Exactly - film photographers heavily process(ed) their images from the film processing through to the print. Ansel Adams wrote a few books on the topic and they’re great reads.
And different films and photo papers can have totally different looks, defined by the chemistry of the manufacturer and however _they_ want things to look.
Excepting slide photos. No real adjustment once taken (a more difficult medium than negative film which you can adjust a little when printing)
You’re right about Ansel Adams. He “dodged and burned” extensively (lightened and darkened areas when printing.)
Photoshop kept the dodge and burn names on some tools for a while.
When we printed for our college paper we had a dial that could adjust the printed contrast a bit of our black and white “multigrade” paper (it added red light). People would mess with the processing to get different results too (cold/ sepia toned). It was hard to get exactly what you wanted and I kind of see why digital took over.
A school photography company I worked for used a custom Kodak stock. They were unsatisfied with how Kodak's standard portrait film handled darker skin tones.
They were super careful to maintain the look across the transition from film to digital capture. Families display multiple years of school photos next to each other and they wanted a consistent look.
They have a green card interview because they married an American. But you can’t get an adjustment of status if you are in violation of your current visa terms.
>But you can’t get an adjustment of status if you are in violation of your current visa terms.
This is both right and wrong. Congress passed a law ages ago that grants forgiveness to overstaying spouses once the greencard is issued. The AOS process is allowed.
The hole however is the AOS does not extend your authorized stay if you were out of status when it was filed. So this leaves one vulnerable to the ICE arrests.
However, your AOS can still be processed even when arrested because of the forgiveness granted by law, so it just becomes an issue of having a good lawyer to get a judge to intervene.
Subsection (a) allows the “Attorney General, in his discretion” to grant an adjustment of status.
Subsection (c) categorically denies adjustment of status under certain conditions, including where someone has violated the terms of their visa. This takes away the Attorney General’s discretion to grant an adjustment. The adjustment must be denied.
Subsection (e) then makes subsection (c) inapplicable where the immigrant enters into a bona fide marriage during a legal proceeding regarding their immigrant status. It’s not correct to call this a “forgiveness,” because it doesn’t guarantee you any sort of legal status. Instead, it takes away what would otherwise be a categorical bar against an adjustment of status. That puts you back under subsection (a), where the decision is made by the “Attorney General, in his discretion.” The law says the Attorney can grant you the adjustment of status, not that he must. Under the law, the Attorney General can still categorically deny any adjustments under those circumstances.
No, if your visa expires you need to maintain your legal status while a PERM application is pending: https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/maintain... (“This is especially important if and when you are waiting to apply for lawful permanent residence, commonly called a ‘green card.’ If you are in the United States without any immigration status, you are considered to be here illegally, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may deny your green card application for that reason alone.”).
What’s happening here is that these people were here on tourist visas or completely illegally. Then at some point they married a U.S. citizen and filed a PERM application. But that filing doesn’t protect them from deportation for their original illegal status.
> What’s happening here is that these people were here on tourist visas or completely illegally. Then at some point they married a U.S. citizen and filed a PERM application.
There's no PERM process in family based adjustment of status. You're confusing FB AOS with EB AOS.
PERM is for employment based green cards, not relevant here. Pending AOS for a spouse grants them legal status, including a work permit if they apply. The underlying visa doesn't matter unless the PR application is denied. You'd then be out of status if you didn't maintain a "backup" visa.
In general, the Attorney General is prohibited from granting an AOS if you have violated the underlying visa (8 USC 1255(c)): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim... (“subsection (a) [allowing AOS] shall not be applicable to… (8) any alien who was employed while the alien was an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 1324a(h)(3) of this title, or who has otherwise violated the terms of a nonimmigrant visa.”).
Subsection (d) allows the attorney general to grant an AOS notwithstanding subsection (c) where an immigrant enters j to a bona fide marriage during proceedings regarding their immigration status. But under subsection (a) the AOS is entirely at the “discretion” of the Attorney General.
Indeed, section 1255 doesn’t grant anyone legal status. It contains various provisions where an AOS must be denied. Then, it allows but does not require the Attorney General to grant an AOS under other circumstances.
I worked on the data platform at a smaller car co, and there were tight controls around getting access to precise geo data, and there were strong privacy advocates at higher levels. Wasn’t a perfect system, but “spying” would be far from what I saw
I dont think the solution to not knowing people in your company is to create bureaucracy. Ie - only hanging with 10 executives and a focus group. Get out there and talk to people for a few minutes - at the office or wherever.
