vasilipupkin

6 ms·

1.
by vasilipupkin 8mo ago
not everywhere in the US except NYC. People take trains in Chicago, for example.
2.
by vasilipupkin 8mo ago
pretty impressive that you have more than 10 years experience with Generative AI
3.
by vasilipupkin 8mo ago
actually, they are actively beneficial owners. They can do things more efficiently than small time owners.
4.
by vasilipupkin 8mo ago
it doesn't quite work that way. Once you do this what you call "work", you can't just extricate yourself in the middle of dealing with complicated situations or drop things where others depend on you. So it's stil
5.
by vasilipupkin 10mo ago
you are talking complete nonsense, sorry. Nobody pays full tuition at Stanford unless you are rich, it's literally free for families making less than 150k a year. there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting parking passes, transpor
6.
by vasilipupkin 10mo ago
The number isn’t sourced. But the article does say 24% were receiving academic OR housing accommodation. So 38% registered disabled but only 24% receiving any type of accommodations sounds suspiciously like bullshit. It would require pe
7.
by vasilipupkin 10mo ago
You are nitpicking. By that logic, since we can never know the precise number because that number is always moving, we simply don’t know what the number is and all this is moot.
8.
by vasilipupkin 10mo ago
1 in 4 is 25% it's on their website. Along with all the other details. where is 38% coming from that is a better source than Stanford's own website. At a minumum the article should have said where they got that number and why it
9.
by vasilipupkin 10mo ago
yes, the original article is a flat out bullshit lie https://oae.stanford.edu/students/dispelling-myths-about-oae it's 25% registered, not 38%. How do you get this number wrong when Stanford has it on their websi
10.
by vasilipupkin 10mo ago
the original article is factually incorrect. Accommodations at Stanford are only 25% of students, according to their website, and that includes every possible kind of accommodation, not just time and half on tests. If you had carpet repla
11.
by vasilipupkin 10mo ago
this is a flat out lie and a case of bad journalism it's not 38% - it's 1 in 4 or 25%, according to Stanford's own website https://oae.stanford.edu/students/dispelling-myths-about-oae and that number inc
12.
by vasilipupkin 1y ago
there are too many CS grads without experience who are not very good. We have world class universities, by no means that implies that every new CS graduate is world class. A median CS graduate most likely cannot pass a basic interview in
13.
by vasilipupkin 1y ago
it's not a gambler's fallacy. "You threw money into the pot" and "you own a % of the pot" are two distinctly different things.
14.
by vasilipupkin 1y ago
if you are going to argue that Americans don't have a rich standard of living, that is just an absurd argument. It's obvious to anyone who has lived or worked somewhere else.
15.
by vasilipupkin 1y ago
you keep thinking about it in Soviet zero sum terms. First of all, the foreign engineer doesn't disappear if you don't give him a visa, he or she just works somewhere else and still takes your kid's job away. Secondly, it&#
16.
by vasilipupkin 1y ago
reform is a type of action that tries to identify a concrete set of issues and fix those issues, implies a positive change. this is a change in the direction of significantly reducing hiring of foreign workers by American companies, which i
17.
by vasilipupkin 1y ago
and so who owns the shares of "corporate america"? Newflash: Teachers' and firefighters' and cops' pensions are all invested in "corporate america". As well as pensions of union workers. As well as 401
18.
by vasilipupkin 1y ago
it isn't a risk, it is a certainty that companies will off shore more as a result of this.
19.
by vasilipupkin 1y ago
you don't believe it why ? you look at American education system and you think it produces multitudes of talented engineers? is it so inconceivable that we need a lot of smart people and we don't produce enough of them locally ?
20.
by vasilipupkin 1y ago
why not just hire them in Canada or literally in any offshore office and not pay the 100k tax?
21.
by vasilipupkin 1y ago
very real risk ? it's a certainty not a risk.
22.
by vasilipupkin 1y ago
this is not smart. If you want to reform an H1B program, reform it. This is not a reform, this is a bizarre attempt to do what? stop companies from hiring foreigners? they will simply hire them in their foreign offices or offshore.
23.
by vasilipupkin 2y ago
US is an unreliable partner. EU needs to work on decoupling from it ASAP in every domain.
24.
by vasilipupkin 2y ago
It's not a silly analogy. It illustrates the absurdity of accommodating every kind of small group of employees.
25.
by vasilipupkin 2y ago
if the owner of a market isn't actually dealing drugs, whether the market is physical or electronic, that is different than if the "owner" of a street corner is either dealing himself or actively supervising those who are dea
26.
by vasilipupkin 2y ago
fine, partially responsible is still a huge difference
27.
by vasilipupkin 2y ago
huge difference. People can sell drugs on facebook marketplace but that doesn't mean that Zuckerberg is a drug dealer. The difference is you bear responsibility for what you do.
28.
by vasilipupkin 2y ago
Agree. Zuckerberg is a really unpleasant weathervane in my personal opinion.
29.
by vasilipupkin 2y ago
how many people like this did meta have who had this issue and also had no access to a tampon, so that having it in mens' bathroom specifically was really important? what if I am a forgetful guy and I have socks with holes in them and
30.
by vasilipupkin 2y ago
"why go out of your way to remove them" in principle, it's fine to have them. But really, they are just a symbol of the fake performative substance free dei culture. A reminder of it. Transgender employees should not be dis

More ›