This is Office Excel: http://weborb.gcflearnfree.org/weborbassets/uploads/ID_82/wo...
This is Corel Calc: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/software...
Even the shade of blue is the same.
Corel Calculate for instance Corel Calculate https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/software...
( from http://www.amazon.com/Corel-Office-5-3-Installs/dp/B006N1Q0W... )
vs Excel https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Microsoft_Off...
Now, the idea that this should entitle Microsoft to all of Corel's profits for the entire product is clearly absurd; as the article points out, that's the current legal precedent but is being appealed. Lawyers are hardly going to not take advantage of precedents which favour them; nor would it even be good if they did -- the fastest way to overturn bad law is to apply it strictly and make obvious its failings.
With such a crap "design patent" on a generic slider, Microsoft tries to extinguish another Office competitor?
This one reason companies keep a war-chest of patents, so they can fight back when targeted with a dying company's portfolio.
At some point companies are just going to stop doing business in the United States. I get that it's the worlds largest economy, but little by little this nonsense will fix that.
But these type of patents are hurting everybody except one person.
UI sliders were certainly not novel in 2006. And I'd be surprised if Corel did anything other than use the stock slider in Microsoft's UI library. Maybe they implemented their own and it looks too much like Microsoft's?
Abrupt shift from legal argument to meta-legal argument. Seems stylistically wrong.
All the patents in this lawsuit, of which the EFF picked just the one in TFA:
8,255,828 - https://patents.google.com/patent/US8255828
7,703,036 - https://patents.google.com/patent/US7703036
7,047,501 - https://patents.google.com/patent/US7047501
5,715,415 - https://patents.google.com/patent/US5715415
5,510,980 - https://patents.google.com/patent/US5510980
D550,237 - https://patents.google.com/patent/USD550237
D554,140 - https://patents.google.com/patent/USD554140
D564,532 - https://patents.google.com/patent/USD564532
D570,865 - https://patents.google.com/patent/USD570865
The ones beginning with "D" are the design patents. The rest are utility patents.
I'm an unapologetic Mac user at times, but I find myself intellectually on the side of Samsung in that case.
If Samsung gets cert and a positive outcome from SCOTUS, the patent system here will be forced to reform.
Stuff like this will simply go away. As it should.
Microsoft stands to gain more than just getting corel's office package out of the market, they will gain ownership to Coreldraw and paint which are one of the few Adobe competitors.
The system needs to be fixed, and then shit like this will go away naturally.
Now, before you start arguing against patents entirely, what I really want to know is: without patents, how are individual supposed to profit from their inventiveness when a larger entity could trivially copy the idea and profit based on their superior connections and capitalization? And yes, I'm talking about software. Are software inventors just supposed to give away their inventions as open source and feed themselves by working for someone else who a) got the ask, and b) defended their IP?
Otherwise people would "go ahead and execute" their idea, and sell a lot before getting sued, then simply pay a "fair and reasonable price" for a patent license. Which is it?
- Postico OSX - https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/postico/id1031280567?ls=1&mt...
- JackDB (web based) - https://www.jackdb.com/
- SQL Pro for Postgres - http://www.hankinsoft.com/SQLProPostgres/
- PGAdmin - Slightly outdated but still feature rich and fully cross platform - http://www.pgadmin.org/
And of course there's always psql which is all CLI, but incredibly flexible.
I'm not sure why more db tools don't follow that paradigm.
Combine that with OSS developments by Clifford Wolf and Synflow in synthesis that can be connected to OSS FPGA tools to show even more potential here. Exciting time in HW field.
PHB, how you've grown !
- Bye bye Xilinx.
Problem with massive parallelism becomes communication costs and spatial routing. Nothing is free.
More excited about commodity chips with 100s of cores. Rather have something that's easier to program with a faster dev cycle if I'm going to tackle parallelism.
