I didn't do it alone of course (probably a dozen people have worked on the UI, and hundreds on the backend), but it was my main project for around 9 months. Lots of videos that people care a lot about go through there.
> And strangely, a lot of people think we should both do that for free (at everyone else's expense) and that we should legalize the drugs that put them there.
> I very much dislike the idea that you, as an employer, are deciding what proportion of their income your employees should be spending on rent.
With rent as a multiplier, it's like they're suggesting 100% of your income goes to rent. It seems like a more reasonable way to take housing into account would be something like:
Salary = Base + Avg Rent
Using that formula, salary might be about $20k more for somebody in NYC than for somebody in Tucson. Using the actual calculator, it's $72k more ($117k vs $45k for senior level and average experience).
I'm a little torn on #1. I definitely don't think anybody should be allowed to be paid less than minimum wage. But on the other hand, if these people are choosing to come to the United States to work these jobs because it's better than what they could get in their home country, it's hard for me to say they shouldn't be able to do it.
Isn't #2 the whole point of sanctuary cities? In theory, the undocumented immigrants in these cities should have no fear of going to police and other authorities. Whereas in other cities the police might actually be obligated to inform immigration officials.
#3 is interesting. Definitely undocumented immigrants make use of government resources, but they also help the economy by providing cheap labor. As far as I know, there isn't a strong consensus on whether the overall impact is positive or negative. For example, here's a brief article that explores both sides a bit: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-thorny-economics-of-illegal-...
> In the US, you take the Engineer In Training (EIT) exam when you graduate university, then require 4 years of industry experience before you can sit the PE (Professional Engineer) exam. If you pass that, you can call yourself an Engineer.
I believe you that this is the requirement for some fields of engineering. However, there are thousands of people reading HN with the job title 'software engineer' who did not take those exams.
California is actually one of the lowest (42nd). The irony is that states where people vote for small government and lower taxes tend to receive a larger share per capita of federal money.
> American females have a very similar experience as American males
How can you say that after reading the first question in the article? Do you think the editor was just cherry picking the most extreme anecdotes they could find?
> Well, my own experience is that the $1.49 million would more likely be reinvested in the company as a whole: hire more developers, more salespeople, expand the office, etc
A lot of it also goes to essential business expenses: HR, legal, the AWS bill, the new feature that's currently losing money but will pay off in the long term.
And the person who made the $1.5mm code fix didn't do it on their own. They wouldn't have been able to improve the code if somebody else hadn't already written the first version. And neither of them would have been able to get their code into production if somebody hadn't set up the build and release process for the company. And they never would have been in the position to make the $1.5mm fix if their manager hadn't identified the need for an additional engineer on the team and recruited them. And the company wouldn't exist if the founder hadn't had the idea in the first place. And the company would have blown up last year if the lawyers hadn't made sure the company was protected from a frivolous lawsuit. Et cetera, et cetera.
I didn't do it alone of course (probably a dozen people have worked on the UI, and hundreds on the backend), but it was my main project for around 9 months. Lots of videos that people care a lot about go through there.