Some AI recruitments have seen 9-figure contracts. $100K is actually a surprisingly well-considered number and would still see the intake of legitimate talents, obviously contingent on the specific details. Indeed, those people wouldn't have to compete with masses of consultant trash and the whole lottery system could be done away with.
$100K actually seems perfectly coherent with forcing the program to winnow down to actual talents. People truly good enough to get the employer to pony up $100K to pull them in -- presuming there isn't some kickback fraud happening -- will truly be the best of the best.
> The only effect this is going to have is accelerating the offshoring of jobs through more hiring in
Paradoxically the #1 reason H1B employers bring in H1Bs is to bridge offshoring work. Pull in a dozen Indians and they're your bridge to the big Indian office, which is precisely why Infosys, Tata et al are such H1B users.
> Some AI recruitments have seen 9-figure contracts.
These are crazy outliers who would go through a different visa path anyway. US tech companies still need mid-level workers making low-to-mid six figures. Weirdly O1 visa holder spouses will get an O3 which doesn't allow them to work, making it worse than the H1B/H4 visa for some set of people. (H4s allow spouses to work)
They're crazy outliers, and that's fine. The point of H1B is hiring talent outside of the United States, not hiring normal webdevs or commodity software engineers. A fee like that, where a large salary for an exceptional job would make the cost relatively small, brings the program back to its original goal.
If you just need a normal worker, there are plenty of CS grads and unemployed SWEs you can hire in the US right now. If you need a specialized foreign worker because he or she is not available in the US, then chances are you are going to pay a premium anyway; that's the point.
I wasn't aware that we've already reached the end of 'work that needs to be done'.
Does this utopia come with four-day weekends?
Countries become wealthy because people in them work and make stuff. It's incredible to see people actively advocating for making their country poorer. "No, no, we have too many people working..."
An H1B is a three year visa. The new proclamation itself expires after a year unless it's renewed, but it didn't actually adjust any other rules of the visa to my knowledge.
So the one year seems to be the trial policy of the $100K, but it sounds like it's a single payment per visa, then normal visa policy comes into play.
> People truly good enough to get the employer to pony up $100K to pull them in -- presuming there isn't some kickback fraud happening -- will truly be the best of the best.
And what stops those people, best of the best, working somewhere else, with much better living standard(EU) ?
In the past, it's because of salary, but now, the 100k/year will either make company to lower their package, or try to extract much more from the employee.
Eh, Trump's administration is so cravenly corrupt and incompetent in every facet and manner that I think it will happen, purely because it's one of those "throw 'em a bone" tactics for the commoners. It's the same reason the aggressive ICE actions have redoubled.
And FWIW, I think the H1B program, like the TFW program in Canada, is outrageously corrupt and has zero legitimacy, and the laughable foundations that people use to justify it -- namely a completely unsubstantiated labour shortage -- is such a ridiculous lie that it deserves to be obliterated. It is a way for the ultra-rich to stomp on worker rights and compensation.
> I think the H1B program [...] has zero legitimacy
That's demonstrably false, even just by my own experience with people, so not sure I can take what you're saying seriously.
Yes, there's corruption and abuse, but I've also worked with some fantastic, excellent, smart, ambitious, hard-working people on H-1B visas. They would not have been in the US without it.
I've also worked with some mediocre fools who were on H-1B visas. That's the problem we should be focusing on, and there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think there's a lot of visible frustration (and sometimes racism) in tech discussions online, due to the bad economic climate. This is visible across different platforms. In the past year, I've seen massive rise in people making outlandish claims like this. I expect the trend will grow and soon they'll find a new scapegoat.
Okay, if that's my bias -- if you think you get to casually wave off positions as emotional instead of the objective truth it is -- then what is your bias?
From your minimal activity on here it seems that you're Indian. Do you think you have an objective, ground-truth position on the H1B program?
As to the "scapegoat", if there is a bad economic climate, it's simply obvious that the purported labour shortage is no longer the justification, doesn't it? You don't have to scapegoat to point out that a program contingent on an economic condition needs to change when the condition changes.
Calm down my friend, this isn't a personal attack!