By the way we have made air pollution monitor app using meteor. Will checkout possibilities of plugging GraphQL into it.http://oizom.com/
The miseries from bank runs and crashes are real, but even so, the total impact on human welfare from fractional reserves has been overwhelmingly positive.
How do we know?
There were holdouts in Europe originally, some central banks were slow to adopt fractional reserves. They were trounced by the economies of other European nations and their superior access to liquid capital.
We've essentially done the laboratory tests here, it's one of the few areas where econ plays like a hard science. We know the answer here, and it's not 100% reserve requirements.
It's a tragic topic to put to a referendum though, because I don't expect every random person to be an expert on the technical nuances of financial history. And this is a topic where intuitions are a pretty poor guide, one where I'd expect the wisdom of crowds to fail hard. PhantomGremlin's quote from George Bailey is a good example. Most people aren't bankers, and don't really understand how it works as a system, beyond their own account, so it's weird to ask them to make key decisions here.
A survey  was done as part of a master's thesis at Zurich University, which found that, "Only 13 percent know that private commercial banks provide the majority of the money in circulation. However, 78 percent of the Swiss population would like money to be produced and distributed solely by a public organisation working for the common good, such as the National Bank. Only 4 percent preferred the system we actually have today that money is mostly created by private, for-profit companies such as commercial banks."
If banks are required to hold 100% reserves against their deposits, where exactly are they supposed to get money for lending?
The article says "theyll only be able to lend money that they have from savers or other banks" but that seems inconsistent with the 100% reserve requirement. If I'm required to hold on to 100% of deposits, I can't lend them out.
EDIT: http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/ve/library/HBCM.PDFit seems to be more about loans being spent and thus the spent money being at another bank and loaned out again
So, when a bank issues an honest loan for a million dollars for 10 years, it needs to have 1 million dollars pledged to it by savers for at least ten years (in the form of CDs or what have you.) This money may be spent in the economy and thereby returned to the bank as a deposit of some duration, which can be loaned against again safely, so long as it is reloaned under the same constraint: the bank must ensure that any loans made against the re-deposited money are done in a shorter term than the deposit is for. You can have very rapid loan growth in this manner, as time horizons expand during growth phases, and suffer none of the issues with multiple parties claiming the same monetary unit at the same time, commonly called bank runs.
Money can be safely "fractionally reserved" so long as intentional duration mismatch (which is really fraud) is not allowed. That's the core issue in the banking system. The production of the underlying money is a separate question, but I'm less and less convinced it matters all that much, as long as it isn't insane.
Could they just abandon taxes and rely 100% on printed money or are modern states too expensive to be supported by inflation alone?
If Apple goes from $13/share to $700+/share, those hundreds of billions of dollars are basically created from thin air, aren't they?
That hasn't worked out very well.
- Anyone with this extension installed could be trivially owned by any website.
- AVG's initial fix was to incorrectly whitelist their own domains without requiring SSL.
- The follow up fix (after more harsh words from google) whitelists the AVG domain with SSL. Google engineer points out a obvious XSS on the domain that would again allow any chrome user to get owned.
This is a security extension from a security vendor. No words.
...but I hesitate to tell non-developers to uninstall their anti-virus. I don't want to be responsible for them getting exploited, but I usually do tell them why I don't run anti-virus and that the choice is up to them.
I always emphasize the biggest thing you need to do as far as security goes is to run all updates. Never skip or delay updates. The moment Chrome/FF wants you to restart, you restart them. Run Windows update (even though Windows 10 is another beast/debate entirely, if you chose to run it, you should run updates).
A company that bundles something like that is no longer credible as a security vendor.
Microsoft's goal with virus elimination is to make Windows work better, 3rd party vendor's goals with virus elimination are to upsell you on a lot of crap you don't need. It isn't difficult to see why the 3rd party stuff is all a bunch of crap that floods you with false positives while bogging your system down in an attempt to seem like it is doing something useful.
