> My question is, if it's so advantageous to employ people via onsite staffing firms (basically half of FAANG's workforce is employed this way), why doesn't Google stop directly employing people altogether?
Because it’s the mix that is advantageous, not either one (employees only vs contractors only).
Is there any data or studies to back that up though?
My guess is, like most of the norms and practices of corporate America, the answer is "We do things that way because other companies do things that way."
Kind of like the hilarious herd-like back-and-forth of these corporate back to office policies.
CEO: "Apple's going back to the office in September? Ok we should too! Send out the press release Karen!"
Karen: "Sir, Apple just pushed back to January."
CEO: "Then we should too! Send out a new press release, STAT!"
It'll work until the next big rewrite of that component :).
I love it when people put this level of detail into their commit messages, but this technique has one weak spot I don't know what to do about: if someone makes a change that confuses git's semantic heuristics - rename a function, split a file into two, etc. (or maybe all of them in a single commit), it creates a boundary for blame/log-trace that's hard to bridge.
But then, maybe I'm just not clever enough with git log -L ...
Hopefully whoever is git blaming understands enough about git to hop past any intermediate changes back to the source
I've never done any kernel development, but with commercial code it's pretty common to have to dig backwards including going back to the issue tracker or even searching through company chat (Slack, email, etc) if the shop doesn't do [a good job with] documentation
The --follow, -M, and -C options have usually helped me out of most blame dead ends, but sometimes I do still have to look up each blamed commit manually to keep following history.
>Kia niro comes out the same price, electric sells the most.
That's my whole point. Of course more people will choose an EV when they are at price parity. The problem is that they are not. The Niro EV sells for a ~40% premium in the US over the ICE version, because the government subsidies are far less.
Yes, that is correct. But the argument is, «electric cheaper -> sells more». My argument is that the people of Norway wants electric, when priced the same. Electric is the new shiny that most people in Norway want.
They are priced the same, I’ve bought this car to this price. The MSRP includes no sale tax (mva) and no horse power tax. Are you thinking of some other incentives?
The retail price is the same, sure, but the effective price is much different because the incentives come from different tax and rebate schemes that aren't factored into the retail price. EVs have no VAT in Norway, no road tax, no toll or ferry fees [0] -- that's a major difference in the effective price!
Sorry, thought you meant “initial” total purchasing price, if that makes sense. Road tax is back, this year. No ferry fee is only on Europe roads. No toll fee still. Also service cost is probably cheaper, as electric has less failing motor parts, not sure about the battery though.
Are you comparing a large car, Subaru Outback, to a small car, Model 3? Model X would be a fairer comparison, where model X is 300k NOK more in base model.
Because it’s the mix that is advantageous, not either one (employees only vs contractors only).