I'm neither in the US nor do I work for a US company, so granted, I personally don't have much skin in the game, and yes I don't have objective, ground-truth position, like you do, but you fail to notice the comment I was replying to, which was simply pointing out blanket statements, namely this:
> I think the H1B program [...] has zero legitimacy
I take it me being Indian doesn't sit right with you, considering you're Canadian yourself. Now as for my bias, I'm frustrated by the rampant racism piggybacking on the singular fact that the majority H1B visa holders are Indian, which comes back to my point: there is a lot of perfectly understandable frustration surrounding H1B, but does this make the racism alright?
Is H1B exploited? Yes. Are ALL H1B engineers good for nothing, wage slaves? Probably Not.
Now, FWIW, the company I work (not WITCH) for has sales engineers in US who are under H1B, so yes, I can claim that the legitimacy of H1B is in fact, non-zero.
As for the "scapegoat", I've seen discussions go from "DEI" and "woke" taking away jobs to "H1B Indians". I'm sure there will be someone else to blame once all the H1Bs are "evicted".
> Calm down my friend, this isn't a personal attack!
How is this remotely appropriate to my reply, beyond a rather transparent attempt to taint readers?
> I take it me being Indian doesn't sit right with you, considering you're Canadian yourself.
Another incredibly weird comment, again wholly inappropriate. Does this tactic actually work?
Indians have a significant bias on this and similar topics, and given that there are several hundred million English speaking Indians online, their presence is seen in every discussion. It is always some manner of "this is good for you and it's racism if you oppose it" (which is a rather ironic given the incredible racism that Indians are often observed plying when they do get to the West).
> the company I work (not WITCH) for has sales engineers in US who are under H1B, so yes, I can claim that the legitimacy of H1B is in fact, non-zero
Instead of hiring Americans to staff an American sales office, they parachute an army of Indians into the US to use US systems to undercut Americans? This is precisely the illegitimate use of H1Bs, so what an incredible claim.
Regardless, I have no idea why you've become so angry and racist about this. Is it because you hate Canadians? Weird. Hey look, I can do that ignorant tactic to divert from the discussion as well.
> As for the "scapegoat", I've seen discussions go from "DEI" and "woke" taking away jobs to "H1B Indians".
Almost as if it's a complex and multifaceted conversation? Some are diversions, some are legitimate grievances, and again that is just nonsensical distractions. If the economic climate is bad, which you specifically said, programs like the H1B should be winnowed down to the truly exceptional. Which obviously includes zero "sales engineers".
> How is this remotely appropriate to my reply, beyond a rather transparent attempt to taint readers?
Okay, I apologize for the snarky remark, I just found it odd that you called my nationality into question.
> Another incredibly weird comment, again wholly inappropriate. Does this tactic actually work?
This was simply mirroring what you did, I don't know if you meant it in good faith, but it was inappropriate on my part.
> "this is good for you and it's racism if you oppose it"
I would genuinely not have engaged with you if not for this comment. For my part, I'm simply concerned about racism against Indians, which I've seen increasing more and more in recent years. I don't have a problem with criticism, I'm just concerned about the slippery slope.
> Instead of hiring Americans to staff an American sales office
As I mentioned, I don't work for WITCH (consulting) companies. This is an assumption you made out of thin air. I work on a product based company that sell it to American businesses. There is a relatively handful of sales engineers/support engineers in the US, and not just H1Bs, this includes US citizens too. There is no undercutting here, it's a relative niche that American firms haven't bothered with. FWIW, I know a few companies similar to mine, where our target market is NA, though I agree it's very few. We can also afford to pay $100K fee, because of the smaller number of staff.
> Is it because you hate Canadians?
> From your minimal activity on here it seems that you're Indian. Do you think you have an objective, ground-truth position on the H1B program?
Assuming you made the original comment in good faith, I apologize for the remark. I simply lurk here and read whatever is posted, not much of a commenter!
> Almost as if it's a complex and multifaceted conversation?
Yes, but how often do you find people willing to have complex and multifaceted conversation? Purely from personal experience, the moment people find they're talking with an Indian, they tend to have many assumptions. Also note, I'm predominantly talking about conversations online.
If country has 10 qualified people but 15 positions to fill you cant find it by just hiring in the country. Then you just end up with a circle where the people move around.
Yes, I also can make up imaginary math. 6 is bigger than 3. But 9 is less than 12.
There are extraordinarily few roles handed out to H1Bs where there aren't enormous numbers of domestic options. Indeed, by far the biggest users of H1Bs in tech are shitty consulting firms like Cognizant, Infosys and Tata doing absolute garbage, low skill development.