Yes, there are occasionally exceptions to the rule, but they all eventually follow a logical progression from useful lightweight tool to bloated piece of shit that is worse than most viruses they could possibly save you from.
1. Nowadays, options are priced in such a manner that the expected value of buying OTM hedges is almost always negative. This is due to the inflated volatility for out-of-money put options and other factors.
2. It just so happened that the subprime mortgage meltdown coincided with his career; for the period between 1935-2007, his strategy would not have worked. It also would not have worked between 2008-present. (maybe it worked have worked in 1987, so we're talking three instances out of a century). Right now, the evidence suggests bank have reformed their lending practices, with higher credit scores for new homeowners, so the odds of another financial meltdown are slim.
3. The fed balance sheet is big, but interest rates are very low.
The fed has posted a large profit , a 30% gain in 2015 for a profit over over $100 billion, which is sent back to the treasury
And the evidence due to the mathematics of the yield curve and the composition of the fed's holdings suggests the the odds of the fed losing money on it holdings is very low:
Short-term interest rates would have to rise rapidly to quite high levels in the neighborhood of 7% for the Feds interest expenses to surpass its interest income. Such an outcome appears very unlikely, the paper said. In the event that the Fed did face a loss, it could simply hand no money back to the Treasury and, in the most extreme case, future remittances would also be reduced (and recorded as a change in deferred credit), but the Feds capital base and financial position still would remain completely secure.
Japan has a much bigger debt, they seem to be doing fine. Low interest and srong dollar is due to reserve currency status, flight to safety, emerging market weakness, commodity weakness, petro dollar, the large size of the US economy, and other factors.
Article is worth a read despite the clickbait headline.
> What makes you most nervous about the future?Debt. The idea that growth will remedy our debts is so addictive for politicians, but the citizens end up paying the price.
> What, if anything, makes you hopeful about the future?Innovation, especially in America, is continuing at a breakneck pace, even in areas facing substantial political or regulatory headwinds.
Wow, use some periods maybe?
EDIT: I came back from reading the article a second time and was relieved to see that the speculative title had been changed.
A classic case of a "short/crash/doomsday personality" hitting his perfect moment.
Kudos to him, but I'll look elsewhere for insight on the next cricis/opportunity.
"The next crash looks to be housing-related. Fannie Mae is in trouble. But not because of their accounting irregularities. The problem is more fundamental. They borrow short, lend long, and paper over the resulting interest rate risk with derivatives. In a credit crunch, the counterparties will be squeezed hard. The numbers are huge. And there's no public record of who those counterparties are.
Derivatives allow the creation of securities with a low probability of loss coupled with a very high but unlikely loss. When unlikely events are uncorrected, as with domestic fire insurance, this is a viable model. When unlikely events are correlated, as with interest rate risk, everything breaks at once. Remember "portfolio insurance"? Same problem.
Mortgage financing is so tied to public policy that predictions based on fundamentals are not possible. All we can do is to point out that huge stresses are accumulating in that sector. At some point, as interest rates increase, something will break in a big way. The result may look like the 1980s S&L debacle."
In 2006 I wrote:
"Interest-only loans as a percentage of new loans. (Graph) (Data from Loan performance)
People with these loans are not homeowners. They're renters, with an option to buy. One interest-rate spike and they're out on the street."
It took longer for this to crash than I expected. Mostly because the Fed pushed out cheap money to delay the crash. I was expecting an interest rate spike, but that didn't happen. I also didn't expect the thing to cascade so badly; I though the problem was going to be comparable to the 1980s S&L mess, not worse.
A key number to watch is the ratio of median house price to median income. Historically, that runs around 2.7. Above 3, trouble begins; people can't make their house payments. In the last bubble, it passed 4 for the US nationwide, and 10 for California. For that graph, see . Click on "Price to Income". Look at the line for "United States". It's about 3.3 now; it hit about 4.1 before the last crash, then dropped to 3.0. Look at the graphs for California cities; they're much higher. But not as high as last time, yet. Keep watching those numbers; they're a leading indicator of a housing bubble/crash.
