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

Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

cloud.app.box.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 221 posts

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#121

Post by ninjaroar »

Jabbles wrote: post #109

I don't want to dismiss the other, much larger, concerns people have with this executive order, but I want to highlight another aspect. It further reduces the possibility of tourism to these 7 countries, due to the knowledge that if I want to go to the US, I face a much more invasive immigration check (see Norway PM), and the possibility of denied entry, which carries a lasting stigma. Clearly tourism in Syria is not…

As a Canadian, i've actually never thought of Iran as any more 'adventurous' of a place to visit than somewhere like Peru or India or Cambodia. Lots of mainstream adventure tourism companies have tours there (e.g.: G adventures, exodus, etc) It has a reputation of being a very friendly place full of hospitable people. It's always been on my 'bucket list' of places to visit one day.

However, if a visit means i'll get grilled more than usual every time I visit the US, then I'll likely refrain from visiting. So, yes, the order will reduce tourism.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#122

Post by pjc50 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #93
coldtea wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He is betting that the court system as well as Congress will limit Donald Trump and his cronies from doing something that is grounds for impeachment - and so Donald Trump will be in office for the entire term. If somebody doesn't believe Trump will be in office for the entire term, they are deluded.

I certainly hope that Trump won't serve his full term, but I believe he will. The problem is that it would take a really epic scandal to get Trump formally impeached - you need a 2/3 majority, and even the stuff Trump has done already was not enough to organize an impeachment. The other obvious solution might be that someone kills or maims Trump, but no one wants that. No matter how evil Trump is, murder is NOT a sol…

I have a suspicion that what's eventually going to happen is what I call the "Harry S Truman Show": the President becomes gradually surrounded by yes-men and chooses to watch "fake news", while his fingers are gently prised off the levers of power by aides. He's given legally meaningless orders to sign which are ignored, then insulated from the negative press coverage.

Eventually someone might stop him from using the insecure phone to tweet with, too. Right on cue he points out how much he already lives in a self-selected news "bubble": https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/82857443080053964... "Any negative polls are fake news"

(not a comment on President Truman so much as an opportunity to make a joke about the Truman Show)

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#123

Post by Chris2048 »

pavanky wrote: post #119
Chris2048 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the average or expected salary for a senior software engineer working for twitter in SF?

From what I can tell from glassdoor, I am making a little bit more than average for my level of experience. I don't have any other sources unfortunately.

I think there is a bias towards lower salaries on GD though. I suspect lower-paid workers are more likely to share (or risk sharing) their compensation?

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#124

Post by Maarten88 »

aerovistae wrote: post #99

Contrary to my jubilation at this progress, a cynical friend of mine does not take any reassurance from the power checks the judicial branch has brought against the administration. He believes the administration will just find subtler and less obviously illegal ways to slowly move things in the direction they want. I hope this is not so. It is true that you only seem to see this kind of massive reaction to huge, broa…

> the administration will just find subtler and less obviously illegal ways

Having seen some documentaries about Trumps past behavior my cynical expectation would be that he is now plotting to retaliate personally against the judge who "did this", and have him/her fired or otherwise removed.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#125

Post by simonh »

downandout wrote: post #73

While I disagree with the travel ban, let's remember that the primary objection that the tech industry has to it is that it will disrupt the flow of cheap talent that it uses to boost its multi-billion dollar profits at the expense of US-educated engineers that would demand higher salaries and benefits. This group of companies may not garner much sympathy.

If this is the case, the answer is to revise the H1B Visa program, not ban everyone with a current visa including a baby travelling to the US for urgent heart surgery. These are people with current approved visas that already are doing a job for these companies that the companies are relying on them doing.

This isn't about whether people should or should not have H1B visas. Even if you're completely against the H1B visa program, I don't expect you'd advocate frog-marching every current holder of such a visa out of their offices and shoving them on planes.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#126

Post by Fej »

simonh wrote: post #117
aerovistae wrote: post #99

Contrary to my jubilation at this progress, a cynical friend of mine does not take any reassurance from the power checks the judicial branch has brought against the administration. He believes the administration will just find subtler and less obviously illegal ways to slowly move things in the direction they want. I hope this is not so. It is true that you only seem to see this kind of massive reaction to huge, broa…

I'm not a US citizen so I'm just commenting as an observer. I'm a lot less worried about legislation overall because it does get scrutinized by the wider elected legislature. At the end of the day if the US as a nation decides to restrict immigration more then that's your prerogative as a nation. The American people voted in Trump and the current largely Republican legislature fair and square and they do have a right…

Was the election fair? I would say so. That being said, Donald Trump received almost three million fewer votes than his main competitor, Hillary Clinton. To say we "voted him in" is only strictly technically correct.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#127

Post by puzzle »

flexie wrote: post #64

Some notable American tech companies that didn't sign: - Tesla - SpaceX - Amazon - HP - IBM - Dell - Oracle - VMware - Palantir - Priceline - Expedia - Yahoo - Groupon - TripAdvisor - Symantec - Fiserv - Intuit There could be many reasons. Maybe they weren't invited to participate, maybe they choose to stay out of a political discussion, maybe they thought it could hurt their business interests, and maybe they didn't…

Is Oracle really a surprise? Safra Catz is an immigrant herself, but she's also on the Trump advisory team and, in the end, it's still Larry's company anyway.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#128

Post by amelius »

jahnu wrote: post #80
chx wrote: post #47

> If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States. Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? Yes, the chances are heavily…

I really really wish the U.S. would implement some sort of transit facilities and regulations for airports. Needing a visa just to pass through without ever needing to leave a secure section of an airport is ridiculous and anachronistic.

Also ridiculous in many countries is the requirement that your passport is valid for X months in the future, where X is usually at least 6.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#129

Post by moultano »

hueving wrote: post #56
leereeves wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump issued an executive order (EO) temporarily suspending entry to the US for nationals of 7 countries listed by the DHS as "Countries of Concern", and temporarily suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The State of Washington sued to block the EO. The lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EO and Trump appealed. Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion with the ap…

>Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion To clarify, this is the leadership of those 97 companies. There is no indication whether or not that this is how the majority of their employees feel. This is the same virtue signaling that resulted in Trump being elected in the first place. An employee of one of these companies wouldn't dare now to express their agreement with Trump's policy because it's against…

At Google at least nearly the entire company held a protest against it. I assume at other companies people feel similarly about their co-workers, and want to protect them.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#130

Post by pavanky »

Chris2048 wrote: post #123
pavanky wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can tell from glassdoor, I am making a little bit more than average for my level of experience. I don't have any other sources unfortunately.

I think there is a bias towards lower salaries on GD though. I suspect lower-paid workers are more likely to share (or risk sharing) their compensation?

I am not sure about that. Other sources I have seen put the median numbers substantially lower than what I make. But they are for all jobs with the same title, so it is a lot harder to compare.
Post reply on HN