my takeaway from FIRE is that it's largely about getting your spending under control (easier to reduce spending by $50K than earn $50K post-tax) and then getting enough of a cushion to do something better for you personally or the world that might not pay as much as your old job.
so some people that did nothing but sit on the beach after FIREing may be uneasy, but a lot of people transition into other fields that just aren't necessarily as lucrative.
> “I don’t have confidence that DoD could build a unique texting system with proper security protocols that would beat any commercial, off the shelf, version,” the former official said.
so $700B in defense spending can't match some motivated, talented FLOSS devs? that's rich.
wow, i'm just sitting here imagining there are 150 applicants to 100 jobs and reading a response like this. "you need to work harder - a lot of people are just not that talented to employers - why aren't you outcompeting the others?" this seems straight up victim blaming.
if there are 150 applicants and 100 jobs, there are 50 people who miss out. waging war to "one up" those other 149 (or 99 i guess) is certainly an avenue of possible pursuit but is likely to lead to misery IME.
alternatively, removing yourself from a systematically horrible situation is probably pareto optimal. if there are 100 jobs and 80 applicants, you're suddenly in a way better situation.
if you make six figures and can work remotely, the world is literally your oyster. there are opportunities to arbitrage your income and freedom and create the life you want - but it starts outside SFBA.
nice setup. personally i've moved to a two device solution in two physical different places, where the "serious" device has /etc/hosts black holing of addictive domains + social media; were i able to consume it in a healthy manner on a mobile device, the iOS rule would be great.
> I guess you could say that free speech has limits that are acceptable.
widely known and not really legally disputed.
> You know you can't yell fire in a crowded room and not get litigation and charges brought against you.
this seems like empty rhetoric; we already know that there are classes of speech that aren't 1A protected. this isn't controversial.
> If 8Chan was a breeding ground for Islamic Extremists would people be okay with still existing?
whether or not people "are okay" with something isn't relevant when discussing the legality of said thing, which seems to be what the rest of your post is focused on. so this seems like a red herring, or alternatively, the rest of your post was a red herring.
if your line of reasoning about the closure is legally oriented, then i'm sure you can find lots of things people aren't okay with, e.g. campaign finance.
no, it's likely you're either on a mobile device or your cookies are set so that it's redirecting you to it. the non-mobile version works fine and is clearly different.
i'm sorry but this comment reads like a puff piece. the red flag for me was when you simultaneously claimed that economics is complicated and then almost immediately... make an economic claim?
look, i get that you want to signal positive sentiment towards immigrants. that's great. but it's not at all clear what you're saying is true - one would need to factor in inflation, minimum wage growth, purchasing power, and things of that nature.
there's also the other (darker?) side of the coin, which indicates that in the US, there isn't nearly enough opportunity for US citizens to bridge the gap between where they are and to get prepared for these jobs. that's a black eye on our education system mostly, but it should be emphasized every time something like this is under discussion - given the incredible demand for these roles and the incredible amount of people not in the labor force who actually want a job, we really, really ought to be focusing on education here so as to fill these roles with US citizens.
that's a pretty nice red herring you've introduced there my friend!
you haven't addressed any of the points i've brought up, but instead introduced a very tangential (possibly true) fact.
reflect for a moment on what i've said above. you are introducing a dichotomy that isn't accurate and justifying it by saying "something is better than nothing", which is the same corporate rationale for having a .000001% tax rate, states going crazy to attract huge companies, and so forth.
the whole idea of "just moving the jobs offshore" doesn't really come out to be as simple as you have equated here. there's often time zone differences, cultural difference, a simple inability to do work (e.g. anything requiring access to physical infrastructure, any client-facing meetings, etc.)
it's not like you can flip a switch and get a fully functioning setup, even with something like development.
we've seen this charade with foxconn, amazon, etc. turns out that the whole "highest bidder competitions" turn out to be not-so-thinly veiled con jobs where basically everyone but the corp loses aside from some marginal people like property holders.