It's "theirsxn of sholor". Please respect this and stop the violation and violence against theirsxns of sholor which is incurred when you use othering phrases.
(not thereson-- because it has the word "son" in it, which is offensive to non-sons. sholor because it's closer to shalom which means peace.)
I wonder... what is the difference between an "experience" vs a "lived experience"?
If I have an experience-- such as walking through the park, this afternoon and picking a blackberry... What is a "lived experience" version of that same experience?
“lived experience” was generally first used to differentiate between a person saying “I have experience with x issue” who could be saying “I’ve studied it; I’ve worked with the population” but “lived experience” makes it specific to being an individual’s own life.
It's still used that way. I'm always confused why people criticize this one in particular. The distinction makes perfect sense. There's an enormous amount of stuff that I've read a bunch about or watched a lot of media about or talked about with people, but is nonetheless outside my lived experience.
The idea of having direct first-hand contact with a thing is part of the understanding of the word "experience." Second hand contact or learning is generally some other noun or verb, depending on what we're talking about.
My family members have experience with deafness. They've had direct first-hand contact with someone who is deaf in one ear, and have learned how to interact with that person successfully. They are familiar with the challenges of being deaf (in one ear, least), both from having interacted with the person, and because the person in question has explained the challenges they have faced.
I have lived experience with deafness. I've been deaf in one ear for decades now. However well I explain myself to my family members, there is a degree to which their experience will never be the same as mine, despite their first-hand contact with me.
We can either reserve the word "experience" for me, and try to police it so that nobody can say they have experience without being prepared to demonstrate the first-hand nature of their experience, or we can understand that people will use the word to mean "prolonged exposure" or similar, and add a qualifier when important to people like me: e.g. I have lived experience as a deaf person.
The word "experience" encompasses many kinds of contact, which is why it is often modified in various ways. It is not redundant to say "first-hand experience" or "direct experience". These are commonly used and broadly understood. There is no reason "lived experience" should be any different, and indeed I think it is more of an anti-woke shibboleth to make fun of this than it is a woke shibboleth to use it. Normal people with no skin on either side of that game understand it perfectly well.
No it isn't, it's just a different form of experience. People seem to want the word "experience" to have some narrow single-purpose definition that it just doesn't have in practice. Do you go around telling people saying "direct experience" or "first hand experience" that actually they're being redundant because that's the only kind of experience there is?
> I wonder... what is the difference between an "experience" vs a "lived experience"?
It's a shibboleth that indicates adherence to a certain world view. The speaker is communicating that they are a Good Person and thus you should give their experiences greater weight.
As our societies functional literacy has declined we have lost words that gave us nuanced shades of meaning.
"Experience with" meaning, "Have dealt with this personally, first hand" gradually became, "has been near or studied and feels comfortable claiming authority on that basis." So the new compound word "Lived experience" was created to allow us to still use the first definition reliably.
Many times people who have "experience with" a topic have really "studied" it.
> As our societies functional literacy has declined
[Citation badly needed]
Words change. That doesn't mean everyone is getting stupider. In fact the more literate people are, the faster words are likely to change, since the more situations they'll be put to use in.
Functional literacy means more than simply knowing specific vocabulary words. It includes the shared knowledge to use and understand idioms and cultural references.
Needing to coin a new expression to replace a word we already have a perfectly good word for seems to be a symptom of poor literacy. I suppose the chronic dishonesty and doublespeak involved in corporate jargon could be the source of this phenomenon instead.
I'd recommend creating a website with a portfolio of projects.
The portfolio should include a section for each project, summarizing what tech stack you used, the year you finished the project, the name & 1 sentence on the project's purpose.
With a link to the code on github/gitlab, and a link to more in-depth page about the project.
This way you'd have a summary, links to code, and an in-depth page about each project. On the website you might also include info about your professional background, education, & personal interests outside of work.
I have such a website, and it has helped me get hired.
Then they need to create small to medium projects-- For example projects that take 1 week to 6 months to create. This can also be projects from CS, IT, statistics, or other technical programming-involved classes.
Wake up at 8. Coffee, possibly oatmeal/toast or other simple breakfast. Daily standup at 9 or 930 depending on the day of the week. Shower. Walk to cafe or drive to library. Start work around 10 or 1030. Lunch break around 1230 or 1. Work until 5pm or so. It's a bit flexible depending on workload.
