GCP was "fully fixed before it was known" according to the engineers I know there. I find it /highly/ unlikely that they don't have patched microcode.
I mean, the cloud business is the place with the most to lose from these kinds of issues, I am incredibly suspicious of the claim that cloud providers aren't patching their microcode.
Whether it's intels or their own modified variant of microcode I would fully expect them to be patched in some way.
Google's researchers played a big part in discovering / classifying / mitigating the vulnerabilities. They also developed the retpoline pattern. It is very likely that GCP was "fixed before it was known."
Just dump all the sorted garbage in sorted landfills. Recycling may become economical again at some point. In any event, future technology will deal with it better.
Put the technologies you used next to the projects you worked on. Just listing "Python" or "SQL" without context isn't meaningful.
Similarly, it's not clear what you actually did in the projects. Write it more like: "Implemented X for Y using Z" and add in some benchmarks such as "reduced overhead by 12%" or "scaled to 100,000 clients", if possible.
>In other words, you're out of touch with ordinary, less privileged workers.
Just because I'm "out of touch" with ordinary, less privileged workers doesn't equate to my experience and observations in the sector as being invalidated, yeah? Isn't the site "Hacker News" and not "ordinary, less privileged workers'" news?
>Oh, come on. If you're a developer you can have a "work from home" day in the US as well.
That might be true for you but is it true for developers in the overall society?
Let's take this to an extreme example: A coworker missed over two months, last year, for 'x' medical reasons. What would've surely driven him to the poor house in the states was paid through those taxes you later commented on and there was no threat to his job because of it.
>Plus, you can earn far more and you pay less in taxes.
What does that have to do with anything related to kids and the propensity to send them to school because you haven't the time to take off to take care of them or the funds to have a minder? Surely, those less taxes (and more pay) should equate to more days from school, yeah, if it really is as exceptional as you're trying to make it sound.
Personally, I like paying taxes for a better society (e.g.: education, health, infrastructure, etc.) but that's just me. However, that has nothing to do the topic.
> Let's take this to an extreme example: A coworker missed over two months, last year, for 'x' medical reasons. What would've surely driven him to the poor house in the states was paid through those taxes you later commented on and there was no threat to his job because of it.
Disability insurance is a standard employment benefit in the US for white collar jobs and they would be protected from dismissal by the FMLA.
Less privileged workers undoubtedly have it better in Europe than they do in the US, but it's completely dishonest to compare a developer in Europe to a cashier in the US. Even in Europe, cashiers and construction workers cannot work from home. Even in the US many people do work from home sometimes.
> Just because I'm "out of touch" with ordinary, less privileged workers doesn't equate to my experience and observations in the sector as being invalidated, yeah?
It means your experience doesn't scale to broader society, but you were making a point about broader society. If the ordinary secretary or the shift worker or the policeman don't get their "work from home days" there's essentially no difference in your example to what's going on in the US.
> That might be true for you but is it true for developers in the overall society?
Working from home on occasion certainly isn't unusual.
> Let's take this to an extreme example: A coworker missed over two months, last year, for 'x' medical reasons. What would've surely driven him to the poor house in the states was paid through those taxes you later commented on and there was no threat to his job because of it.
"Surely" you have no idea about the US system. Paid sick days is something your insurance may or may not cover. You get the choice of whether you want to pay for that or not. States laws also may protect workers from getting fired during longer illness.
> What does that have to do with anything related to kids...
Nothing, just rubbing it in. If you're successful in Finland (or some other little Euro country), you're going to be far less wealthy than in the US. You'll be paying for everyone else to live. If that makes you happy, go for it. Pat yourself on the back.
>Working from home on occasion certainly isn't unusual.
Occassion and modus operandi are two entirely different precepts but you know this, yeah, and your trying ever-so hard to be pedantic. It's cute.
>Paid sick days is something your insurance may or may not cover.
I thought it was the employer who paid the sick days in the states. What you're talking about falls under the FMLA, I believe; which is an entire different set of principles - independent of the actual employer, yeah? Then you reinforce the point that it's not an overall societal protection with the statement, "States laws also may protect workers from getting fired during longer illness."
>Nothing, just rubbing it in.
You've brought nothing of attainable consequence to the conversation, much less any evidence of your assertion. How can you rub in that which you assume to be true but have no evidence for or against? The arrogance is astounding, to say the least.
