"... our financial guidance for the third quarter of fiscal 2019 includes estimated revenues of $4.5 billion to $4.7 billion resulting from the settlement (which will be excluded from our Non-GAAP results), consisting of a payment from Apple and the release of our obligations to pay or refund Apple and the contract manufacturers certain customer-related liabilities."
Facebook's own announcement is titled "Keeping Passwords Secure"[0]
Facebook comms: You can't really use the word "keep" when the entire post is about how you have failed to keep passwords secure, by storing it in plaintext.
Or at least, you probably shouldn't use that word. It signals that you intend to keep doing what you're doing, which wasn't just keeping passwords insecure up until sometime in January.
It's up until today when you effectively disclosed that you haven't notify hundreds of millions of users that their passwords were compromised for months after discovering it. I know they "were never visible to anyone outside of Facebook", but that group still includes some +25K people.
Facebook comms knows that. That's why Facebook comms used the word "keep." It's also why they said "some" passwords and not "hundreds of millions" of passwords.
Facebook comms also knows that "there is nothing more important to us than protecting people’s information" is a bald-faced lie, since Facebook is literally in the business of selling people's information to companies like Cambridge Analytica, but sometimes it's okay to lie as long as it sounds like a meaningless platitude so that nobody would be expected to seriously believe it.
And they found 2000 employees accessed the data. I don't care how secure they think the passwords are in those 2000 people's hands. You can bet those have been sold on the black market if they leaked to that many people. Just takes 1 unscrupulous person, which is why you encrypt passwords so even if it leaks, the leaker can't get the original!
Why informing them and not resetting their password as a standard security measurement? I think the headline makes it even worse because it's so tone deaf.
"In July 1838, Charles Darwin, then 29, sat down to make a decision that would alter the course of his life [...] Should he get married?"
Incidentally, Kierkegaard kinda tried to answer this question 5 years later in Either/Or. A couple of related snippets:
"I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations — one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it — you will regret both" [0]
And a more long-winded version:
"Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it… Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the essence of all philosophy" [1]
Having said that, my take on that quote is that it seems a bit of a cop out - a way of absolving oneself of the consequences of ones actions.
You may well regret both, but perhaps you will also enjoy one, or you will regret one less, or regret one more, or one has ramifications which due to your (hypothetical) selfish nature you may regret but are better for society, etc etc etc.
Or is it meant to be more of a call to action as opposed to inaction? Make decisions, because you are damned regardless, so at least add your own breath to the winds of fate?
Most of us end up constructing a narrative where whatever choices we made were the right ones, unless they go so disastrously wrong that we can't fool ourselves. So why agonize so much?
I think that's true, but only part of the time, and very dependent on context.
Many, if not most people also experience periods where narrative is negative, and where we conclude that the choices we made were all the wrong ones. And quite likely most of us live with a combination of the two, depending on what area of life this 'narrative' occupies, depending on how much our self-respect or self-hatred is tied up with these areas, etc.
The core problem, I think, is not primarily that we construct all sorts of highly subjective, distorted, self-serving or self-harming narratives, but that we get too attached to them and desire these narratives to be consistent.
On the other hand I've met people (few of them though) who don't seem to have this desire to construct and maintain narratives, and while they do generally seem to live happier lives, some of them are perhaps a bit too lacking in introspection/narration and suffer from that.
> My feeling is that these jobs should be given to US college grads first. Let them grow into the roles. Why are we letting foreigners get hired into these roles instead?
In the case of senior roles: Because letting a college grad grow into a job that requires many years of experience, unsurprisingly, takes many years to grow in to.
As to entry-level positions I'd assume that a shortage of American candidates would be the reason. Or perhaps some employers have experienced foreign workers that seem more motivated/harder working (for instance they might have more to loose from being fired)?
> I have noticed that they pay less for h1b workers, and this is not only at Cisco, basically everywhere I have worked.
That would be a violation of H-1B requirements and seems to be why the Department of Labor is taking action against Cisco here.
> I’ve also seen the companies write job descriptions that only fit the h1b worker so they can help them get a green card.
I'm curious if you can provide an example of a job description that only fit one H-1B worker?
Also, H-1B is a non-immigrant visa, i.e. not a green card. It's a "dual intent" visa, which just means that an employer can legally file for a green card for an employee in H-1B status - it doesn't grant any immigrant benefits or a direct path to permanent residence.
> It’s sad.
If an employer is abusing the immigration system by somehow designing job descriptions for a specific person (and I'm interested in examples of that as noted above) I agree.