The problem with speculating on this is market timing. You can see the stresses building up, but it's hard to tell when the system will break. Those way-out-of-the-money option strategies hit this - you lose money every year as you wait for the big event. Burry almost ran out of time and money that way. Taleb, the "black swan" guy, doesn't release the results for his Empirica hedge fund for years other than the one year he hit the jackpot. His people got really upset when someone leaked them, they made it into Wikipedia, and he didn't look so good.
(On other fronts, I expected peak oil to be a bigger problem than it was; fracking fixed that, for now. And I thought Bitcoin would collapse long ago; instead, its use case for getting money out of China made it valuable.)
Change dependency from libart -> libopenjdkjvm.
Android still needs to run dex bytecode somehow, so there are two possibilities for how N will work.
Option one is that Android stick with ART and replaces Harmony with OpenJDK: from a technical perspective, that wouldn't be the end of the world, especially since the Harmony implementation is rather inefficient.
Option two is that Google ports Hotspot to run on Android and, then has PackageManager convert dex bytecode back to Java bytecode on device. That would be awful, since ART is built for low-end devices and, well, Hotspot isn't.
In favor of option one is that Google is still developing ART. In favor of option two is Oracle being Satan incarnate.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Oracle has compelled Google to simply ship a copy of Hotspot, allowing developers to ship "authentic Java" APKs instead of dex-bytecode ones, with the two environments running in parallel, with two different zygotes.
But what I don't understand is why they're importing the full AWT API! That's nuts.
In the context of the recent juniper attack where some unauthorized code was committed without anybody noticing for years, it seems like it would be easy to hide a backdoor in such a big commit.
How do you go about checking the integrity of the code when you have so many files?
8902 files were changed, most added, and the commit says it's just importing openJDK files. Is there anybody checking that the source file imported haven't been modified to include some kind of backdoor?
edit: replaced "cisco" with "juniper"
Does this mean they're discarding ART for OpenJDK's VM?
First of all, the basic science is lacking. The vast majority of animal models in no way resemble the normal process by which humans develop cancer. The models are designed to grow aggressive cancers extremely fast so you can test drugs rapidly, publish your paper and get the next grant. Even more than that, what actually takes place in the years before a cancer becomes clinically relevant is quite speculative. So a long term commitment to funding prevention research is needed from governments and funding bodies, because pharma can't fund this kind of basic science.
The other problem is that to do a good prevention trial, you need to identify people at risk. We aren't really that good at doing this (eg we screen ALL women above the age of 50 for breast cancer, we screen EVERYONE above the age of 50 for bowel cancer). There is some debate about whether screening in this manner is actually as worth wile as it has been made out to be, because it leads to over diagnosis without a survival benefit. So you have to be careful not to design an intervention that only prevents cancer in those who weren't going to be affected by it anyway. This is why you can't use surrogate end points - at the end of the day, for prevention, mortality is what matters. Are we going to give hundreds of millions of women drug X and make them suffer niggling side effects for 20 years because it reduces the rate of diagnosis of breast cancer? Definitely not - overall mortality is what matters (and quality of life).
It's not even a given that you can actually identify people at risk - some researchers think cancer is just bad luck (ie it is not predictable at all, or the predicting factors are unknowable). Even if this is wrong however, cancer risk probably involves weak effects from hundreds or even thousands of factors. We are very far from working all of this out.
A drug is probably not what we want. Actually a drug is really not what we want. They are too expensive and too much effort to distribute and monitor. Drugs also always produce health inequalities within and between nations. A holistic approach to improving our health and well being would be preferable, at least incorporating nutrition, exercise and psychology. Unfortunately the nutritional, exercise and psychological sciences are not hitting home runs in that regard, which is not surprising because they miss out on the billions we spend fighting an incredibly wasteful war on cancer.