>If you're successful in Finland (or some other little Euro country), you're going to be far less wealthy than in the US.
I'm assuming you're speaking of purely fiscal wealth, which is a pretty myopic perspective to have. You've provided no evidence of this claim. Are you sure we, the europoor, are actually poor or is this just something you're reverberating from the echo chambers of American exceptionalism.
>You'll be paying for everyone else to live.
Do you not do this with the current Social Security system? The irony is palpable...
>If that makes you happy, go for it.
Already doing it, so this is pretty pedestrian.
>Pat yourself on the back.
Is this not what you're trying to do with your own argument around more pay and less taxes? Pot meet kettle. The banality of this tangible irony is already starting to bore me.
Do you have anything of consequence to proffer or is it going to continually be this mundane level of effort, deriving from your bravado? If the latter of the two, then, you're bringing a knife to a gun show and it wouldn't be fair to keep being you with your own phantom limbs, so I'm dipping out. Have fun!
>Are you sure we, the europoor, are actually poor or is this just something you're reverberating from the echo chambers of American exceptionalism.
I’m not sure why you are getting so defensive when it is you who understands so little about the US that you just described a typical US tech job and tried to pretend it was something special about Europe.
Developers in the US make significantly more on average than developers anywhere in Europe. Developers working at the big tech companies do even better than that by clearing north of $300k annually between stock, cash, and bonuses. These jobs allow working from home, provide healthcare, PTO, significant maternity/paternity leave, etc. A few minutes of googling these numbers might help you gain some perspective.
The US is easily the best place to be when you have in-demand skills. Every country is going to trail pretty far behind on what it’s employment ecosystem can offer a developer (as of right now). This is why your post sounds so ignorant to people familiar with the perks of being a developer in the US.
Where the US is absolutely terrible compared to Europe is the social safety nets that people in worse jobs depend on. Yet that’s not what you decided to use as your point of comparison. You instead tried to show off the perks of tech skills there, which are worse than many HN readers receive in the US.
> Occassion and modus operandi are two entirely different precepts but you know this, yeah, and your trying ever-so hard to be pedantic.
It is you who is being pedantic. My point is that working from home, as a developer, because of some special case is generally possible, just like in your case.
Now what about all the other professions in your country? Do they all get their little "stay at home" days? No? Then what's your point?
> How can you rub in that which you assume to be true but have no evidence for or against? The arrogance is astounding, to say the least.
Why, I thought it was common knowledge.
Finland, as compared to the US:
Higher cost of living with less disposable income:
And obviously, the weather in Northern Europe sucks. Priceless!
> I'm assuming you're speaking of purely fiscal wealth, which is a pretty myopic perspective to have.
No, I'm talking about the standard of living. Of course somebody with a lower standard of living will have to find some other reason to make themselves look superior.
> Do you not do this with the current Social Security system?
You can look up the difference yourself.
> The irony is palpable... Do you have anything of consequence to proffer or is it going to continually be this mundane level of effort, deriving from your bravado? If the latter of the two, then, you're bringing a knife to a gun show and it wouldn't be fair to keep being you with your own phantom limbs, so I'm dipping out.
I don't know about your native language, but if you write like this in English, it makes you sound like a clown.
Who is paying for those five extra days? Is it the health insurance? Your cost of health care will go up or service will get worse.
Is it taxes? Your taxes will go up or money will be missing in the budget (or you will need to get more debt).
Is it the employer? Wage suppression.
You haven't gained or won anything really. There's no free lunch.
I will make an exception though: If you make people stay home when they are sick, you may reduce sickness overall. However, if people spend their entire "Family Care Leave" on rugby matches and then illness strikes, it's not going to work.
The cost is shared between taxpayers and the employer – employers get a 150% tax deduction for wages paid for family care leave.
Taxes will go up, and perhaps some prices. This is good.
> You haven't gained or won anything really. There's no free lunch.
Workers maybe haven't gained anything, but a worker has, and that's wonderful.
You can argue all you want about economic models and the absence of free lunches but at the end of the day, a parent who needs to take care of a sick child gets to do that, and having the cost paid elsewhere in taxes or higher prices is a boon.
The cost isn't paid elsewhere. It's essentially going straight out of their own paycheck. Not immediately and in equal measure, but over time and on the average. It's effectively vacation days.
Remember, everyone gets those five days. Big earners, small earners. It evens out to nothing. Everyone can't live at the expense of everyone else.