- I do most of my work from library/cafe-- usually 1-2 hours at home, 4-6 hours at cafe/library.
- I don't socialize much-- Occasionally chat with barista to get to know them. Or occasionally with other patrons.
- Nah, I've never had an issue with cafes letting me sit for hours and work-- I always buy coffee and/or food. If I didn't buy anything, I imagine it would eventually piss off the barista/manager/owner a bit. Sometimes I have too much coffee and get drowsy or jittery
- Nah, I don't miss the creature comfort of big desk & 27" screen-- I trade it for the opportunity to get out into social spaces. Otherwise I'd be lonely at home. If I am under pressure to get something done fast, sometimes it's easier at home. Currently my "home" is a studio apartment ($800/month, all bills paid except internet).
I think if I had roommates or lived in a more communal place (Such as housing coop) I'd be more interested in spending more time working from home. But since I am alone there, it feels too lonely.
Who got hurt by "destabilizing the labor economy"? The bosses who were perfectly fine resorting to threats and extortion? It certainly wasn't the workers.
It is fine to recognize that people who wield economic power might be upset when a new economic power arrives in town, but to describe the new guy who is trying to do the right thing as somehow immoral is classist nonsense.
The entire rest of the local economy. If you eat up a significant portion of the local labor poor with very high wages, who is left to do all of the normal local jobs? Working in retail, food production, sanitation, construction, education, etc.
What happens to prices when a significant portion of the workforce suddenly has tons more money? What happens to the people not lucky enough to have the new high paying job? What happens to the local economy when you leave?
When you pay locally crazy high wages you seriously distort the economy for everyone, it doesn’t just magically snap to a new normal where everyone is happy and free, you can very easily create huge wealth disparities that make situations for many people way worse off, and the people who “win” that you don’t employ were generally already winning.
Just pouring money into a highly impoverished place can be very harmful. “Above average” is good, “ridiculously above average” and you have to start considering your effects across the economy.
It is like when you give away mosquito nets and put all the local makers out of business. It is worse in the long run if you tank the job market then leave.
If you plan to continue to give out mosquito nets for 30 years then it's fine to put the locals out of business, better that they spend their time building a comparative advantage in some other industry.
If you are doing a 1-and-done kind of project, maybe you have a point. You would have to weigh the cost of the disruption of the local industry against the benefit to the workers though. If you pay what would normally be 5 years worth of wages for a year of work, it's fine to set the local industry back 3 years. The workers still come out ahead and can invest their wages into rebuilding industry.
Your argument tells me never invest in any business you create because you will likely crater it. Everyone is hurt by overpaying for labor because you distort the labor market in the exact same way monopolies distort markets above marginal cost, causing dead weight loss for society. A small subset of the harms:The company doing the hiring earns less and so can compensate shareholders less, other companies in that labor market are harmed by being artificially priced out of labor,all labor in said labor market is harmed by the price distortions the overpaid labor often causes, if the demand for labor at the artificially high price isn't durable and long lasting everyone is harmed when it goes away (and it's not durable if it isn't driven by fundamentals and is instead driven by fads for overpaying for labor and virtue signalling about it in the first world because fads change and more rational heads will eventually prevail).
Right but businesses famously operate on 3-month intervals, not 30-year intervals. No business can actually make a 30-year promise like that.
I also don't think the calculus is as simple as "setting it back 3 years", all you would be doing is creating power vacuums (instability), whereas you ideally need constant upwards pressure. It would be like injecting cash via lotteries, it won't actually help in the long run, just create further instability and wealth inequality.
At least in the case of Honduras, more people clearing paths for transmission lines accelerates the development of infrastructure that the locals can use. On the other hand, OpenAI moderation doesn't do anything for Kenyans. You can see the effect of this is countries that heavily rely on tourism like Thailand and Bali. The smartest and hardest working people end up serving foreigners rather than their domestic population. Places that aren't catered towards tourists are completely neglected.
"On the other hand, OpenAI moderation doesn't do anything for Kenyans."
Have you worked at OpenAI in Kenya?
Because you're speaking in absolutes-- as though you're an authority on the topic.