It is hundreds of different disease related to mutations in the function of cell division. Cells that don't need to divide, start dividing but the daughter cells are not the same as the parent.
In order to treat Cancer with a drug, you need to identify which of the hundreds of subtypes it is and give the right drug. Either that, or give people cocktails of lots of drugs and hope that you can identify the right one before the other ones kill the patient.
At this point there do not appear to be any magic bullets that will cure cancer, just lots of work and research to chip away at the problem, one subtype or one patient at a time.
And cancer appears to be inherent in what we are, animals. It seems unlikely that we will be able to change what we are sufficiently to avoid cancer. No vaccines are likely.
On the other hand, all the investment in Cancer research is paying off and is chipping away at this family of diseases. There are lots of reasons, not just new drugs, but some new drugs are part of the solution.
Maybe the human race is at a point where we have solved all the easy problems and now have a hard slog to chip away at the rest of them, bit by bit.
Developing a drug is an economically difficult thing: Spend billions for the chance to win billions. The only alternatives to big pharma in developing these drugs are big government and big charity (Gates' Foundation et al).
Or perhaps let's shelf this discussion at least until we figure out how to incentivize sustainable development of new antibiotics.
In fact, one extremely effective way to reduce cancer-related mortality would be to keep ignoring the problem with antibiotics. We may not exactly like the way that plays out though.
Thats one of the findings from the work of Heidi Williams, an M.I.T. economics professor and recent MacArthur Foundation genius grant winner, who studied the problem along with Eric Budish, a University of Chicago economics professor, and Ben Roin, assistant professor of technological innovation, entrepreneurship and strategic management at M.I.T."
I'm damn near 40, and the phrase "there's no money in a cure" has been around as long as I can remember. Heck, Chris Rock did a whole bit about it. 
Is this just putting good science behind that phrase? Is there anything new here?
If Patent Monopolies Bias Cancer Research, Why Not Have Publicly Funded Trials?
That makes it work well for reliability and data durability. I have never had it corrupt data over the years. Can always pull the plug on the server (or kill -9 the process) knowing it will recover to a consistent state, or you can also take filesystem snapshot at any time and get a constent database image (I've used that for backups).
I've read Forever War half a dozen times. Black holes aren't a focus of the novel, but rather the effects of relativity on soldiers fighting far flung battles. By the time soldiers reach a battle, everyone they know on Earth is dead and several generations have passed due to time dilation.
Now, don't get me wrong; I love SF, and will happily suspend disbelief for wildly implausible fictional technologies (as long as an author doesn't then go on to flagrantly violate the physics of their own universe out of sloppiness or as a plot device).
That said, for example, I'm not entirely sure what part of current science suggests that flinging a spaceship at a black hole ("collapsar") at relativistic velocities will cause said vessel to pop out of another black hole, near-instantaneously, elsewhere in the galaxy. ("The Forever War", as much as I love you, I'm looking squarely at you.)
Not on the list, and I'm not a physicist so from that standpoint, I may not have gotten everything right. Still, I'd like to think Qubit would pass muster.
That said, how does the author accept suggestions or additions?
While this is not ideal (I think 1 and 2 are part of the reasons many Italian lack the ambition Americans have), it's a very good way to live a very decent life as an individual. At a macro level I believe pushing on 1 and 2 will kill your economy, on a micro level (aka if I was a shrink), I would strongly advise them.
P.s. of course, 1 and 2 work well in a world where you have USA, where people do kill themselves to deliver loads of innovation to the whole planet (see: internet, space exploration, etc.).
P.p.s. of course USA works well because it attracted talent across the world to deliver loads of innovation (see: immigrants)
I agree if we're talking about a four year degree, but a trade school is a great option for someone "not suited" towards academics.
How many of these kids are making these decisions based on third-hand accounts of what higher education actually entails, without even sitting in on a post-highschool lecture? How many are told not to bother simply because they don't look/act/sound the part?