An American parent has a sick child but can't care for them. A Fijian parent has a sick child and can care for them. This comes out of their own paycheck (not immediately and in equal measure, but over time and on the average. It's effectively vacation days)
If you really don't see how the latter position is so vastly better for the individual parent than I don't know what to say. Perhaps you've never been a wage slave.
Believe it or not, an American parent can take a vacation day as well. The difference is, you're not forced to have vacation days and suffer lower pay for it.
In any event, why have only five days? If five days is good, why aren't two weeks even better? How could five days be enough to care for your family? Why not a whole month, that's even better than two weeks! I'll tell you why: Because it's not a free lunch. These laws are made so that politicians can sell them to clueless voters, not because they make sense.
It’s 5 days because there are no other paid leave laws. If the US had mandatory six to eight weeks paid leave for everyone like a civilized country, then there wouldn’t be a need to specify sick leave, other than allowing for leave without prior notice due to sudden illness or injury.
If the US had mandatory six to eight weeks paid leave, that would come out of the employee's paycheck.
I don't see what's good or civilized about being forced to take a vacation. A lot of people are underemployed as-is, because of all the regulations that make it less attractive to hire people fulltime.
"Why have only one painkiller? If one painkiller is good, why not take the whole bottle? How one pill be good enough to ease your pain? Why not the whole bottle, that's even better than one pill!"
"Researchers from the Harvard Kennedy School who followed 122 men and women who had been released from the state prison in Massachusetts found that six months to a year after their release, just over half of the group had found a job."
That means he's actually right by a narrow margin. Most ("just over half") former inmates did find a job.
This source reports an unemployment rate of only 25%:
> I appreciate the author making such clear and well-stated points, that makes it easy to use to simple facts to refute his/her argument.
You didn't refute anything. Of course a conviction is career poison and one can write long-winded articles on the injustice of it. Still, the statistics say: Most ex-convicts can find a job.
> Does this bet mean anything if the only employment you can get is 10 hours a week at minimum wage?
Yes, because it's about relative rates. Unless you believe the EU is more "honest" about reporting unemployment numbers, the US numbers are just as meaningful.
"And psychology aside, remember that the welfare state forces active workers to support the idle. So when regulation forces wages up, even the lucky workers who keep their jobs ultimately forfeit much of what they gain."
Even a doubling in unemployment claims would be drop in the bucket compared to pension liabilities.
> And if the risk is being taken by a company, it has to pay for it - because it intends to reap the rewards? Not a woman or a negligent employee.
First of all, this is criminal liability. Uber may still be held financially liable in a civil court.
Secondly, liability needs to be decided on a case by case basis. In this case, the woman (not "a woman") shouldn't have crossed the road and the operator should have been alert.
Furthermore, why should a company be criminally liable for any negligent behavior of an employee? That's ridiculous.
> I bet they will go after the driver now and try to place blame on her despite her having an impossible job
What's impossible about watching the street and hitting the breaks if necessary, while testing a prototype self-driving car? I would say if you can't even do that, you shouldn't be in that seat.
This isn't the case where just one person is responsible. The system shouldn't have been configured that way. The driver should've been alert. The woman shouldn't have crossed the road like that. Everyone was negligent.
Watching the road for hours at a time, day in and day out attentively is impossible. No human can do it. You're right that she shouldn't have been in that seat. No one should have as it's an almost impossible task. No one has that type of attention span or ability to react, especially when the situation is so boring. Humans can drive but even then, they will make mistakes. To expect there not to be mistakes or lapses of attention with no interaction is ridiculous. We are not built that way. Maybe some top athletes can do that, but even goalkeepers in soccer whose job is to watch the ball and stop it sometimes can't concentrate and they are selected based on this ability to only play 45 minutes at a time without a break. What tests did uber put this woman through before hiring her to make sure she was capable of the almost super human feat they asked of her? I bet none. The system could have prevented this crash easily but because the auto braking was turned off, it didn't. What kind of company tests a self driving car with the auto braking turned off? They should have known it would cause a collision sooner or later.
The road should not have been designed like that, allowing high speed traffic at a pedestrian crossing. Cars are a dangerous incursion on human environments, akin to letting lions wander freely in town. The whole automotit ecosystem is morally liable, joint and severally, for this assault on human life, from collisions to pollution to the appropriate of public real estate.