Let's use basic logic: Working at a technology company by its nature provides:
- Increased experience with Computers
- Increased experience with Data
- Increased experience with Business Processes
- Increased experience with AI Technology & AI Business
- Increased experience with Potential business ideas for startups due to exposure to the business processes of the company and the potential therein for improvement
The civil engineer’s experience rings true from what I’ve seen, but there’s some exception for developers and people of other high skilled professions because they are few relative to the population…paying local developers the same as foreign won’t destabilize but it may for manual labor almost everyone can do.
Sure, but doesn't that mean their absence will have a disproportionate effect on the industries that rely on them? If you're a small 15-person dev company, and now there's a multinational company that's gobbling up developers at 4x the going rate, you're not going to be able to compete.
This is one of those things in which it's better to sudden upsets (even if they're "positive"), might have negative consequences.
If you're paying +25% over the going rate, you're going to attract a range of people. Someone that designs software for reactor controls might not care (or be compensated enough anyway).
However, if you're offering 200% over, you're guaranteed to hoover up the top talent from strategic industries, and that might end up being a net negative in terms of the damage caused.
Your small local company does not own your workers. If the multinational values your workers more than you do, then it is good for everyone except you that they work for the multinational.
But, conversely, the multinational values your workers because it knows how to use them for business opportunities elsewhere to make money. But you're in a position to find many of those same opportunities. Which now means that your local economy is not just getting the profit of having the workers do so well, but of the fact that you're keeping the profit margin that otherwise would have gone to the multi-national!
Free trade on average makes everyone richer. (Observation originally due to Ricardo.) That means that it brings both opportunities and risks. And the opportunities usually exceed the risks.
Seems pretty clear to me (pretty much an identity) that labor paying more is good for laborers but bad for their employers. Not sure how to argue with that.
The GP told you: they've been to Kenya themselves and worked with Kenyan developers for years. Please read the whole comment before you fly off the handle at someone. This is unfortunately increasingly common on HN.
i wonder if they would have ever hit saturation here. you can only hire so many people. i would compare it to the discomfort that is felt by private transport operators in the wake of a public transport scheme. when the government of ghana introduced public buses that charged less than half the regular fare, they shook the market. but the public buses could only carry so much--many, due to their circumstances, were served by the private operators. it remains so to this day. in fact, private operators have flourished.
likewise, mining companies launching in ghana have usually paid higher than the incumbent. it could be strategic as it allows them to hire highly skilled workers without the cost of pre-training. here too, a saturation is reached, and things stabilize, with people doing the same job but receiving different compensations. we at devcongress (https://devcongress.org) have worked hard to ensure that local companies pay top-dollar for tech talent. we enforce this through our job boards. still, there are companies out there paying $500/mo and they receive a flood of applicants. but these are my experiences. makes me believe that after the market has been excited, it will definitely dissipate the energy, and return to previous equilibrium (or achieve equilibrium at a higher orbit). i honestly believe that an equilibrium will be reached.
In addition to having lived (for a short time) in Kenya, worked for a company based out of Nairobi for nearly 5 years, and worked with Kenyans that whole time (in other words, I've seen this stuff firsthand in Kenya, which is the whole point of the article, and my comment)...I have also lived in, worked in, and studied in other developing countries, and seen firsthand what happens when high-paying companies swoop in and change the economic landscape.
You know what actually happens? Positive economic change. Isn't the whole point of HN (and YCombinator) to disrupt the status quo, and promote growth? Destabilizing a corrupted, top heavy, status quo where more people now have a chance to grow in life rather than live in abject poverty is a good thing. Nobody cried for the Taxi companies when Uber & Lyft came along, because they destroyed a parasitic, rent-seeking system (Taxi medallions) and the experience for the end-user (both driver and rider) was significantly improved. Same logic applies here.
>The result:
--> He was threatened with harm by bosses of local companies.
Why? He took all their workers.
Yet there's a flipside here that you're completely missing. Those same workers had a significant improvement in their lives, most likely able to accumulate what for them was generational wealth, or enough to give their kids a shot at a real chance in life. Those people had enough to stimulate their local economy much more than anyone beforehand. THAT is what drives positive change in 3rd world or developing countries. Keeping things the way they are economically with no disruption in the 3rd world keeps people poor and unable to grow which leads to bigger problems down the road. Giving them a real chance in life by paying them more gives them and their families a larger ability to make real change in their countries and communities. That should be celebrated.
