iran, so it hasn't been all roses. But now it has just reached insane levels.
I agree this is overlooked. I know of a research group at a high-profile university in Europe that had to hide the fact they had a key team member from Iran when they applied for using a large US supercomputer. IIRC this was back in 2013. So they got a user account for one European-born team member, who gave the login details to the Iranian person who then did the actual work on the supercomputer.
You should not post details of international fraud in public forums buddy.
Meh. I have no relation to the university in question, I don't know any names of those involved; the story was told to me by a casual acquaintance some years back, who had heard it from someone else etc. so it's hardly substantive details. If the CIA want to investigate every Iranian who used to be in some undisclosed European university half a decade ago (probably tens of thousands of people, with no central records to tap; said person might just be visiting for some months and not registered anywhere), on the basis of internet hearsay, they can be my guest.
Even coming from Europe it can be hard getting in the US (source: romanian gf).
The uproar is not about blocked visas.
That's right, surely the uproar is about all the bombing and killing that the US has been doing in 5 of the 7 countries listed on the visa ban list.
I mean human lives are worth more than visas right? And if that bombing had never happened, we wouldn't have the humanitarian crisis that led to so many refugees coming from those countries.
Well, at least that's what I wish more people were concerned about, but where were the protests when the Nobel peace prize winning president was doing those things? It was met largely with silence, and definitely not large scale protests.
I mean human lives are worth more than visas right? And if that bombing had never happened, we wouldn't have the humanitarian crisis that led to so many refugees coming from those countries.
Well, at least that's what I wish more people were concerned about, but where were the protests when the Nobel peace prize winning president was doing those things? It was met largely with silence, and definitely not large scale protests.
I'm amazed by the cognitive dissonance necessary to equate people who are legal permanent residents of the United States with militants who are the targets of military action in ISIS-controlled territory.
I also think it's hilarious that the right is now all of a sudden pretending to give a shit about all the "bombing and killing the US has been doing" when they clearly supported the invasion of Iraq and all the military actions in the Middle East undertaken by Bush that have lead us to where we are today.
I also think it's hilarious that the right is now all of a sudden pretending to give a shit about all the "bombing and killing the US has been doing" when they clearly supported the invasion of Iraq and all the military actions in the Middle East undertaken by Bush that have lead us to where we are today.
Firstly, I'm not on the right. I used to consider myself on the left, but given the Left's recent behaviour I no longer feel I belong there either. I'm also not from the US.
I am however of Muslim heritage. My parents are Muslim (though not the middle-eastern variety) but they encouraged me and my siblings to make our own choice regarding religion (not all Islam is as strict on this as is made out). I chose not to follow a religion, though from a cultural perspective there are aspects that are still a part of who I am.
With that out of the way, I will say that it takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to believe that the US is only bombing militants [0].
I mean sure bombing that hospital was an accident, and it doesn't happen all that often and the US would never bomb innocent civilians right? After all the official count of civilian casualties due to bombing is very low, right?
Of course it is, because thanks to the previous administration, all military aged men killed by drones are automatically assumed to be military combatants regardless of whether they were or not [1].
And so with stroke of a pen, innocent civilian casualties caused by drone strikes are reduced to single digits.
And last year the US dropped an average of 3 bombs an hour on mostly Muslim countries [2], including 5 that are on the current visa ban list, but where was the concern for the citizens of these countries then?
The above two items are a far worse affront than the temporary visa ban Trump has instituted, but where was the outrage? the protests? the monthly donations worth thousands of dollars to the ACLU? the tears from senators? the acceptance speeches of celebrities calling out the president?
That a visa ban can cause more outrage than either of the above two items makes me angry, and frankly, strikes me as little more than political opportunism and/or people being easily manipulated by political opportunists, rather than genuine concern for the well-being of Muslims.
End the Muslim visa ban! I hear. Personally I'd rather end all the bombing of Muslim countries that led to this mess in the first place.
I might not like Trump and I might not like this visa ban, but at least one of Trump's campaign messages was to get the US out of foreign wars and to stop with its policy of foreign regime change.
The last 10 days have shown that Trump is intent on following through with his campaign promises and if he can fulfill that one, then a temporary visa ban, although inconvenient to many, is an acceptable cost.