Yes, there are exceptions. There are truly unique talents in the AI space, for instance. Not someone to build Yet Another agent, but someone who actually understands the math. They are extraordinarily rare in that program. And for those exceptional talents, a $100K fee would be completely worth it. But they aren't going to pay it for an army of garbage copy-paste consultant heads.
In actual reality it's just a way to push down wages by forcing Americans to compete with the developing world in their own country. In Canada we have "TFWs" filling the same role. It is a laughably unjustified, massively abusive program.
The next generation M5 should bring the matmul functionality seen on the A19 Pro to the desktop SoC's GPU -- "tensor" cores, in essence -- and will dramatically improve the running of most AI models on those machine.
Right now the Macs are viable purely because you can get massive amounts of unified memory. Be pretty great when they have the massive matrix FMA performance to complement it.
If you assume that the author did this to have content for his blog and his YouTube channel, it makes much more sense. Going back to the well with a "I regret" entry allows for extra exploiting of a pretty dubious venture.
YouTube is absolute jam packed full of people pitching home "lab" sort of AI buildouts that are just catastrophically ill-advised, but it yields content that seems to be a big draw. For instance Alex Ziskind's content. I worry that people are actually dumping thousands to have poor performing ultra-quantized local AIs that will have zero comparative value.
I sure hope no one does this seriously expecting to save some money. I enjoy the videos on "catastrophically ill-advised" build-outs. My primary curiosities that get satisfied by them are:
1) How much worse / more expensive are they than a conventional solution?
2) What kinds of weird esoteric issues pop up and how do they get solved (e.g. the resizable BAR issue for GPU's attached to RPi's PCIe slot)
> The thing I resent most is the terms Global North and Global South ... because white people invaded 200 years ago ... It is completely arbitrary, political and divisive.
There is nothing "arbitrary" about the classification, and it was created by aid groups originally based upon socioeconomic factors, later adopted by the UN and others as the term third-world went out of favour after the Cold War ended. It got the North/South bifurcation purely because most of the one set were Northern countries, and most of the other set were Southern countries, and most people don't have a defensiveness about the words North or South and aren't offended by it.
As an aside, acting as if the colonial countries aren't empirically successful because you want to push some umbrage is just super weird. Australia and New Zealand are both highly developed rich countries, regardless of whatever your rural area's infrastructure is like.
Countries in the Global South desperately want to be classified in that grouping because it means development funds and benefits that aren't available to Global North countries. China has rapidly risen over the past couple of decades and it's getting hard to still call it a developing country (and its foreign aid intake has been rapidly tapering off as it industrializes), though to be fair, it still has a GDP per capita 1/4 Australia or New Zealand. Similarly Russia is mighty close to losing Global North standing.
And for that matter South Korea and Japan are a part of the Global North. I guess they didn't get your memo that it's only for the white countries or some such social justice prattle.
And once I get to your final paragraph I'm firmly convinced you were just trolling, or at least I honestly hope you were. Delineating the world by socioeconomic conditions doesn't denote allies or enemies, and this bizarre take is nonsensical and has zero relevance to anything but some contrived taking of offense. The mere notion that it is "arbitrary" is so fantastically ridiculous that you have to be having a laugh.
Can anyone explain to me convincingly why Singapore is in the Global South on development and economic grounds?
I suspect the Global South at least as far as Asia is concerned is almost entirely about global political alignment.
Countries in the US alliance appear to be labelled North. Singapore is highly developed and like the rest of ASEAN is non-aligned. China is a global superpower and people align to them. SK, Japan, Aus and NZ are strongly US aligned for better or worse.
Because it fit when the classification originated and has never asked to be reclassified. South Korea was also considered a developing country and was cast as the global South back in the early days, but diplomatically and through its membership in the OECD became a developed/Global North country. If Singapore is offended it can ask UNCTAD and get reassigned.
Ultimately it largely doesn't even matter. It's a casual shorthand that in the overwhelming majority of cases is an accurate split between developed and developing/poorer countries. Some tiny city-state counterpoint isn't really convincing. Orgs like UNCTAD use it to high-level report on progress in lifting up developing nations.
As to alliances, ignoring that you're completely backtracking on your original post regarding that (you know the one where Australia is actual pals with all its neighbours and the N/S thing is a big lie), for obvious reasons the world's most prosperous countries tend to have common interests. Not to mention that a number of countries with a shared history (e.g. the commonwealth and the colonies) ended up being some of the richest countries.