Put yourself in the worker's shoes - if someone offered to 10x your wages, what would you do with the extra wealth that you now posses?
Having also lived in that part of the world (Mexico, which isn't the quite same as Honduras but analogous enough) , I understand how things sometimes play out in cases like this. The local bosses in your example were probably doing quite well for themselves and keeping a fat cut of the output of their laborers who were paid pennies, and not happy that their game was now being played by a bigger fish than they could fry. So, they acted like a cartel and tried to threaten the new king in town. Did some of the local companies in your example die? Yeah, probably. But nobody is entitled to stay in business....that's sort of the whole point of globalized capitalism - you compete, and you can win or lose, sometimes through your own fault, or sometimes through no fault of your own. Sometimes someone will steal your lunch, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. That's the reality of it.
Your assumption is so short sighted that it's hard to explain how wrong you are.
Let's not think about the noble but the practical: did the man whose life was threatened continue to stay in the country and pay those workers, or did he leave or drop wages? Did people make decisions about where to work based on the idea of long-term compensation? What amount of people left an otherwise stable job to take this high-paying gig that disappeared? What is the net impact on these people _especially_ if the distortion was prolonged and did put other companies out of business?
This is not a 'compassionate' thing to do, it's short-termism that messes with other people's lives. Moreso depending on the function of how large the distortion was and the relative purchasing power of the job. An example of how this works is AWS jobs in other regions -- they pay significantly higher than base rate in many developing countries, but it is both a pedigree and leaves people in a position to get another white collar job that's fine later on. However, the same is not true for something like a gig-work cleaning agency paying 3 times market rate. I have the feeling based on the source that your experience might be closer to the former, which might leave you with a different take than what's happening here.
My assumption may or may not be short sighted, but is a reflection of the fact that I've spent a while in developing countries and understand that people want nothing more than to provide for their families - yet their opportunities to do so are significantly limited, more than anyone in the developed world could understand....and there are both internal and external forces in these countries that want nothing more than to preserve the status quo, which is that they get a huge cut and the workers get jack-fucking-shit to the point where $2-3 USD an hour is a massive windfall.
Maybe the guy in the example did leave the country, maybe he didn't. But either way, those workers were given a massive windfall for a short time, and I'm willing to bet that some of those workers took that money, invested in their families to the point where their children were able to get some form of education, and those children didn't have to lead the same impoverished lives their parents did. They were able to use that money as a stimulus for real growth. That counts.
I've lived in the developing world too. There's a reason why locals who actually want their country to succeed generally hate this. Nobody says "paying well" is a bad thing, but you have to realize that well is relative.
As someone who has been poor, the idea that the massive windfall is better is so frustrating. It's not. At least where I lived, people could not explain to you how a bank worked. People often did not save money, and if someone found out you had money, you were immediately asked for 'loans'. Beyond that you have to think about _lifetime earnings_. If you hire all of the lumberjacks for your slick handmade-in-africa table business, what happens to the SYSTEM of these people when other businesses go out of business and liquidate their assets then you leave? It's not as simple as some new business popping up and employing people.
Ah yes, the timeless principle of I have not, therefore others must have not. Is that the basic crux of the argument you are making? Or did I misunderstand?
If I may point out, the argument (upholding the system) appears to be structured around justifying why others must have not by saying that all non-high-paying lumberjack-employing businesses will go out of business, and then this high-paying business will leave. Is there any reason why this high-paying business would leave? It sounds from your statement that this is guaranteed, for whatever reason. And if it does leave (because obviously no business is guaranteed for all time) is there reason to believe another external business would not step in to fulfill that demand for handmade-in-africa table business? Or that the newly unemployed lumberjacks (but flush with cash relative to local conditions from their high-paying salaries) will sit around and twiddle their thumbs for all time instead of starting their own lumberjack-related business?
That said, I see its value. We use it at my company.
