Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting

robert.ocallahan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 180 posts

Re: Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting

#161

Post by chx »

FabHK wrote: post #159
ryandamm wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, to be fair, it's because someone's handing out free money in the form of subsidized rides. The fact that hailing a taxi is more expensive (nevermind less convenient) is a strong argument when the consumer is making a choice. Wrapped in that argument is the obvious idea that Uber is burning investor money to capture the market, but you can't expect consumers to protest by paying more. That's what's so insidious…

Agreed. As I like to say, Uber screws their drivers (already, but wait for autonomous cars...), Uber screws their competition (subsidised), and their investors, too. For now, they don't screw their customers, but let's see what happens when they've gotten to monopoly market share. I've also argued before that it is somewhat of a natural monopoly insofar as the biggest player will typically have more cars nearer you,…

> For now, they don't screw their customers

Dismantling the rule of law in my book counts as screwing up the entire society.

Re: Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting

#162

Post by FabHK »

ryandamm wrote: post #148
FabHK wrote: post #116

I think one good criterion (among others) for deciding in what country to hold a conference is the number of countries whose citizen can enter without visa. There's a list on Wikipedia that you can sort by that criterion [1]. For the USA, it's 42 (what else). Canada, 52. For Schengen area (most of EU), 92. Hong Kong, 148, Indonesia, Cambodia even more. China only 12. So, South East Asia or Europe seem reasonable on t…

Self-centered American here, but wouldn't it make sense to weight it by population, or even population of likely attendees? Not clear why, say, Suriname (to pick a country out of a hat) should rank equally with Japan. That said, I think the point of your post (and the original post) is just to call out how ridiculous and sad the US's sudden policy swerve is. I hate how often the US compares unfavorably with the rest…

> wouldn't it make sense to weight it by population, or even population of likely attendees?

You're right, of course.

> the point of your post (and the original post) is just to call out how ridiculous and sad the US's sudden policy swerve is.

Yes, getting visa can be a time-consuming, expensive, even humiliating hassle - I've seen it with

* friends (one friend was planning to visit the USA for the first time this Christmas, was twice denied visa (no reasons provided), so did not go),

* colleagues (a colleague working in Hong Kong could not get permission for his wife to join him there), and

* myself (and I travel on a German passport, which is the best in that regard: 177 countries visa free/visa on arrival).

So, I genuinely think that among the things to consider (among others) when planning an international conference is easy entry for attendees.

However, the sad thing is that it's not a sudden policy swerve. The USA has had a rather restrictive visa policy for decades. It has obviously historically been wide open, but increasing suspicion of economic migrants, and then after 9/11 increasing suspicion of terrorists seems to have made it more and more defensive of the borders.

I personally find US CBP (custom and border protection) among the potentially least pleasant (and I've been to 100+ countries). ("Potentially" because you can be lucky and have a friendly reception and no problems at all, but you sure can have grumpy questions and more serious problems.)

The Recurse Center, a great programming retreat in NY, used to be called Hacker School. With the old name, attendees regularly had trouble with CBP (the dreaded secondary inspection), and I seem to recall that some have been denied entry. I believe that was one of the factors behind the name change.

So, yes, your perceptive observation that this is another index on which the US compares less favourably to the rest of the developed world as sometimes assumed also contributed to the post. Recent events have made it even worse - and I'm glad to see that the resistance is rising :-)

Re: Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting

#163

Post by viggity »

refurb wrote: post #128
pessimizer wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtually all of what Trump is being called out on has been consistent bipartisan policy, or at the least supported consistently by recent Republican administrations and by every Republican primary candidate, all of whom were openly racist, xenophobic and anti-science. I think it's a good thing. Finally an ugly, stupid face on ugly, stupid policies.

all of whom were openly racist, xenophobic Thank you for taking the first step at bringing both sides together! If we can just convince one side they are wrong and frankly evil, we can start the healing process.

i'm lifelong republican, I loathe trump, I voted for johnson. But I can promise you that Trump will lock 2020 up if the left continues down this "Trump is hitler, white men are evil" spiral of insanity.