Given the state of highschool education, the lack of basic literacy, nearly everyone would do well to attend some sort of 'academic' post-secondary education. Reading books, listening to lectures and writing about what you have learned teaches the basic communication skills useful in every field.
Google got it on the first attempt even using the wrong name.
Too much data with poor search algorithms can be worse than a phonebook.
For example, doing a search for Apple, and even limiting it to California, brings up a ton of junk that needs to be filtered out visually by the user:
And you have to have some knowledge of corporate conventions to get at what you think you want. Here's the entry for Facebook, Inc., registered in Menlo Park:
However, it's just a "branch". What you really want is Facebook, Inc. as incorporated in Delaware:
The listing of subsidiaries is nice...I don't know how complete it is, but it contains the companies I expect (Parse, Oculus, Whatsapp...no Instagram though?)
I'm not sure if I agree with that conclusion. After all, RubyMotion and the Elements Compiler (www.elementscompiler.com) have kept up with all the new compiler requirements from Apple, including the requirement to emit bitcode for watchOS and tvOS. So clearly it's possible. And using LLVM directly, rather than using C as an intermediate representation, yields more control over debug information. Still, it's possible that at the next WWDC, or even next September, Apple will drop something new that will force us to use one of their compilers.
The new app (cannot recollect the name) would have been ideal for pushing their new focus of review while Foursquare remained and did what it was meant known for - checking in and providing data.
By creating a new feature/ direction for an old brand and moving the old feature to a new brand, it caused a lot of confusion.
People simply decided to move on
well, even further east - Kievana Rus, the starting point of Russian state, was founded by Vikings as kind of forward operating bases in their dealings with Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean. Before Vikings, it were just some Slavic tribes in the forest, and under Vikings it became a small state making raids south on Constantinople and to Caspian Sea/Iran. Basically it was put on the map of Europe, and the rest is history :)
Anyway, Vikings and Caliphates (as well as Roman Empire before) are great examples how climate changes affect, sometimes to the point of really driving, the history.
Does he point to any specific account in his book? From what I've read it was the Chinese that first used paper currency, not the Europeans. The whole article could use a parenthetical "in Europe."
docker run -it --rm multiarch/busybox:arm64 /bin/sh docker run -it --rm multiarch/ubuntu-core:arm64-wily docker run -it --rm multiarch/ubuntu-core:arm64-trusty docker run -it --rm multiarch/ubuntu-core:arm64-utopic docker run -it --rm multiarch/ubuntu-core:arm64-vivid docker run -it --rm multiarch/ubuntu-core:arm64-xenial docker run -it --rm multiarch/ubuntu-debootstrap:arm64-wily docker run -it --rm multiarch/ubuntu-debootstrap:arm64-vivid docker run -it --rm multiarch/ubuntu-debootstrap:arm64-trusty docker run -it --rm multiarch/debian-debootstrap:arm64-sid docker run -it --rm multiarch/debian-debootstrap:arm64-jessie docker run -it --rm scaleway/ubuntu:arm64-wily
On Amazon, the cheapest available price is ~$55. For the second edition, which was printed in 2005 (and should be due to be free soon on Springer), it costs $132+
Hmm, a lot of projects floundered when they got that (meta/abstract)ambitious, and forgot the plainer beginnings that made them successful. Hope D3 can pull it off.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to make visualization more appealing for non-programming users who want to interact with data beyond the basic clicks and drops.
> D3 ... rejects the tyranny of charts
Let me share a couple of counter-examples that attempt to accomplish the opposite, albeit for the common good:
http://apps.axibase.com/chartlab/14cf1974/3/ - Basic
http://apps.axibase.com/chartlab/2111a2b7/2/ - Inheritance and Iterator
http://apps.axibase.com/chartlab/e8635882/10/ - Time series transformations
http://apps.axibase.com/chartlab/2ef08f32/1/ - Composite
I'd appreciate your critique of this approach in general, not necessarily our implementation of it :) Is this level of "tyranny" acceptable in your view?
