Woost

I know it's hard, but stay positive here. You just had someone effectively offer to put in a good word for you with several companies in your country.

Instead of 'I ran out of money and will have to move back soon', which reads a little negative, try 'Thanks! I live in São Paulo right now, but I'm willing to move anywhere in Brazil for an opportunity, though my funds are a bit low so traveling will be tough. I'll send you an email/my email is in my profile'

Your rant is quite misguided. In this case, the CEO explicitly asked for people to email him:

"I discovered that Legere put an emphasis on customer service -- listening to calls and even sharing his email address."

From the other article: "had customer complaint emails forwarded to him. He also gave out his email address, ..., for anyone to contact him."

Probably because it's split between everyone renting in the building, and while the tax is higher, it's not so much higher that you end up effectively paying the same amount.

At least, that's my guess.

Assuming a 40% tax rate (overestimating) and the expenses listed here, that leaves 2700/mo spare, still a good bit, but:

That 2k/mo child support payment is what's insanely high(that's rent for an entire family!). Most families don't have to deal with it, and, further, get by with significantly less money spent on their children, assuming they run the numbers and figure out an appropriate budget.

Would something like the above code be on your interview? (pow = 1 : [ 2*x | x <- pow])

I'd probably fail it even though I do understand recursion. I don't know Haskell, and the above is rather cryptic to me. I can infer that it raises 2 to a power, but I'm not sure how it works -- both in how it's called (does that define a function? Pow(4) --> 16?) and the why (the last part defines the recursion I assume, but what happens when you need multiple args, and what does it mean?)

This site is broken on an iPad...scrolling doesn't work at all

It would also be good to be able to change the 'expenses' field for ownership.

For example, if you live in NYC there's pretty much no chance you'll find a place which doesn't have (at least) a few grand/month in "coop fees" or "condo fees".

Also, there's "how much will you spend on maintenance", which you don't need to worry about when renting. Replacing a roof, hot water heater, etc. I'm sure you built in some numbers for that, but it would be good to be able to set.

And, as other comments have said, the 30 year mark seems to just be broken. I filled in some random numbers (100k, 60k) and I get 339k expenses in year 29, and -125k in year 30.

There is, actually, a loss to the provider. Every person's version of pirated movie X will be unique, which means the provider has to pay for more storage space than they would without encryption. (since without encryption they could compute a hash of the file and point to it on their servers)

It read to me more like it was annoying for them. They want to get rid of ads so they can quit spending time writing reports for advertisers/vetting ads, and spend that time working on new content instead.

I don't see anything that mentions where he is...it's entirely possible that he's in the middle of nowhere tech-job-wise. If that's the case, the first move should be "go somewhere with a tech job market".

One more issue...if you login with a non-ec2 amazon account there's no logout link. I end up having to clear my cookies.

Just in case it hasn't been considered, this is all stuff that can be negotiated with the original company.

With proper legalese (read: talk to a lawyer to get a proper contract) you can trade your shares for the company agreeing that they will not sue you for trade secrets/ideas/code/etc.

If the employer wants loyalty, then they can pay for it. Maybe not literally, but when I really like my job it takes a hell of a lot more than an extra $10k/year to get me to switch.

Or they can heavily encourage it, with vesting stock options, seniority based raises/promotions, etc.

Relying on "loyalty" to keep people when the employer has shown none (an employment contract that has penalties if you're laid off? Only for senior execs) is just a bad idea.