I’m Australian and have been living in the US for the last 7 years, working for the same employer the whole time. I was originally on an E3 which was renewed twice, before transferring to a H1b and finally a greencard.
The E3 is not “automated” in the sense that some interactions with CBP are. You have to attend an interview at a consulate outside the US (my first was in Sydney, renewals were all in London) and while it’s not really stressful or has a high rejection rate it’s not something I’d personally risk without a lawyer having prepared the paperwork.
As for how I communicated this when applying for jobs, I always selected that I needed sponsorship and then the first sentence in my cover letter explained that I’m eligible for an E3. I interviewed with probably 100 companies back then and only one of them that I got to a first phone screen with cared about the visa thing and it was because they wanted to fill the headcount asap. Once companies get to a certain size they are either ok with sponsorship for all roles or not ok for any, and it’s just something that gets handed off to legal after a hiring decision is made. I wouldn’t worry about the companies that automatically cull your application based on needing sponsorship.
> I wonder how that latter price compares to the price in the US
My guess is not favourably for the US. My wife was diagnosed with MS about a year before we moved to America and, since I knew we were moving and was thinking about insurance, I asked the pharmacist once what they billed the govt per dose (monthly). We paid $40 out of pocket and the govt paid $1300 AUD.
Our insurance in the US pays nearly $10k USD/m for the same drug.
Which is bad, from a consumer protection perspective.
The retailer should absolutely be on the hook. They are the ones with a working relationship with the manufacturer, and hence are best positioned to be able to hold the manufacturer accountable.
As an Australian who lives in the US atm, they are right to be grateful for the ACCC (consumer protection watchdog). I certainly am now. In the US you have to rely on retailers who treat good consumer protection as a competitive advantage like Costco, REI, Best Buy, sometimes Amazon, etc. In Australia you can easily hold any retailer accountable (and they’re all just generally better behaved with this stuff anyway, so you rarely have to force them).
> In the US you have to rely on retailers who treat good consumer protection as a competitive advantage
For the most part, credit card chargebacks serve a similar purpose, though of course the retailer may ban you from their store afterwards.
Absolutely agreed that the retailer is on the hook. The customer is not making a deal with the manufacturer to buy the good; the customer is making a deal with the retailer. Along the same line, I dislike it when retailers try to weasel out of shipping issues by blaming it on the parcel carrier. That's only valid if the customer went to ups.com and created and paid for a shipment themselves!
Not everything is zero sum. The important element is not whether or not it is mutually beneficial to the companies, but whether it is detrimental to some other party.
Price fixing, wage suppression, monopolizing etc are all detrimental to the customer, employees, or other businesses, but it is possible to collaborate or “cease competition” in certain areas for mutual benefit in ways that are not detrimental (and in fact, are also beneficial) to others.
The first town on the list is a place famous for building houses underground due to the heat on the surface being too extreme. It’s also in the middle of nowhere.
The rest are country towns, not suburban ones. Where you need to drive hours to get to anything approaching what you might think of as “downtown”, and even then there’s not gonna be a lot there.
The reality in Australia is that the vast majority of the population lives within 100km of the east coast. It’s not like America where there are literally thousands of decent-sized small towns (tens of thousands of people), there just isn’t enough population for that. Almost half the population lives in two cities (Melbourne and Sydney) and neither of these are affordable places no matter how far out into the suburbs you go.
Unlikely. The trades that caused KCG to collapse [1] were not reversed (~$400m in losses).
Any firm worth their salt has risk systems in place to prevent runaway trading too, and those aren’t black boxes like AI/ML. They’re limits set for specific strategies or teams etc, and typically require approval from firm partners to increase past certain levels.
Collapses of firms are far more often caused by lapses in proper risk management than bugs in code. The KCG collapse looks like a bug on the surface but was ultimately a misuse of accounts that sidestepped these risk systems, so they couldn’t stop the runaway caused by the bug.
The beauty of open source is that the community will either figure out how to make it easier, or collectively decide it’s not worth the effort. We saw this with stable diffusion, and we are seeing it with all the existing OSS LLMs.
“It’s too hard, trust us” doesn’t really make sense in that context. If it is indeed too hard for small orgs to self host then they won’t. Hiding behind the guise of protecting these people by not open sourcing it seems a bit disingenuous.
As the post points out, Python web frameworks have historically not prioritized improving the performance of serving static files, and that seems… fine?
If we assume that all projects have a finite amount of engineering effort available, then triaging is expected. The best practice for production web applications for decades has been to serve them from behind a reverse proxy. From there, it is usually fairly trivial to use path matching to serve static files from the reverse proxy itself, a tool that is much better suited to this purpose and can easily saturate any link you throw at it without breaking a sweat.
It seems perfectly reasonable for the maintainers of these web frameworks to defer improving the performance of static file serving indefinitely given this.
Many things have changed since the old days. In PEP 3333 sendfile is exposed as opposed to PEP 333 (so in the WSGI days they had no way of doing it, but in ASGI they can do it).
The assumption that nginx is always there no longer hold, specially in microservices, ex. Running behind haproxy (does not service static files) or running bechind cloud provides like AWS ALB.
> I will want to win, but you can't win, you can only dominate
It is common for EVE players to refer to quitting as "winning EVE". I won EVE around 7 years ago after falling 800-hours-in-6-months deep into the optimisation black hole you describe and realising it was immensely fun but unsustainable.
The E3 is not “automated” in the sense that some interactions with CBP are. You have to attend an interview at a consulate outside the US (my first was in Sydney, renewals were all in London) and while it’s not really stressful or has a high rejection rate it’s not something I’d personally risk without a lawyer having prepared the paperwork.
As for how I communicated this when applying for jobs, I always selected that I needed sponsorship and then the first sentence in my cover letter explained that I’m eligible for an E3. I interviewed with probably 100 companies back then and only one of them that I got to a first phone screen with cared about the visa thing and it was because they wanted to fill the headcount asap. Once companies get to a certain size they are either ok with sponsorship for all roles or not ok for any, and it’s just something that gets handed off to legal after a hiring decision is made. I wouldn’t worry about the companies that automatically cull your application based on needing sponsorship.
reply