heartbeats

Or it's not happening because people are too stupid to see the potential.

According to my friends there, a programmer in Sweden makes SEK 30k - 40k a month, or $37-49k. Europe is a low-cost outsourcing centre which occasionally spits out bright people who run startups, just like China or India or Vietnam.

How does this violate the law? Could you point me to any European country with laws prohibiting this?

> You can't just claim that the people that are effectively your employees are simply contractors.

No, they are the employees of my subsidiary. They are entitled to all of the protections of labour law, including all the maternity leave and all that. If the subsidiary goes out of business, too bad. That's what they're for.

Yes, everything is genetic. Can't speak for divorcees, but the career women I've met have generally been more 'masculine', so to speak. We know that 2D:4D is genetic and has a strong correlation with leadership ability, so it wouldn't surprise me that such could come to be selected against in women.

Religiosity is genetic, and that has quite strong effects on fertility.

Then you bring in a few extra layers based in the Seychelles or whatever. This is an engineering problem, stop pretending it isn't.

They're also the reason why Sweden has an utter joke of a tech industry while the United States are world-leading within the field.

Why didn't you just structure your company differently?

Have a main company that does stuff, which hires subcontractor subsidiaries. They have one employee each.

Then, when she took maternal leave, you could just have liquidated the subcontractor - problem solved.

That's because SV outsources their development work there, artificially inflating prices. In reality, India has a 'tech industry' in the same sense that Africa has an 'AI industry' - there is industry and it is vaguely related to AI, but tagging images does not an 'AI industry' make.

Nothing, it's not a capex-heavy business.

Two of these companies are British, and the other two are complete jokes. It is like talking about the 'Ukrainian software industry'. Sure, some of them have computers, but that does not a tech industry make.

Won't natural selection take care of this within a few generations? The 'career women' and 'divorcee' genes get heavily selected against, and those with religiosity get heavily selected for.

We already see this in some Western countries where Muslims have much higher birth rates. Also in the US, we have the Mormons. If this development continues, it is not unlikely to see a return to historical, more efficient, social norms.

You have to break eggs to make omelettes. The US is the only country in the world (perhaps excepting China) with any tech industry of value, just as it is the only country with any finance industry of value.

Europe has some companies with IT departments, some American companies with European offices, and some no-name consultancies (which are often US-owned). The indigenous European tech industry is a complete joke, since there is hardly any of it.

A normal programmer in Europe earns maybe $2-4k per month, or $24-48k per year. For context, the American poverty line for a family of four is $24.3k, so they are earning about $21/month above the poverty line.

A normal programmer in the USA earns maybe $100k per year, and up to $300-400k if they work at a big company. In Europe, the CEO of an ostensibly big company might earn $300-400k. It's an utter joke.

That I haven't heard of the alleged European tech companies just goes to show my point. DeepL, what the hell is that? Spotify is somewhat larger-scale web development, but still just a Mickey Mouse startup. The NYSE couldn't even get their flag right! The other two (relatively serious companies) are located in the UK, which is slated to leave the European Union soon.

No, posting somewhere moves the whole subthread to the top.

Before:

  ├── a
  │   ├── b
  │   │   ├── c
  │   │   └── d
  │   └── e  
  └── f
      ├── g
      │   ├── h
      │   └── *i* <- this is new
      └── j

After:

  ├── f
  │   ├── g
  │   │   ├── i <- moved to top of its thread and its thread moved to the top
  │   │   └── h
  │   └── j  
  └── a
      ├── b
      │   ├── c
      │   └── d
      └── e

Why not put the onus on the last mile?

If you get spam calls, your carrier is liable unless they can point to the source of the disruption. If they can't point to where they got it from, they are liable, and so on. If they can identify them but they're unwilling to pay out, their link to you is still liable.

Eventually, the buck has to stop somewhere.

ARM have offices all over the world and are owned by the Japanese. The European "tech industry" is and remains a joke.

American companies also have offices all over the world. For example, Google have several offices in Africa. This does however not mean that Ghana has a booming tech industry, it just means that sometimes you need domestic offices for minor regulatory reasons.

And then, the system will adapt. There is never any problem.

> Because the cost of hiring the wrong person is a LOT higher than missing out on the right one.

Why can't anyone come up with a good solution for this? A "we'll hire you for a month and see how it goes" kind of deal?

There's only really one place that can have these big tech companies, and that is the US. What technology companies of note do the UK have?

It's just stupid nonsense like "writing spreadsheets for the local government" and minor web development. In tech, it really is US vs. ROW

Yeah, but the PhDs they're taking in generally got it from diploma mills. It's just ceremonial idiocy.

It still tests something. As long as it tests something, it is useful. If the candidates were stupid, they would not be able to play this (intrinsically pointless) Red Queen game.

I believe 'women' is the idiomatic usage in English.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter - since all tests test for something, and all these things are highly correlated, grueling job interviews are entirely justified.

As much as it pains to say me, HR is entirely justified in their approach of asking people to fill out a form, importing the list into excel, sorting on the GPA column, and calling the top N candidates on the list.

> This smells more like desperation than passion.

They are one and the same. If you're a nice company a lot of people want to work for, those who want to are prepared to go through hurdles in order to do so.

> I guess it is positively correlated, anyway.

Memory is very strongly correlated with IQ.

So your only qualm is that it would be difficult to enforce? After all, this does not seem to be a problem with false marketing.

But we've had mass media for a long time, whereas social media advertising is a rare concept. The former probably has a much greater effect.

The only reason people are concerned now is because Trump manipulated the electorate in a different way than politicians usually do, and this is a great violation of tradition.

Slavery as practiced in the ancient world was not the same institution as the chattel slavery in the European colonies, which is an entirely different moral gray area. It was more akin to our modern employment relationships if anything. And the following sounds like a reasonable expression of Christian morality, does it not?:

> 22 Employees, in all things obey those who are your employers on earth [lit. according to the flesh], not with external service [lit. eyeservice], as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity

If so, it is the parent who ought to be flagged, not my comment.

I have not introduced a flamewar topic, nor was it an unrelated controversy or a generic tangent. The Christian concern over female priests common in the American South is not "inordinate," that was what I was responding to.

That's the whole point - you select for people who are interested in jumping over hurdles to get the job, i.e. passion. It also requires intelligence. So already there you are selecting for the two most important traits.

Yeah but still - that is not a thing which actually happened. It is just systematic self-delusion, and an altogether pitiful approach. "I am not happy with the way things turned out so I will pretend they did in fact not turn out that way."

So why don't we make it illegal for politicians to lie? It seems much fairer. After all, corporations aren't allowed to put out misleading ads, so why should politicians?

It's a smaller harm if I buy diet products that don't work than if I vote for a politician who does the exact opposite of what he promised. Yet only the former is illegal.

Here we have Donald Trump's 'Contract with the American Voter': https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102.... How much of this did he accomplish?