kkowalczyk

The title of this article is a manipulative propaganda.

If you don't bother reading it, it suggests that Edison hired people on H1B as their own employees and then fired existing employees.

The facts in this article are that Edison fired some IT employees and instead hired contractors from Infosys and Tata.

Those contractors are employees of Infosys and Tata, they don't work for Edison. Implying that they do is the first attempt at misleading readers.

Another fact is that some of Infosys and Tata US employees are H1B visa holders.

So it's possible that some of those H1B holders will end up working but the article doesn't actually make that statement other than a hearsay (a statement made by someone (in this case apparently an Edison worker being laid off) but not verified by the "journalist" writing the article) i.e. it's quite possible that none of the people who will replace Edison employees are on H1B.

We just don't know and the article either is so poorly written as to hide the facts behind the headline or is maliciously or incompetently distorting the facts.

Obviously you have way more information about this, but judging from what you've disclosed, it's a terrible investment.

Stock in a company is worthless (literally, as in "worth $0") until 2 things happen: * the company gets sold * the company does an IPO

Those are hard for all kinds of companies but next to impossible for a consulting company.

Consulting companies don't scale they way product companies do.

Revenue of $20k/month is nothing (this is what Google spends on a good engineer per month). They don't make enough to pay you a market rate.

How is this company going to ever get to multi-million dollar a year profit (a condition necessary but far from sufficient for a sale or IPO) ?

You seem to be so pre-occupied with details of the deal that you seem to be missing the obvious thing: investing in this company looks like a terrible idea because there's no way this company is going to be so successful to warrant a sale or IPO.

MIT license requires attribution ("The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.") so removing you copyright violates the license.

Realistically, there's not much you can do.

You could sue that person but it would be costly (lawyers fees) and the outcome is unknown (those things usually are not litigated so there's little case law to fall back on).

You could send them an e-mail to the effect of "I noticed you've removed my name from your fork of my project. It's not cool and violates the attribution clause of MIT license. I would appreciate it if you restored my copyright attribution.". The important thing would be to not be too forceful or else you might end up with the opposite result (i.e. they'll just dig in).

Or you can just let it go.

Yes, you are missing the point.

In Go, iteration order of keys was always non-deterministic.

At some point it was changed to be also random i.e. iterating the same hash the second time would produce a different sequence of key/values than the first time.

This is exactly what the article says, except using more words.

It's actually very false.

"Security" is an invisible quality, by which I mean it cannot be easily observed and because of that it cannot be easily compared and because of that is not going to drive adoption.

This is in contrast to visible qualities: price, performance, availability of the source code and its licensing terms, size of the ecosystem (number of applications for the OS, number of books, articles, conferences, programmers who know how to program for it) etc.

How exactly will you demonstrate that Ethos is more secure than, say, OpenBSD?

Pointing out the obvious: engineers are not "goods" that Google or Apple produces.

Even if consider employees salary to fall under that dubious categorization, good luck proving the salaries were "likely depressed" when during that period the salaries went up. A lot.

It seems that it only affected lazy and apathetic engineers i.e. those who couldn't be bother to send out a resume.

Acman's behavior is not bad because he's shorting Herbalife.

It's bad because after he bought short position, he's using his money and influence to crash Herbalife, by any means necessary, buying fake concern from various "community" groups, trying to influence government officials to start investigation etc.

Metaphorically speaking, he's a corporate terrorist, trying to cause distress in a company in order to profit from it.

And let's be clear: he doesn't care what happens after (potentially temporary) drop in Heralife's stock price.

He's end-game is not fixing Herbalife via some government action, all he needs to make his billions is temporary drop in stock price caused by FUD that an investigation would create.

Of course it's Ackman's fault - he's the one bribing all those people. He's much bigger problem than people taking the bribes. He's the one trying to exploit the system for financial gain.

Of course trying to ruin a company by bribing government officials to begin a witch hunt investigation is wrong if you stand to profit billions of dollars from that witch hunt.

Given the enormous profit he'll realize if he's successful in discrediting Herbalife, I can easily discount all of his other arguments as BS. He has no credibility in the matter if billions are at stake.

Note that I'm not defending Herbalife. Maybe they are scammy company that should be investigated and regulated more by the government - by that investigation shouldn't happen because a billionaire starts buying politicians, lobbyists and "non-profit" lapdog organizations.

US government already has established channel for complaining about unethical companies: Better Business Bureau. They don't need manufactured complaints.

I would say that the reason he struck gold (which is different from being valuable) is because he's a good programmer who happened to work on a break away product.

There are much more good programmers out there than break away products like WhatsApp.

You can't create successes like WhatsApp just by hiring good programmers. There are plenty of great teams that didn't achieve product/market fit and failed.

There are plenty of great programmers at Facebook or Google that do important but not wealth creating work (not on the scale of WhatsApp wealth).

In cases like this most likely the reason why WhatsApp is popular is that there was a person in charge who had the right vision for the app and came up with just the right set of features and a little bit of luck.

But even that person isn't valuable per-se in the sense that you should hire him for your company at all costs hoping that he will create similar wealth for your company.

I'm sure I'm butchering the analogy, but those are Schrödinger's successes: you can only tell they're successful at the time of the exit, but not at any time before that.

If he was hired by Facebook, he wouldn't have (co)developed WhatsApp. If Facebook hired him, he would most likely be worth (to Facebook) as much as any other random Facebook programmer.

Unless he's the one who started WhatsApp, it would have been developed and successful anyway and Facebook would have to buy it for the same amount of money.

The reality is that product/market fit is much more powerful force than programming capabilities of any single engineer.