throwaway45349

The term "FAANG" is about prestige (originally stock growth) more than actual quality of life.

4chan is a shady place, but it is definitely not a bastion of child porn. The owners do not allow anything like that.

Yes because improving quality of life is as simple as legislating it. You really think those drivers wouldn't be out of a job for charging 3x?

Some are medically exempt. This mask-or-else culture pushes those people out of society, totally unfairly.

Agreed, a lot of tech might be data harvesters, but they don't sell location data to bounty hunters.

Is this purely a US phenomenon? I don't see this much at all from people who live here t(the UK), but we're really starting to feel the effects of social media censorship hit hard, and I know a lot of people are really angry about Big Tech pushing their own moralistic world view on our country.

EU market may be big, but the UK is too valuable to just give up on entirely.

Because work is a huge part of my life? At the end of the day, I choose the job that's best for me, not the other way around.

I would guess a sizable fraction is regional policy, legal and marketing teams. The whole point of Uber is to operate everywhere and you simply can't run all of that in Silicon Valley without access to local knowledge. Not to mention the incredible bloat that comes from building in market-specific features across the whole planet.

This is terrible. I've never seen a Googler get thrown under the bus so publicly by one of their own. Just doesn't fit the company profile.

Ah, well, I'm not exactly a proponent of lockdown in the first place, but the big difference is Covid spreads faster. it's already a social norm to stay away from grandparents when the flu rolls around.

I was lucky to be in your position only months before the pandemic (though I never went to college), so I built up a reasonable set of friends before WFH (both at work and outside of work).

The biggest factor in your decision should be ease of meeting new people, imo. Cities were already bad for this in the first place, but I view them as the "least worst" option. Try leverage your existing network if you know anybody where you're moving to, because they're going to be in the same position. Hacker meetups, game jams, industry conferences or other hobbies work really well too -- though you might want to avoid being in the tech bubble because I'm totally stuck inside it.

Once you've got a few friends, you can leverage their social network to meet new people and explore new hobbies and stuff.

WFH does mean you can more easily keep in touch with college friends. Me and a few buddies have a Discord server where we co-work and we also have something similar within my company (where it's easier to not worry about leaking secret stuff). This has been one of the few things that's kept me sane over the last year.

Edit: Happy to share more if you've got something specific in mind.

What I mean is that WFH employees will still demand perks, just of a different nature (maybe higher salaries). As long as the market dynamics we have today stick, employers will still be spending money on perks.

Just as employers can now access remote employees anywhere in the world, employees can access any company hiring remote.

You call it time theft, I call it work life balance.

If I'm struggling with a problem, sitting on my ass for 5 hours is not going to make the solution come quicker. Going for a walk, playing video games, or calling somebody are a great way to recharge, and as long as I'm not blocking anybody or producing worse output, it's a net plus over time for productivity.

In return, I'm happy to throw in a few extra hours in the evening or over the weekend if I suddenly have a breakthrough, but I'm doing that on my terms.

The team cohesion part can be a real issue, but defaulting to asynchronous communication can really help here.

> If covid is dangerous enough to lock down society yet is only x5 as deadly as bad flu seasons open offices are literal murder.

Flu is only deadly for a very small segment of society, though.

When I commuted to work, I was already in the centre of a huge city with lots of social opportunities after work (with friends who are nearby in other jobs). If I wanted to socialise daily it's likely I'd be doing something akin to a work commute anyway. That's partly why I enjoyed going out to work in the first place.

I live in the UK - very few places in London will have the space for a separate home office + space for family. It will get incredibly expensive if we all need to buy more space (and I'm not having my office setup in my living room forever).

Very few companies have on-site gyms, snacks and child care. These are competitive advantages, and as long as top-tier SWEs are a sellers market, these businesses will have no choice but to spend money to attract talent.

The cost of those things is a drop in the ocean compared to salaries anyway.

Except that in-person forums are illegal right now :(

I mean, that's fine, but I take issue with one party having this massive megaphone to the world, with the other side having theirs completely snuffed.

Either ban them all, or ban none of them.

Why? Both are a disenfranchised voice complaining with violence. One might be more valid than the other, but that doesn't mean one is inherently better.

Worth noting that Valve is one of the few companies that makes a conscious effort in favor of freedom of speech. They refuse to moderate for ideological reasons and not just cost.

We live in a post truth world because of social media algorithms, which made that content successful. I think we need to heavily regulate those ASAP.

The deplatforming has been going on for years, since at least 2016 when Trump was elected in the first place. In Twitter's case[0] they went after smaller users (edgy "russian bots") until ~2018, when they really ramped things up. This even hit left wing (anti-establishment) activists[1].

One of the conclusions of a recent purge by Reddit was that it just pushed the banned users into even more radical spaces online[2].

Of course we all know about The Streisand effect, and one article suggests that censorship just draws more attention to the banned content[3]. If we assume that ideas are somehow "contagious" or "infectious"[4] then we're just exposing people to them even more.

> In any case, the only news on the topic that I’ve seen has been that election misinformation on Facebook/Twitter has dropped by 70% since the deplatforming happened on those platforms.

But the deplatforming didn't make those people go away, it pushed them to platforms like Gab and Parler, right-wing echo chambers. This is like an extreme version of a filter bubble. Remember, millions of people supported what happened at the capitol[5], and there is zero hope of de-radicalising people if the left and right aren't talking. If anything, both sides will get more extreme.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming#Twitter (see references)

[1]https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ba...

[2]http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf

[3] https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://th...

[4]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00546-3

[5]https://www.statista.com/chart/23886/capitol-riot-approval/

The capitol stuff was organised on Facebook, not Parler: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25776225

What about the Summer violence from BLM? Dozens of people died, with Twitter being used as a communications hub to attack specific individuals.

I get it, companies do not legally have to provide these services to right-wing groups persecuted off of Twitter. I'm saying that it's _morally_ wrong to deplatform.

Not necessarily because I enjoy having this speech hosted, but because isolating and pushing out so called "deplorables" is escalating the current American political conflicts to serious violence.

As I said in my other comment, when the disenfranchised can't speak, they get violent. If you disagree with these people, say that to them. Cutting them off from the mainstream public squares like Twitter and Facebook just creates a new generation of radicals.

Silicon Valley used to stand for freedom of speech for a reason.

Thank you.

Using a throwaway for anything political is just safer. I can comfortably talk about this with friends or colleagues, but I wouldn't broadcast it to the whole world with my name attached.

If you saw the amount of left-wing content calling for the execution of politicians, calling for communist revolutions, you wouldn't be asking this question. Twitter is just as toxic as Parler, except one is left-wing and the other is right-wing.

If it was the left being censored I would be outraged on their behalf as well.

Edit: Not if, when the left gets censored by big tech, I will stand for freedom of speech with them, but I don't think many conservatives will be left to stand with us.

Another problem is the term 'harm' (just like 'freedom of speech') has also been poisoned by those on the left who would have you believe words are more dangerous than actual violence.

When actual discussions and conversations cannot take place under the guise of pretend harm, real violence happens.

I do wholeheartedly believe the attack on the capitol is just the result of a disenfranchised part of the population who've been shit on and deplatformed for the last 4 years by the establishment (including Orange Man, FWIW).