anticonformist

More rich women and rich black people joining the VC network would not solve the problem. And yet that's the conclusion this thinking leads to. It's the author's solution as well and doesn't address the real problem at all.

What portion of non-rich people make up the VC network? It's definitely lower than the percentage of women or black people. No one is more "underrepresented" than non-rich people.

VCs are the 1%. Their target of exclusion is the 99%. Most don't care about race or gender. They will overlook almost any attribute if they see dollar signs, race, gender, and even someone's poor background. Because their primary concern is money.

And since VCs hate poor people. And they know this about each other. Even those VCs that don't hate poor people will be more reluctant to fund poor people because they know other VCs are assholes. If other VCs will discriminate then the company may have trouble raising money and is more likely to fail. This is one of the major the systemic problem.

Her experience is the same. Zero funding is zero funding. Your experience cannot be worse than "received no money" when it comes to raising money. It is a binary outcome.

She's receiving equal treatment.

But she's expecting and explicitly asking for preferential treatment based on the her belief that VCs have promised it.

It could be that these VCs were never intending to offer preferential treatment. Or that they meant that they would offer preferential treatment to black members of the Ivy League. Neither of these answers would be surprising.

Many white male founders have had the exact same story with VCs.

If they were black or women they might have assumed it was a matter of VCs being racist or sexist. But this is probably wrong.

Because of these three attributes, one is not like the others.

"I’m a Black woman, mom of three, and I don’t have an Ivy League degree."

Because, regardless of their own race or gender, VCs are highly connected members of the Ivy League.

VCs don't like poor people for the same reason most rich people don't for thousands of years. They believe that poor people are losers. And why would an investor want to bet on a loser?

Remember that it is not "your" team but that you are just a member of the team, in good standing, with the relevant experience, that is volunteering to take on some additional responsibility.

Focus on the job at hand. Don't get into unnecessary political disputes. You're a tech lead, so keep it technical and focused on solving business problems.

Be kind and understanding of people's personal issues. It's a marathon, not a sprint, so it's fine if people's productivity goes up and down over time. As long as they contribute well over time, there should be no problem.

Make sure people take time off. Burn out sneaks up on people. Taking weeks off regularly is essential.

Do plenty of grunt work yourself, don't pawn it all off.

Write the most documentation and help your teammates write theirs.

Share the credit. Credit the team and individual team members frequently. Point out when people do well.

Downplay failures. Unless a mistake is malicious, you should blame the technology and the processes in place rather than the people involved. Humans make mistakes and it's through technology and process that we avoid them causing damage. Fixing the weakness in your technology or process is what really matters.

Most of all: lead by example. You should be an exemplar team member. Not perfect; no one is. Not an expert in every dimension; no one is. You should simply perform your duties in a way that your teammates could emulate with success.

There are a hundred other things, of course. That's just a few ideas.

Reforming the H-1B to do what it was intended to do would mean eliminating 99% of the visas that are granted.

It turns out that the entire H-1B program has been a massive scam. It was created and promoted by American Big Tech companies to make them money at the expense of American citizens. It's been a trillion dollar theft from lower and middle class Americans into the hands of the 1%.

Without the H-1B in place, these companies would be working to fix America's education system, paying more in salary to workers, and lifting more Americans into the middle class.

The program has been beneficial in many ways but the overall effect has been to use foreigners as a weapon against citizens.

One of the most reprehensible aspects has been the propaganda by the Big Tech companies. They're pretending to care about America's melting pot and helping immigrants, but they're importing primarily the wealthiest immigrants. They're damaging America and other countries at the same time, all in the name of money.

The author seems to have missed the true root cause here here. Which was exposing VNC and NoMachine to the internet in the first place. These services should have been accessed through ssh port forwarding (or using a VPN). Password auth should always be disabled on ssh and keys should be used.

Very few daemons are secure enough to expose to the open internet. OpenSSH is one of the few.

(And, if possible, even network access to ssh should be blocked by the cloud provider's firewall. Access should only be permitted from the user's public IP)

Police are doing a very different job than any other service worker likely to interact with a dog (as I explained in the other comment).

The general public has very little interaction with police officers at all. A random member of the general public should have approximately zero fear of their dog being shot.

The people having their dogs shot are usually doing something to attract the attention of police and/or not being responsible with the care of their dogs.

In other cases police officers are wrongfully shooting dogs. These are almost certainly the minority of cases but clearly this number should be as close to zero as possible. Police officers should be fired and sued in cases of negligence.

There is no equivalence between a meter reader and a police officer's situation. Some subset of police interactions may be similar but many will be very different. A police officer's interaction is much more likely to be heated, urgent, close quarters, and unavoidable. A meter reader can just leave if necessary, which is what they do.

For example, police officers frequently have to enter a home during a domestic dispute with a dog that is riled up due to its owners having a physical altercation.

I think police should have better procedures in place to try to prevent shooting dogs. It definitely happens more than it should.

That said, bites are incredibly dangerous and not something to downplay. This is pure ignorance. No infectious disease doctor is likely to agree that dog bites are always a "minor wound." People are hospitalized, lose limbs, and die from infections caused by bites. Puncture wounds should always be treated by a doctor.

Even a small dog can inflict a dangerous wound. Kicking a dog is a good way to get a bitten on the foot. Restraining a dog without injury is extremely difficult.

Police should employ pepper spray against dogs, or maybe there's a better technology available that they should start using.

But, when there is a legitimate case where a police officer reasonably fears that a dog is about to bite them, they should be be free to shoot. This is basic self-defense against great bodily injury. Every American has this right, not just police.

It's on owners to do their best to prevent police from interacting with their unrestrained dogs. That doesn't mean it's always the owners fault if a police officer is forced to shoot a dog. Sometimes it's just a bad situation and no one is really at fault.

That is cool but now you're relying on some random third-party app developer for your security/privacy. Even if they're good people, there's nothing to stop them from selling it to some jerk that will enable their own apps to bypass it and/or enable other shady developers to bypass it for money.

This kind of software can also be difficult to get right. There may be ways to easily bypass it.

If Google did this, I'd seriously consider going back to Android.

"You can write Rust shockingly similar to Go."

This applies in any case where one language is more complex than another. You can write almost any style of any language in C++, for example.

The problem is that every team ends up writing in their own subset of these languages, which means it's impossible to ever really achieve expertise. Each team's definition of the language is different, and no one has worked on every team. Ergo no one in the world is actually a C++ expert at any given company's "version" of C++, even if you know every C++ feature independently. You have to follow the style guide which tells you what subset of the language to use and how to use it. This isn't an insurmountable problem but it is a problem. Rust has the same issue.

With Go, everyone can feel free to use the entire language and every team's code ends up looking and feeling incredibly familiar, making it straightforward to contribute to most parts of any code base.