--
0: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/asia/afghanistan-bo...
1: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-ob...
2: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/americ...
I am however of Muslim heritage. My parents are Muslim (though not the middle-eastern variety) but they encouraged me and my siblings to make our own choice regarding religion (not all Islam is as strict on this as is made out). I chose not to follow a religion, though from a cultural perspective there are aspects that are still a part of who I am.
With that out of the way, I will say that it takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to believe that the US is only bombing militants [0].
I mean sure bombing that hospital was an accident, and it doesn't happen all that often and the US would never bomb innocent civilians right? After all the official count of civilian casualties due to bombing is very low, right?
Of course it is, because thanks to the previous administration, all military aged men killed by drones are automatically assumed to be military combatants regardless of whether they were or not [1].
And so with stroke of a pen, innocent civilian casualties caused by drone strikes are reduced to single digits.
And last year the US dropped an average of 3 bombs an hour on mostly Muslim countries [2], including 5 that are on the current visa ban list, but where was the concern for the citizens of these countries then?
The above two items are a far worse affront than the temporary visa ban Trump has instituted, but where was the outrage? the protests? the monthly donations worth thousands of dollars to the ACLU? the tears from senators? the acceptance speeches of celebrities calling out the president?
That a visa ban can cause more outrage than either of the above two items makes me angry, and frankly, strikes me as little more than political opportunism and/or people being easily manipulated by political opportunists, rather than genuine concern for the well-being of Muslims.
End the Muslim visa ban! I hear. Personally I'd rather end all the bombing of Muslim countries that led to this mess in the first place.
I might not like Trump and I might not like this visa ban, but at least one of Trump's campaign messages was to get the US out of foreign wars and to stop with its policy of foreign regime change.
The last 10 days have shown that Trump is intent on following through with his campaign promises and if he can fulfill that one, then a temporary visa ban, although inconvenient to many, is an acceptable cost.
--
0: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/asia/afghanistan-bo...
1: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-ob...
2: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/americ...
If you're not on the right it must be an enormous coincidence that you're repeating the same conservative talking point being posted all over HN and the internet.
No one believes the US is only bombing militants, but obviously they are not intentionally targeting civilians either. The bombing of the hospital was clearly a huge, unfortunate mistake, but somehow has been twisted by those with an agenda into "Obama has a policy of bombing hospitals", which is absurd.
For the record I was opposed to Bush's original invasion of Iraq and subsequent military actions in the Middle East, along with Obama's (and now Trump's) continuation of said military actions (including the aforementioned use of drone strikes), and I fully agree that America should get the hell out of the Middle East because we're clearly doing more harm than good in the region.
That being said, Trump's blanket ban targeted normal, lawful permanent residents living in the United States, and as implemented left them stranded and unable to return home to their families if they happened to be outside of the country on Friday, for no reason other than what passport they happen to hold, so I think it's entirely understandable why people are so strongly opposed to it.
No one believes the US is only bombing militants, but obviously they are not intentionally targeting civilians either. The bombing of the hospital was clearly a huge, unfortunate mistake, but somehow has been twisted by those with an agenda into "Obama has a policy of bombing hospitals", which is absurd.
For the record I was opposed to Bush's original invasion of Iraq and subsequent military actions in the Middle East, along with Obama's (and now Trump's) continuation of said military actions (including the aforementioned use of drone strikes), and I fully agree that America should get the hell out of the Middle East because we're clearly doing more harm than good in the region.
That being said, Trump's blanket ban targeted normal, lawful permanent residents living in the United States, and as implemented left them stranded and unable to return home to their families if they happened to be outside of the country on Friday, for no reason other than what passport they happen to hold, so I think it's entirely understandable why people are so strongly opposed to it.
> If you're not on the right it must be an enormous coincidence that you're repeating the same conservative talking point being posted all over HN and the internet
Enormous coincidence it is then. Or perhaps your assumption that it's only conservatives/people on the right making those points is in error?
Enormous coincidence it is then. Or perhaps your assumption that it's only conservatives/people on the right making those points is in error?
Well, so far I've only seen conservatives attempt to make the massively flawed argument: "well Obama has already been bombing these countries, so who cares about a few visas?" as if they were referring to the same groups of people.