However, and I suspect this represents the vast majority of EB visa petitions for temporary workers, I don't find it sad if an employer sponsor a green card after someone has worked in the U.S. for many years. The H-1B visa is limited to 6 years max, after which the worker will have to leave the U.S. In most cases I'd find it quite nice if an employer makes the effort of securing a green card for an someone who has created a life for themselves in the US. It's also ususlly in the best interest of the employer, which is why they spend the time and resources to do it :)
> Finally, I believe that companies have too much power over a h1b worker. If they fire them, they only have a month to find a new job and then they have to fly home. It’s bad on all sides.
I agree fully with that sentiment, but it's unfortunately worse than you think: Technically an H-1B worker whose employment is terminated have to leave the country immediately. There's a vaguely defined policy granting some degree of lenience/grace period, but it's not a right at all.
In reality, a person in H-1B status should see every day in the US as potentially their last - at least in legal status (although very short lapses are often tolerated/accepted).
The discussion left me with the impression that the lack of progress in terms of making skilled labor immigration easier wasn't just a result of Washington's/politicians inability to get things done. That was however the reason I would usually hear when debating immigration hurdles with friends in the Bay Area.
It was pretty clear that keeping immigration difficult and very limited, even for skilled people, was also very much a popular position that largely reflected many HN users (presumably US voters).
Posting again to see if anything has changed in terms of how this community view and value foreign labor in tech?
I'm curious how this is possible considering a certified Labor Condition Application is a requirement of, and must be submitted with, an H-1B petition. An employer essentially attests to various posting requirements, and that the wage (ranges) at least matches the average for the same job title and seniority in a specific area, among other things. The wages listed in the LCA have to be backed by wage data from for instance http://www.flcdatacenter.com.
Seems like the company would have to either misrepresent the job requirements/responsibilities/wage level (seniority).. Or perhaps they'd fake a survey of local wages rather than using the "official" statistics?
Otherwise I don't think the Department of Labor would/should certify an LCA with a wage way below market for the position. If they do, though, perhaps that's where the issue can and should be fixed?
In practice this also means that employers need to file an amended H-1B petition with a newly certified LCA when an H-1B employee moves to a new area code. For instance, if you move a H-1B software engineer from Denver to San Francisco you'll likely have to pay the employee more.
The article does point out that the issue was discovered by the Labor Department (rather than for instance the USCIS, who's responsible for processing the H-1B petition itself), so perhaps that indicates a failure to comply with LCA requirements?
Yes that seems to be pretty close to the mean wage in San Jose for a likely "Software Engineer" job code: http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=41940...
Cisco's (posted) wages span the different levels of that job description pretty well as far as I can tell.
However it's probably important to note that LCA data (e.g. the data on h1bdata.info) doesn't actually say anything about how much Cisco's paying. Those are just the wages Cisco has submitted in LCAs, but I don't think there's any way to verify that an LCA is connected to and used for an approved H-1B petition and actual employment of a foreign worker.
> Because Cisco is "underpaying" H1 workers is a myth that a lot of HN posters like to believe
Not sure about HN reader bias (*see edit below), but in this case the Labor Department clearly found some wrongdoing on Cisco's part. Would be interesting to know what that is? Perhaps Cisco is filing all these LCAs to signal that's they're employing workers in all wage levels, but only use the certified LCAs with the lower wages when submitting H-1B petitions?
Edit: OK, I'll admit that I do actually know about HN bias a few years back. That was abundantly clear from the shitshow that was the HN discussion about pg's "Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8799572
You could potentially argue that if Cisco and others didn't hire H1 workers, maybe the median wage in San Jose would be $200k. But that sounds like a little bit of a stretch. I also think about roles like HR and Marketing that do not have much competition from immigrants, but are still very low paying. I bet the median wage of HR role in San Jose will be much lower
> You could potentially argue that if Cisco and others didn't hire H1 workers, maybe the median wage in San Jose would be $200k. But that sounds like a little bit of a stretch.
I agree that would be a stretch especially because the yearly H-1B visa cap is 65,000 across all industries.
In any case, even if wages would be a bit higher without foreign labor, Cisco would probably only be responsible for paying at least the market wage for a position at the time the H-1B petition was filed.
> I also think about roles like HR and Marketing that do not have much competition from immigrants
Just a small nit (because I'm reminded of this every time I enter the US): H-1B is a non-immigrant visa type for temporary workers ;)