Re: Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting

#164

Post by wahern »

lkrubner wrote: post #53
ryandamm wrote: post #38

I fear this is the warning shot across the bow of those tech executives who supported this president. First, they come for your conferences. Then, your H1B visa-holding employees. Then...? Innovation thrives on freedom. Freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom of markets. And tech, in its best form, is about freedom, rather than market-capture and rent-seeking. Needless to say, none of these recent develop…

Innovation thrives on the rule of law, independent courts and neutral arbiters of contracts, habeas corpus and due process, the right to a lawyer, and the right to uncoerced testimony. Consider Jethro Tull, the farmer. In 1700 he was 26 and he was taking over the family farm. He hired some local hands to seed the fields that spring. As had happened for thousands of years, the workers took bags of seed and cast handfu…

> Innovation thrives on the rule of law, independent courts and neutral arbiters of contracts, habeas corpus and due process, the right to a lawyer, and the right to uncoerced testimony.

Those are some of the bare requirements, just like agriculture is a requirement for civilization. Thrive isn't really the right word to describe subsistence living.

Also, it's not even clear whether they're requirements. We should be wary about confusing correlation with causation. The UK enjoys those things only at the pleasure of their elected Parliament. How long do you think those rights would have been maintained in America without a written constitution? Maybe the real requirements are more obscure cultural phenomena, and that there exists a wider universe of systems that could equally undergird widespread wealth creation in the presence of those same cultural forces. Don't discount the path dependent behavior of political evolution.

Re: Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting

#165

Post by rahimnathwani »

astrodust wrote: post #18
rahimnathwani wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From where does it take 20 hours to get to Beijing? SFO to Beijing is just over half that.

You're already on the Pacific coast. Not everyone on the planet is. Under optimal circumstances, not including airport time which can be considerable, flight time between New York and Shanghai is 15 hours. Add in a few hours to check-in, clear customs, plus other nonsense and you're up to 18. Under ideal circumstances.

I'm not sure what Shanghai has to do with a discussion about travel time to Beijing. New York to Beijing is about 13-13.5 hours.

You claimed 20 hours. I'm asked 'from where' and you weren't able to answer.

I'm not suggesting Beijing is the ideal conference location, even though I live there, but there's no need to spread FUD about how it can take such a long time for a developer to reach there.

Oh, and it takes me the same time to get to SF as it takes an SF-based developer to get to Beijing. Hotels are cheaper in Beijing. Salaries are higher in SF.

Re: Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting

#166

Post by rahimnathwani »

astrodust wrote: post #18
rahimnathwani wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From where does it take 20 hours to get to Beijing? SFO to Beijing is just over half that.

You're already on the Pacific coast. Not everyone on the planet is. Under optimal circumstances, not including airport time which can be considerable, flight time between New York and Shanghai is 15 hours. Add in a few hours to check-in, clear customs, plus other nonsense and you're up to 18. Under ideal circumstances.

I'm not sure what Shanghai has to do with a discussion about travel time to Beijing. New York to Beijing is about 13-13.5 hours.

You claimed 20 hours. I'm asked 'from where' and you weren't able to answer.

I'm not suggesting Beijing is the ideal conference location, even though I live there, but there's no need to spread FUD about how it can take such a long time for a developer to reach there.

Oh, and it takes me the same time to get to SF as it takes an SF-based developer to get to Beijing. Hotels are cheaper in Beijing. Salaries are higher in SF.

Re: Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting

#167

Post by imron »

nodamage wrote: post #160
imron wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's right, surely the uproar is about all the bombing and killing that the US has been doing in 5 of the 7 countries listed on the visa ban list. I mean human lives are worth more than visas right? And if that bombing had never happened, we wouldn't have the humanitarian crisis that led to so many refugees coming from those countries. Well, at least that's what I wish more people were concerned about, but where we…

I'm amazed by the cognitive dissonance necessary to equate people who are legal permanent residents of the United States with militants who are the targets of military action in ISIS-controlled territory. I also think it's hilarious that the right is now all of a sudden pretending to give a shit about all the "bombing and killing the US has been doing" when they clearly supported the invasion of Iraq and all the mili…

Firstly, I'm not on the right. I used to consider myself on the left, but given the Left's recent behaviour I no longer feel I belong there either. I'm also not from the US.