Clearly because the bombing didn't negatively affect the type of people that middle-class professionals know. In fact, quite the opposite; the profits made from selling weapons to the US government to bomb everywhere, or to the Saudis to bomb Yemen, one of the poorest countries in the world, or to various dictators to pacify their own populations, those profits provide that middle-class professional lifestyle for many.
And often, our middle-class friends from other countries are actually connected to those dictatorial regimes, because those regimes choose who gets to be middle-class in those countries.
And often, our middle-class friends from other countries are actually connected to those dictatorial regimes, because those regimes choose who gets to be middle-class in those countries.
Ding ding, there's the cynical and at least partly correct answer - Obama bombing poor Muslims while acting like it's a pained #LesserEvil choice was a-OK with liberals: shrug & grimace and let's go back to a craft beer at Moral HighGround Cafe. Trump gleefully doing a 90 day transit suspension on Ivy-league/Silicon Valley Muslim PhDs?! A Hitlerian crime against humanity!
Don't get me wrong, I think this order, especially applied to LPRs, is crap. But having been deported from a country before for what I considered an unjust cause, I'll take that over being drone bombed to death any day of the week. And yes your average citizen of Yemen likely already had a better chance having a US (via Saudi) weapon dropped on their head than being granted a visa.
Don't get me wrong, I think this order, especially applied to LPRs, is crap. But having been deported from a country before for what I considered an unjust cause, I'll take that over being drone bombed to death any day of the week. And yes your average citizen of Yemen likely already had a better chance having a US (via Saudi) weapon dropped on their head than being granted a visa.
The funny story is after friday's EO this is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't": if you hold the conference in the US, people with links to banned countries can not attend (and anyone arab-looking will get hassled), if you hold it outside US residents with links to banned countries can not attend either as there's a significant chance they would not be able to return.
I suspect the latter population is much smaller than the former, but still a shit situation for a conference organiser, no matter how you do it you will effectively prevent a fraction of possible attendees out, unless you have your conf' right on a border I guess but I doubt that's really possible.
What is the "border status" of Puerto Rico, could that be an option? Or maybe a nearby carribean island which US residents could reach by board from Puerto Rico without hassle going back?
I suspect the latter population is much smaller than the former, but still a shit situation for a conference organiser, no matter how you do it you will effectively prevent a fraction of possible attendees out, unless you have your conf' right on a border I guess but I doubt that's really possible.
What is the "border status" of Puerto Rico, could that be an option? Or maybe a nearby carribean island which US residents could reach by board from Puerto Rico without hassle going back?
You're right that it's an unpleasant situation to be in, but I think it's a fairly easy decision. One option excludes attendees, condones racist border policies, and brings business to the US, the other option does not condone the policies, makes it clear that inclusivity matters to the conference organisers, and to a small extent, boycotts US business.
Australia and New Zealand.
That way if the world ends while you're away you'll be able to read about it in the morning
That way if the world ends while you're away you'll be able to read about it in the morning
Wouldn't hosting in the US still make the most practical sense because it has by far the most software developers, and the middle Eastern countries involved don't really contain many at all?
I don't like the EO, but doesn't this just ignore reality?
I don't like the EO, but doesn't this just ignore reality?
The EO is cruel and irrational and is something I'm firmly against. It makes sense to not host your conference in the USA for moral reasons.
But, on the other hand, a lot of Americans don't have passports or their employment contracts will only reimburse a number of domestic (non-international) conferences a year. The set of those people who would be excluded probably exceeds the set of attendees from the 7 countries in question. So I'm not convinced it makes sense to do this just from a conference attendance standpoint.
But, on the other hand, a lot of Americans don't have passports or their employment contracts will only reimburse a number of domestic (non-international) conferences a year. The set of those people who would be excluded probably exceeds the set of attendees from the 7 countries in question. So I'm not convinced it makes sense to do this just from a conference attendance standpoint.
> a lot of Americans don't have passports [...] set of people who would be excluded
Let's keep it real: The contributors to a global science conference are unlikely to be people who don't have passports - and in case that happens, getting passports in the US is as easy as filling in a form and driving down to the local post office.