TypeScript is open-source but created and (I think) pseudo-owned by Microsoft, which has had terrible ethics over the years, including the 3 E's [1]
[1]
""Embrace, extend, and extinguish" (EEE),[1] also known as "embrace, extend, and exterminate",[2] is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found[3] that was used internally by Microsoft[4] to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences in order to strongly disadvantage its competitors."
These Microsoft examples are 20 years old. The company has changed leadership to a team that embraces open source years ago and I think they've done a pretty good job demonstrating this embrace. They have adopted open source Java, they further open sourced .NET, they've embraced Linux containers in Azure and WSL on windows, etc. Might be about time to reconsider this perspective of 'hate Microsoft'. Full disclosure: I work at Microsoft and these things I listed are a big part of why I moved there this past year.
"they've embraced Linux containers in Azure and WSL on windows"
I am open to the possibility, that Microsoft changed, but this example is a classic "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" tactic by my understanding.
Linux is strong with developers and certain tech, but by incorporating Linux, Microsoft makes devs have many good sides of linux, but with all the nice proprietary windows extensions. So they stay on windows.
And that means less devs switching fully to linux to struggle with drivers and co. meaning less solutions there, so even more devs stay on windows and just use the Linux goodies.
Effect extingushing remaining linux users on the desktop.
But of course, they offset that very effectivly, by making me fight their system to not show me advertisement, track me or update at a very inconvinient time for example. Which is why I still love linux, aside from bugs, it does exactly what I want and when I want. I am in control.
With windows I feel like I am renting something, where the contract and services can (and sometimes will) change any moment.
> And that means less devs switching fully to linux to struggle with drivers and co. meaning less solutions there, so even more devs stay on windows and just use the Linux goodies.
Isn’t the fact that Linux is still more of a headache an argument for using a product from a company that has a profit motive to provide a good user experience?
Most of the hassle comes from picking a random computer full of parts whose OEMs explicitly and only support Windows and playing does this work with Linux wherein the answer ranges from yes, to yes with kernel version n+, yes with an out of kernel driver, yes with some manual configuration, to hell no.
If you dealt with an OEM that ships a computer with Linux they would iron out these issues for you. If you choose to be your own OEM you must do so. Most people complaining about Linux hardware support have decided that good support means working without issue on whatever they throw at it including the laptop they bought for $200 7 years ago from walmart and that any difficulty in installing or operating it is an indication that volunteers haven't donated enough infinite free labor on the off chance that someone wants to install linux on one of the 7 units of that model still in existence.
A more realistic expectation is that there are good range of products supporting Linux not that absolutely every machine be supported. Good support has been available including devices that ship with Linux installed for years.
> Most people complaining about Linux hardware support have decided that good support means working without issue on whatever they throw at it including the laptop they bought for $200 7 years ago from walmart and that any difficulty in installing or operating it is an indication that volunteers haven't donated enough infinite free labor
But you know who has thrown labor at getting that $200 laptop to work? Microsoft and Google (Chrome OS).
It’s amazing how many more people who are willing to work for money than to work for free.
Which illustrates my point about being willing to pay for a Linux specific OEM. Complainers almost always opted in to being OEMs then complained about the work they opted in to. Linux isn't free windows for every computer in the world.
if developers move from Linux to Windows + WSL as desktop, in my experience, is because Linux as desktop doesn't offer a great experience for everyone. In some terms, companies trying to sell Linux, did a bad work to get it done well.
Well yes, there are many reasons why linux has problems and people go ways to avoid them, but my point was, that Microsoft did not embrace linux for their new love of open source, but to eat its marketshare.
I mean, Linux was never significant on the desktop, but had and still has significant market share for developers. In University I was basically tought how to use Linux and despise Windows. Microsoft does not want that obviously.
edit: but according to this chart, linux is actually still gaining market share
Yeah, well pretty insignificant market share. Working many year in this market, Linux, Linux Desktops and etc, I can tell you: Microsoft isnt looking to the Linux desktop market share, but to the Mac OSX market share. Windows + WSL is a real contender to Mac OSX as development desktop.
Ok, that's a good point, that the real target is OSX.
Still, I don't think they are happy about SteamOS for example. I mean the absolute numbers are still very low, but if gamers start to see linux as a alternative, Windows might get a problem. And there is still a significant portion of linux only developers and not all of them are FOSS fanatics, but pragmatic, but still don't like the walled garden of OSX.