I am however of Muslim heritage. My parents are Muslim (though not the middle-eastern variety) but they encouraged me and my siblings to make our own choice regarding religion (not all Islam is as strict on this as is made out). I chose not to follow a religion, though from a cultural perspective there are aspects that are still a part of who I am.

With that out of the way, I will say that it takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to believe that the US is only bombing militants [0].

I mean sure bombing that hospital was an accident, and it doesn't happen all that often and the US would never bomb innocent civilians right? After all the official count of civilian casualties due to bombing is very low, right?

Of course it is, because thanks to the previous administration, all military aged men killed by drones are automatically assumed to be military combatants regardless of whether they were or not [1].

And so with stroke of a pen, innocent civilian casualties caused by drone strikes are reduced to single digits.

And last year the US dropped an average of 3 bombs an hour on mostly Muslim countries [2], including 5 that are on the current visa ban list, but where was the concern for the citizens of these countries then?

The above two items are a far worse affront than the temporary visa ban Trump has instituted, but where was the outrage? the protests? the monthly donations worth thousands of dollars to the ACLU? the tears from senators? the acceptance speeches of celebrities calling out the president?

That a visa ban can cause more outrage than either of the above two items makes me angry, and frankly, strikes me as little more than political opportunism and/or people being easily manipulated by political opportunists, rather than genuine concern for the well-being of Muslims.

End the Muslim visa ban! I hear. Personally I'd rather end all the bombing of Muslim countries that led to this mess in the first place.

I might not like Trump and I might not like this visa ban, but at least one of Trump's campaign messages was to get the US out of foreign wars and to stop with its policy of foreign regime change.

The last 10 days have shown that Trump is intent on following through with his campaign promises and if he can fulfill that one, then a temporary visa ban, although inconvenient to many, is an acceptable cost.

--

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/asia/afghanistan-bo...

1: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-ob...

2: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/americ...

Re: Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting

#168

Post by dragonwriter »

FabHK wrote: post #116

I think one good criterion (among others) for deciding in what country to hold a conference is the number of countries whose citizen can enter without visa. There's a list on Wikipedia that you can sort by that criterion [1]. For the USA, it's 42 (what else). Canada, 52. For Schengen area (most of EU), 92. Hong Kong, 148, Indonesia, Cambodia even more. China only 12. So, South East Asia or Europe seem reasonable on t…

Seems to me "proportion of your target community that can attend without a visa" would be a more valid metric than "number of countries from which people can enter without a visa".

But even better would be to also factor in the difficulty of getting the necessary visa for others.

Re: Tripling Down Against USA Conference Hosting

#170

Post by dragonwriter »

pessimizer wrote: post #115
kika wrote: post #11

The part about an initiative to look up visitors phones and social media is BS. This measure was introduced in June last year when the president wasn't Trump. Went into effect in December, when Trump already won but had no authority. One random link from google: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/foreign-travelers-soci...

Virtually all of what Trump is being called out on has been consistent bipartisan policy, or at the least supported consistently by recent Republican administrations and by every Republican primary candidate, all of whom were openly racist, xenophobic and anti-science. I think it's a good thing. Finally an ugly, stupid face on ugly, stupid policies.

> Virtually all of what Trump is being called out on has been consistent bipartisan policy

No, it isn't. Any of it, really.

> or at the least supported consistently by recent Republican administrations

A very few of the things he's been called out for fit this category, e.g., the Mexico City policy.

> and by every Republican primary candidat

A few more fit this category, but a lot of the things he's been criticized for miss all of them. One might fantasize that others might have, had they had the chance, done some of the things he's been called out for, but, e.g., no past administration or primary candidate of either party has suggested kicking the Joint Chiefs and DNI out of the NSC in favor of additional White House staffers.

Post reply on HN