Whereas even getting a business travel visa to the US is a month-long bureaucratic nightmare for 80% of the world's population (basically everyone bar EU, Japan, Korea and AU/NZ/CA).
Let's keep it real: The contributors to a global science conference are unlikely to be people who don't have passports - and in case that happens, getting passports in the US is as easy as filling in a form and driving down to the local post office.
Whereas even getting a business travel visa to the US is a month-long bureaucratic nightmare for 80% of the world's population (basically everyone bar EU, Japan, Korea and AU/NZ/CA).
I'm voting for Amsterdam. My fav conference of the year is Django under the Hood. The Dutch are supernice and the restaurant scene fabulous.
Schiphol has a very bad reputation for its security theater, either.
Can you elaborate? In what sense is the security theater at Schiphol worse than the average (European) airport?
Every country should have their own primary tech conference, in a de-globalizing world.
It's pretty clear. The return of nation state sovereignty and de-globalization is on the rise from the brexit, trump, le pen, modi, duarte, putin are all anti-globalists.
This isn't some abstract thing, it already affects participation of key people right now ([1]). Tragedy is, the chair/hoster of eg. the Balisage conference (what [1] is about) is as much opposed against Trump policies as could be (eg. [2] which is really devastating). This doesn't look well for US cloud ventures, at all.
[1]: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/201701/maillist.html
[2]: https://norman.walsh.name/
[1]: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/201701/maillist.html
[2]: https://norman.walsh.name/
Im heading to a US security conference in a couple weeks. I really dont want to go but have to meet with a client there. If i am given any guff at the boarder im going to tell that client why we can no longer do business.
So... It's impossible to just hold two conferences? One in the States and one outside? Call me unreasonable, but it seems like then you could just go to the one that's safe for you.
Side note: Could the mods remove "?m=1" from the URL? On a mobile device, the URL without that GET parameter redirects to the URL with that parameter to show the mobile site. On a non-mobile device, the URL with the parameter looks rather different from the URL without the parameter.
Do we need conferences at all?
Define "need". Do you need to breathe? Only if you think you need to live, and the only reason you want to live is that you are wired that way (selection bias, all those who didn't care enough have been removed). Life isn't something objective, you can just decide on what's important to you, as long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to go on living it does not matter. Some people like cats, some people like ice cream. Some people like to talk to other people in their field in person and go to conferences or far-away meetings. Some people go far away for no reason at all (vacation)!
Need as in "do they offer worthwhile value", which I'm sure anyone not being overly pedantic would assume.
You don't gain anything by seeing a live talk that you wouldn't on YouTube for instance. It's weird that so many of us work from home but insist on traveling to see a stage show.
You don't gain anything by seeing a live talk that you wouldn't on YouTube for instance. It's weird that so many of us work from home but insist on traveling to see a stage show.
The value of conferences isn't in sitting through talks. Depending on whether or not you need conferences depends on how much you value networking. If you want to network, then yes, conferences are hugely valuable.
Not just networking. Actually talking to the guy who wrote that interesting paper gives so much more than just watching the guy talk about his paper.
The talks are a side show. Conferences are about meeting people in your field (including those people who gave the talk) and talking face-to-face about all kinds of cool and interesting ideas.
>It's weird that so many of us work from home but insist on traveling to see a stage show.
Isn't the interpersonal connection and networking from meeting together at a conference what's really important? The added value of a conference isn't so much what is heard from a speaker but the interaction one is afforded while there.
Isn't the interpersonal connection and networking from meeting together at a conference what's really important? The added value of a conference isn't so much what is heard from a speaker but the interaction one is afforded while there.
If that's all you get out of conferences, you're correct.
There appear to be enough people disagreeing with you to imply that that is not the full value prop.
There appear to be enough people disagreeing with you to imply that that is not the full value prop.
"do they offer worthwhile value"
Probably it is time for VR to kick in.
He loses all credibility by boastfully declaring himself "christian." He is guilty of the same elitism he decries the u.s. policy for.
Give him the benefit of the doubt. It's something he's proud of and wants to be identified with. Besides, it's not even in the post itself. I don't see at all that this is some kind of declaration of elitism, any more than the "Hacker" and "Repatriated Kiwi" are. I could interpret those uncharitably as well, but would consider it crass to do so, particularly without knowing more about him.