Chuqui 3.0

Microsoft Needs Immigrants, Facebook Doesn't

Microsoft Needs Immigrants, Facebook Doesn't - Silicon Alley Insider:

But not every tech company relies on immigrant labor. Google has just 416 H1-Bs -- 2.5% of its staff -- on board, and Facebook has just one. According to Clemson University's helpful database, he (we're guessing, here) makes $105,000. A sampling of tech companies and their H1-B rolls:

Microsoft (MSFT): 4,452 employees, 5.6% of workforce. Average salary: $87,261

Apple (AAPL): 149, .7%, $105,388

Facebook: 1, 0.2%, $105,000

There's a hidden problem with these numbers.

Apple, for instance, may only have 149 H1B's on staff, but it uses contracting houses like InfoSys extensively; there are likely at least 1,000-1,500 InfoSys people within Apple's IT world from InfoSys (or one of the other contracting houses Apple IT uses) -- and most, if not all, of those people are imports from India on visas of some sort.

On top of that, a lot of work is done through houses like InfoSys offshored to India and other places, even if it's not done by a facility owned by the company. There could easily be 4,000 Indian engineers involved with Apple projects today, none of which show up on Apple's ledgers because of this.

This isn't by any means a criticism -- the infoSys folks I worked with there were for the most part good, quality people (the occasional clinker didn't stick long), and the model Apple uses for outsourcing (unlike many companies) understands the concept of keeping institutional knowledge in the institution. but if you're talking about who's using visas, simply looking at how many visas a company has doesn't answer the question by any means, because there are companies built around dealing with visas and taking advantage of the laws and maximizing company flexibility around these issues.

A conversation from this weekend...

So I was down in SoCal this weekend with the family, setting up mom's new Mac (17" macbook pro -- she has the best computer in the family, by far), upgrading her to Tiger, putting in a Time Capsule (thank you, Apple) and generally whacking moles.

As a reward, I got strawberry waffles sunday morning before the drive home. And during breakfast, we had this conversation:

Mom: you know, I read your blog to keep track of what you're doing and to know you're okay (implied: you don't call often enough)

Me: I know you do. That's why whenever I go to write something, I ask myself if I want you to see it (implied: yes, mom, I know I don't call often enough. you're right. sorry. I'll try to do better)

Mom: You do? (implied: thank you. we worry.)

Me: Yes, of course. (implied: I do my best. It's not always good enough...)

so yes, explicit evidence I self-edit myself here on my own blog... If you have problems with that -- heck, if that surprises you -- my sympathies.

“If the news is important, it will find me”

“If the news is important, it will find me” - - mathewingram.com/work:

Think about that for a second — or longer, if necessary. I think that sums up, in ten simple words, what has happened to the way that many people (and not just young people, but those who use RSS readers and blogs and social networks as well) consume the news. Not only is there just so much of it out there that it’s virtually impossible to consume it all, but the very fact that someone you know — or trust — has passed on or blogged or Twittered or posted a link makes it more likely that you will read it.

And here is one of the great differences -- and changes for the worse -- of the move to online and social network news distribution. It's news by echo chamber.

If you get news from the circle of friends (or "friends"), you're being fed information from a group of people that at a first degree of interpretation have the same, or similar, interests as you do. So the news that finds you is most likely news that reinforces your existing interest areas and knowledge set.

One aspect of the traditional media that's being lost is the ability to tell people things they need to know but don't know they need to know.

Where does "The Jungle" or "Silent Spring" or "The Pentagon Papers" -- or hell, Watergate in its totality -- exist in the new reality? If you're not already interested in the environment, will your RSS feed push at you until you become interested in global warming? Or will you unsubscribe to the feeds that keep annoying you wtih stuff you don't think is relevant?

How will those issues that are important but not already on your radar GET on your radar?

My worry is we're creating an environment that doesn't inform as much as reinforce.

Is the best we can do in the future Michael Moore? Or will even that fade as people lock themselves further and further into the echo chambers they choose to be a part of?

Three Brothers and Bridalveil Falls in Winter.

Three Brothers and Bridalveil Falls in Winter.
Originally uploaded by chuqui (View Larger)

Here's a nice view of Three Brothers and Bridalveil, shortly after a winter storm.