They embraced to fight Apple, and nowadays it makes more sense to be compatible with Linux than pure POSIX, even the surviving UNIXes have some form of Linux compatibility layer.
Do you know any linux users that have switched from linux desktop to Windows because of WSL? I think it's just leading to Windows devs embracing Linux.
I know it keeps me more on windows, when I do not have to switch to the linux partition to do something particular and I see new devs not making the switch to linux at all, when they can get the job done on windows.
> changed leadership to a team that embraces open source years ago
Before or after they were shaking down Android OEMs over FAT? Microsoft didn't change, they're just operating in a market where they can't get away with as much.
What about forcing Windows upgrades? What about endemic telemetry with no/constant-shifting off switches? What about dark patterns to all but force folks to create a online account? The first big tech co to jump in bed with the NSA?
To clarify my point, is that if we know where the priorities of MS lie... and as demonstrated we know from experience that the needs of MS come first. Then extrapolating to their open source telemetry is a no-brainer.
After. That was also closer to a decade ago now than not. (It was settled in October 2015. Microsoft released an Open Patent Agreement with Android manufacturers a few years after that and dropped licensing fees at that time.)
When Microsoft committed a whole host of criminal acts including funding a criminal pump and dump scheme targeting competitors with fraudulent lawsuits Satya Nadella had already been among MS leadership for years. If you were part of the MS leadership team in the 1990s and 2000s you were at least tacitly OK with profiting from crime. The only difference between then and now is deciding that open source can profitably be used and can't realistically be crushed.
It's like the mob boss deciding there is money to be made working together so he stops trying to have you whacked. It's certainly a better position to be in but not one that engenders trust nor should it.
Microsoft is certainly embracing open source. It looks like Mono is still with us after open sourcing .NET, though it's now sponsored by Microsoft. They bought GitHub and kept it running. Are they still doing the extend with useful features not found elsewhere part? I don't follow their stack closely enough to know.
How about the part where certain plugins and extensions which work with Azure and some other Microsoft assets are not permitted in the forks of VSCode?
I'm not sure I believe this. IME, the developer experience of .NET on Linux and Mac platforms is definitely subpar compared to Windows. I've tried to get started on F# several times and have always run into bugs and incomplete/inadequate documentation.
F# will always be a niche language compared to C#. The VSCode extension for F# is bad, while the C# extension for VSCode is just as good as Visual Studio for C#. I'm not apologizing for the .NET team, but if you want to be productive with F# then you really should stick to Visual Studio on Windows.
F# has been working on much better language servers for VS Code (building on top of the good parts of C#'s work and the larger Roslyn compiler infrastructure ecosystem), but also F# is much more a "community" project than much of the rest of .NET and a lot of it is "at the pace of open source" rather than "at the pace of corporate initiatives", for both good and bad.
TypeScript is the least concerning one. If Microsoft somehow does something so outrageous that you can't stomach using TypeScript anymore, just compile it to JS permanently and call it a day.
Jeez, what an insane shame this is. I wish there was accountability and punishment for this.
"Unsafe levels of toxic chemicals are present in rainwater throughout the globe, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology."
Companies have gotten away with knowingly poisoning people and hiding it for ages. Now they've gotten away with poisoning the entire planet and every living creature on it. What hope is there for accountability? At this point I'm honestly not sure what they'd have to do to incur meaningful punishment.
I'm amazed people haven't demanded justice for it. I'd always assumed that if it became impossible for enough people to get justice within the legal system eventually people would seek justice outside of it, but that doesn't seem to be the case either.
- OR, a Udemy.com video series (note: never pay more than $12 or so-- the promo rate. If you see a higher price, just create a new email & user account (or reset cookies?) and you'll see the promo price again)
- Visit: Roadmap.sh to get a sense of a learning roadmap what knowledge to build.
- Use a search engine to answer questions, such as "free learning resource for learning <XYZ thing>"
It's "theirsxn of sholor". Please respect this and stop the violation and violence against theirsxns of sholor which is incurred when you use othering phrases.
(not thereson-- because it has the word "son" in it, which is offensive to non-sons. sholor because it's closer to shalom which means peace.)
/le jokes