Ultimately, it is. The post didn't touch on this, but it's exactly why the world looks like it does - it is, and has always been, recursively subdivided. It's why we have districts and towns and counties and states and countries. Hierarchical governance is a result of trying to cooperate in groups larger than the limit of how many direct relationships our brains can support.
Maybe, but a 200 person company isn’t really that big. The CEO should probably get over themselves if they think they couldnt possibly know everyone at least a little bit.
I think, putting what you're saying another way, just because your capacity might be limited to hearing from N people, that doesn't mean it has to be the same N people all the time. It should include a sampling across everyone so you have a lower chance of systematically missing entire points of view.
Teacher here. Best Principal I had would gatecrash your class once a year, then have a chat giving feedback. Kind of stressful (it could happen with little warning) but whatever.
They knew everyone in the school (ebery teacher and about 500+ student names), and what happened in every class. It took time and talent to do it, but it made them a lot less insulated.
Claiming you can't know 100-200 people - your high school teacher wrote 100 reports. Now obviously they aren't 100% on the ball, but they have some idea (I hope).
There's an old story about how Bill Gates once took a call in tech support. A far larger organisation, and he still was willing to dive deep and see what was going on at the least glamorous part of the coalface.
There's a difference between trying to micromanage everything, and micromanaging enough that you're not out of touch.
Feedback is a two way street. It both let's you know what is happening, and let's the people below know that you actually care. Even if you can't (and arguably shouldn't) be everywhere at once, it has its place.
Now yes, it's drive by management and isn't the main tool that a manager should use, but being overly scared that your trusted expert juniors will be destroyed by a senior checking up on them is maybe a bit silly, and if a senior manager is such a tool that they do cause havoc just by looking over someone's shoulder and giving them a bit of feedback you're already in trouble.
Inulation isn't the answer IMO, just accepting that yes you don't need to know everyone and everything to the same level as if it was a small team.
The same principle holds for quality management. You don't need to inspect every single product. However, if you inspect a small number of products at random, you'll detect a large percentage of the quality issues.
While leaders can't know everyone they should make it a priority to have those random connections outside their inner circle. If they don't, they become in danger of hearing only the info that their inner circle wants them to hear.
> However, if you inspect a small number of products at random, you'll detect a large percentage of the quality issues.
As quality issues become fewer, the odds increase that inspecting a small number of products at random will lead to you thinking that there are zero quality issues. Have your inspections procedure scale and adapt to the relative proportion of quality issues you have reason to believe exist. And if you believe you truly have zero quality issues, then you need to switch to an immediate feedback procedure (such as an anonymous tip line, or a non-anonymous one for customer feedback).
> There's a difference between trying to micromanage everything, and micromanaging enough that you're not out of touch.
I think there's a good point to be made here that this isn't micromanaging, it's bypassing feedback layers that have a tendency to filter out critical or important information. That information may or may not be withheld intentionally, but being Bill Gates and seeing that a crucial tool to help a customer doesn't work very fast, or is missing information, or relies on "hacks" (tribal knowledge on how to bypass restrictions or flags) to keep the support process going would be something that wouldn't filter upwards easily.
Our CEO does this. She talks to a lot of people. Once you start talking business, she clearly doesn't care about your opinion, unless you're praising something. If it's remotely critical or a suggestion to change something, you can see in her eyes she's not even processing the words anymore.
I rather have her not talking to me, because it's much worse knowing she fakes her openness, than actually just not showing up.
Sounds like some meta-feedback that should be delivered to her. Of course, this kind of person has lots of ways to deflect, so they have to actually genuinely believe in open feedback as a value, and be willing to understand how they are falling short of living up to that value.
In the worst case, they only want to present as open to feedback, while they are using that feedback to build the list of detractors who will be laid off, not promoted, etc. And this kind of personal feedback can really trigger this sort of person.
I'd probably use a jsonfield in postgres for data that i knew was going to be unstructured. meanwhile, other columns can join and have decent constraints and indexes.
I’m curious about the resilience bit. Are you planning on some sort of active-active setup with mongo? I found it difficult on AWS to even do active-passive (i guess that was docdb), since programatically changing the primary write node instance was kind of a pain when failing over to a new region.
Going into any depth with mongo mostly taught me to just stick with postgres.
Yeah as mvkel said it’s just being a VC with shittier terms.
Why not just be an actual angel? Presumably the author has the capital for it now. And if they’re confident enough to risk someone else’s capital why not risk their own?
Snowflake is expensive, even compared to Databricks, and you pay their pre-AWS discount storage price while they get the discount and pocket the difference as profit
reply