One neat thing about this shot is that it's almost exactly the same shot (by design) as one of my favorite and most popular photos, which was the same subject taken in spring:


(View Larger)

Plugin Manager update 1.7.3 - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Plugin Manager update 1.7.3 - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW):

In regular Apple wordiness, here's what the update says:

This update improves reliability for Apple's professional applications and is recommended for all users of

Look, we all know Apple's not big on transparency, but is anyone else really tired of this? SOME hints might be nice.

After all, we all will agree that Apple is not going to issue an update that INTENTIONALLY degrades reliability, or that isn't recommended for users to install.

So look... At some point, can we either start getting useful information in the release notes again, or do us a favor, and simply issue a statement that says "install this. because we said so, okay?" and quit pretending...

Half Dome in a Winter Storm

Half Dome in a Winter Storm
Originally uploaded by chuqui

And here's a re-take of another christmas photo, starting to get an eye for B&W photos...

Half Dome in a storm, Yosemite National Park in Winter

Half Dome in a storm, Yosemite National Park in Winter
Originally uploaded by chuqui

I"m re-doing some of my christmas yosemite photos in CS3. This one is an improvement over my first attempt.

Pear Blossom

Pear Blossom
Originally uploaded by chuqui

if you're one of those in parts of the country where spring hasn't arrived -- my sympathies.

Work life balance - good. Working with no balance - bad | Technovia

Work life balance - good. Working with no balance - bad | Technovia:

If working hard means never having time for your family, you are in the wrong job, or you don’t deserve to have your family.

Amen.

I ran down that particular rabbit hole for Apple -- made a commitment to a project I really believed in, with the support of Laurie, although if we'd known just how far that rabbit hole I was going to fall, I doubt either of us would have been so enthusiastic (well, I might have, but I shouldn't have been...).

And as I've noted before, when I hauled myself out of the rabbit hole and pointed out the tens of millions of dollars a year that project was tossing at Apple's bottom line, I was told if I found something interesting on the job listings, I could apply for it and we'd all see...

I'm not saying that to piss on Apple -- but to point out that unless you happen to be in one of those positions (founder stock of a startup, for instance) where if it all works you can get a really nice payoff -- you won't. Apple never promised me anything I didn't get, and I actually got things that weren't part of the original agreements -- the only thing I didn't get was the Tracy Kidder reward: winning the game means you get to play the game again.

But when you sit back and think about the hours you put in, and the physical and emotional and relationship costs that kind of "work uber alles" mentality brings on, this is one of those places where you ought to think long and hard about what you're doing, because the reality is, you're donating a good chunk of your life to a company that is very unlikely to make that investment pay

I don't regret what I did -- but I"m a lot more interested in life balance now, and I think one of the big problems in silicon valley and the tech industry today is that so many companies do build projects and schedules around an assumption of the people involved giving up their life for the project -- and increasingly, they don't make it worth your time to do it, but they still presume your willingness to jump down that rabbit hole for them (because we do). And for them, that's great -- and after, they can outsource it to india or bulgaria and lay you off.

Hey, nothing personal, just business.

So my suggestion is simple: make sure you know what the payout is before you jump into that rabbit hole. you'll never get that life back if you hand it over to the company. Is it worth it? only you can answer. And it should be your decision, not your manager's. Is it?

what's your life worth, anyway? I found out mine was worth a lot more than what a company was willing to pay to rent it from me. That's a lesson that is much better learned before you jump down the rabbit hole -- if you can.

Arthur C. Clarke, dead at 90.

And so we lose another one. Sad.

I got to know Clarke a little back when I was involved in SFWA, to the point where we exchanged christmas cards for a while, and a letter or two, and he was an occasional commenter on the zine I was publishing back then. He was one of those pros that was always accessible and friendly and willing to stop and talk to people (and trust me, not all pros are like that). Fascinating writer and interesting person, one of the key writers who got me involved with science fiction as a kid, so getting to know him later on was a real trip.

I don't think we can under-estimate the impact he's had on our lives and society. Not necessarily for the things the obit writers are going to talk about -- yes, he wrote about things we take for granted today, like geosynchronous communication satellites, but others had those ideas, too. it's that he inspired a generation of people to actually go out and figure out how to build them and make them happen.

In many ways, Jack Kennedy got us to the moon, but it was Arthur Clarke who got the bodies on the ground who could build the rocket when it was time to build it. There are very few bigger names in the field and in society in general. And now he's moved on to whatever's next.

Knowing him, he did it smiling.