> Also, both Europe and the US are happy to have China do the dirty jobs so that they stay clean in their countries
Can you give examples? What "dirty jobs" is China, and now apparently other countries, being purportedly forced to do? So is Trump really an environmentalist when he levied massive tariffs on countries in the region?
No, when countries devastate their environment they do it on their own volition. China was disastrously dirty mostly due to domestic reasons like the absolute lack of pollution controls, coal burning, and so on. China introspected and decided that they wanted to be better than that (the Olympics might legitimately have been a major turning point) and have done an amazing job cleaning the country up, and many areas are now truly Western. Air quality is infinitely better...at the same time that the country is making more than ever for the rest of the world.
Other countries haven't got there yet. India, the Philippines and so on have only themselves to blame for the state of their country, however self-comforting the delusion that it's really outsiders that are to blame might be.
> What "dirty jobs" is China, and now apparently other countries, being purportedly forced to do?
In past decades, we had this system that China manufactures goods, they are shipped in ships to US and Europe, and because US and Europe don't manufacture much anything, often the ships would travel back empty. Western countries started to legislate mandated plastic waste recycling, but didn't really have facilities to actually recycle. So we would ship our plastic waste to China, with a promise that it will be recycled. Legislators were happy. In practice, plastic waste is not so easy to recycle, and was often just dumped somewhere in Asia.
In 2017, China stopped accepting imports of plastic waste.
Some countries like Sweden, burn their household waste in combined heat and power generation plants. If you incinerate in sufficiently high temperatures, and have exhaust filters, you can do in cleanly without causing air pollution.
There are no outsiders when it comes to pollution. We get one planet. That's it.
So, China is free to choose to pollute, as is Europe and the US free to choose production from a source that doesn't pollute as much.
Their electrical infrastructure that is built on coal (60% of current generation) even if they've made huge improvements. Rare earth mining and building of all those electrical batteries and solar panels is a pretty dirty business. Reality is China produces a colossal amount of stuff, and much of it is pretty dirty (it would probably be dirty anywhere as that's the nature of making things at an industrial scale)
Right now China seems headed in the right direction for pollution, moreso than the US. And probably the only way they end up reducing pollution completely is to grow wealthy enough to replace old methods.
The US literally dumped their trash in China for "recycling". China doesn't want to anymore and India and several southeast Asia countries took over (Indonesia, Vietnam, ...).
And sure the the western world wasn't forced to trash China, but when a country decides to buy Chinese production that we know was made with no regard for the environment because it is more competitive than doing it locally where one has no choice but to care, then you are effectively exporting pollution.
As for Trump being an environmentalist with his tariffs. A few decades ago, he would have been, not so much anymore. If he didn't insist on trashing his own country that is.
> The US literally dumped their trash in China for "recycling"
No one "dumped" anything. There weren't random ships sneaking onto the coast and dumping their contents. No airdrops tossing out garbage bags.
This was a pull industry and China had such a negligent position on their environment that people -- Chinese people, in China, allowed by China -- made money tendering for recycling contracts and then just stacking it into a giant pile, presumably awaiting some innovation that would make it worthwhile to process. That precisely speaks to exactly what I was saying, and externalizing that and blaming it on others is the sort of patronizing, laughably bigoted infantilizing that people do about developing nations, and it's extraordinarily unhelpful. China started caring, and regulated these exploiters out of business.
> and India and several southeast Asia countries took over (Indonesia, Vietnam, ...)
Vietnam is a surprisingly clean country. Like you can drop a Google Maps pin almost anywhere in Vietnam and while it might not be glitzy and rich, there is a sense of pride in environment and a care and a concern about the commons.
India and Bangladesh, on the other hand... Yeah, this isn't covertly imported garbage, but instead is 100% domestic sourced, just as the vast majority of China's was before it became more enlightened. Countries that are cesspools overwhelmingly have themselves to blame.
I just had to respond because this sort of infantilizing "every bad thing is caused by outsiders" angle isn't remotely helpful. Like almost all of the world's ocean plastics come from Southeast Asia, and it's amazing seeing people try to rationalize how in cultures where plastics are used for everything, and discarded thoughtlessly everywhere, actually it's somehow the West's fault.
Are the faces even of audience members? Seems...gimmicky. The faces don't seem to react at all, and all are making almost AI movements. Many look artificial.
And it isn't identifying the people or anything. It's putting some meaningless adjective like "Resourceful" below them.
Have seen this headline a few times and thought it was actually novel and demonstrative of some face database or something, but instead it's just a surveillance gimmick. Put a bunch of generative AI face loops with bounding boxes and adjectives.
You'd jump ship because of the .0 release of Tahoe? Really? People get a little hysterical about things like this.
You know you don't have to upgrade to it, right? They'll support Sequoia for years, and you could even be running Sonoma if you wanted.
The response to this design is likely to be so overwhelmingly negative that we'll see a lot of subtle retreats in the point releases going forward, and when the macOS 7 version replaces TahoeVista, you can upgrade then.
It's not really hysterical to want to jump a ship that feels like is turning into a clown cruise. I can use Windows, Linux, and OSX equally well for work, even if I deploy to AWS in the end. However, I love the osx aesthetic and MacBook hardware, since around Snow Leopard, which is when I switched from Linux to OSX. Since then, OSX osx gotten worse with every release, and Tahoe is a very low, new low. At some point, it becomes not worth it. Just like it's not worth staying on the previous release of OSX while random apps and extensions lose compatibility. It's not hysteria, it's just the straw that breaks the camels back. The only thing is, I really like the M4 speed. There is nothing that runs as fast, and as cool, that I am aware of. If I wasn't doing a bunch of processing right now, I would probably switch. Non-hysterically.
Sequoia is absolutely, undeniably better than Sonoma. Sonoma is undeniably better than Ventura. And so on. This notion that it's all downhill is just noisy nonsense as people wave their hands and have a tantrum that they don't like some change. And to be clear, every single macOS release yields this. It's incredibly boring.
Like, it's fun to whine about the imperfection of macOS...versus Windows or Linux? LOL, come on. And just like you and probably everyone else on here, I use macOS, Windows and Linux every single day. Pretending that a couple of aesthetic changes are the big "straw that broke the camel's back" is just so lame.
It is hysterical. It's noisy nonsense. This "fine this is it" tantrum that people pull is such a tired gimmick.
And personally I think the aesthetics of macOS/iOS/iPadOS 26 are terrible. They're inevitably going to start easing down the heinous translucency and will claw back on the stupid round corners. Aside from that the system has a lot of fundamental improvements that will benefit everyone.
But no, no one on Sequoia is going to suddenly be without apps or extensions. When apps start abandoning versions it's usually a couple of versions out.
In some sense, some releases are always better than the previous version. Of course, Apple developers do some valuable work. However, there are changes that are not "undeniably better". I don't think every Sonoma feature was better. I don't want widgets, I don't want notifications, I don't want pretty much anything they've added in Tahoe. Not a single thing, that I'm aware of. And, now it's ugly as heck, to me.
I don't know what you're picturing, but I promise you, I am not being hysterical, I'm just annoyed. I feel like, when you "its hysterical", you think my mouth is foaming, my face is red, my heart rate is above average... It's definitely not. I'm just looking at CPU benchmarks and Windows ARM compatibility discussions. Honestly, it's kind of fun to have a reason to switch. I used to run hackintoshes, because Apple hardware was overpriced. But now, unfortunately, it is the other way around, and running Windows on M4 seems impossible.
Anyway, I don't think it's a huge deal, but it is definitely a straw that can break many peoples backs in terms of their preferred development environment. I know many people who have switched to Linux from the previous releases too. Un-hysterically, also.
Is cropping PDFs to rounded corners (without a way to disable it) enough to get someone to switch to another OS? Probably not, but it's still IMO a UI regression regardless.
Is it?
Some AI recruitments have seen 9-figure contracts. $100K is actually a surprisingly well-considered number and would still see the intake of legitimate talents, obviously contingent on the specific details. Indeed, those people wouldn't have to compete with masses of consultant trash and the whole lottery system could be done away with.
$100K actually seems perfectly coherent with forcing the program to winnow down to actual talents. People truly good enough to get the employer to pony up $100K to pull them in -- presuming there isn't some kickback fraud happening -- will truly be the best of the best.
> The only effect this is going to have is accelerating the offshoring of jobs through more hiring in
Paradoxically the #1 reason H1B employers bring in H1Bs is to bridge offshoring work. Pull in a dozen Indians and they're your bridge to the big Indian office, which is precisely why Infosys, Tata et al are such H1B users.