2. Do you regret the original .enter() .exit() functions? These were powerful, but were a barrier for entry because they were hard to grasp. Do you wish you'd gone full functional from the start?
3. How do you get paid? Are you sponsored? Are you looking for sponsors?
Thanks much for the great work!
Have you toyed around with MathBox 2? It looks like it has a pretty interesting model.
1. Genuine candidates: I'm going to quote the extreme, people like Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, Vinod Khosla etc. came to the US on H1B and there are a lot of other "superstars" on H1B or naturalized citizens. More practically, there are thousands of other talented people from all countries who work on H1B. So the argument that H1B should be done away with is absurd, unless the US doesn't care about staying atop of the technology sector. Also, H1B workers get paid the same as local workers; there is a minimum wage requirement that has to be satisfied by the company applying for the H1B. So if you buy the allegation that wages are being depressed by H1B workers, why don't you take a peek at the bulletin board of your break room (which have H1B applications with salaries posted) or online and lodge a complaint with the state department of labor rather than posting bigoted comments?
2. Candidates hired by "staffing" companies: Blanket applications made by these "staffing" companies which may or may not have actual jobs. These are the applications that need to be stopped/scrutinized by USCIS (they have tightened this during the recession 2008-2010). It's arguable there is a genuine requirement for staffing companies, but these need to be scrutinized thoroughly.
Software Developer Job Outlook, 2014-2417% (Much faster than average)http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/s...
Computer Hardware EngineersJob Outlook, 2014-243%http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/computer...
Database AdministratorsJob Outlook, 2014-2411% (Faster than average)http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/d...
statisticiansJob Outlook, 2014-2434% (Much faster than average)http://www.bls.gov/ooh/math/statisticians.htm
computer-and-information-systems-managersJob Outlook, 2014-2415% (Much faster than averagehttp://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/computer-and-information-s...
Yet the article conveniently uses cherry picked data for arguing against H1B. The majority of the H1B are being awarded for above categories and not for electrical engineering.
The simple explanation is that it's cheaper to manufacture components in Taiwan, Korea and China. H1B is not causing electrical engineers to lose jobs, it's the fundamental economics of production that are stacked against the occupation.
FWIW, the very cap on H-1Bs plus the decreasing attraction of coming to the US is the very reason ALL companies are going overseas.
I once did a research on outsourcing and the pivotal reason I found for outsourcing was not the "cheapness" of the foreign markets, but the decreasing flexibility and opportunity to continue development at home, and this decrease was dominated mainly by inability to find people to do the work. It may seem hard to believe but it isn't once you add up all the pieces. While factory workers may seem abundant and easy to find, finding upper-level factory operators across various disciplines from IT to Management to Operations was very difficult. Conversely, the two places where they were the easiest to find was China and India in that order. After all, who wants to work in a factory when they grow up anyways?
So what do companies do? They go above and beyond plus bend backwards to make overseas operations feasible. This problem is not just limited to factory workers, or electrical engineering, but any industry that has a hard time finding good quality workers. My industry of civil engineering is probably going to go next.
I could write an entire paper on this, but I will stop here.
There is also consolidation with complexity. How many 5G chipsets do you need when 95% of the phone market is held by two manufacturers? Hardware is expensive to develop and takes time. Investors/companies want cheap and fast, and are unwilling to fund R&D.
Because I was not an Auto worker, and I felt they were overpaid and sort of lazy.
Then they came for the Electronics manufacturing, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a line worker, and the line workers need to be in high-value fields.
Then they came for the Electrical Engineers, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a EE, and it seems sort of racist to take jobs from Chinese.
Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak for me.
Now compare it with the heavily regulated industry of Healthcare. No one likes paying hospital bills in USA, almost everyone works on wafer thin margins and a constant fear of law-suites. Only the doctors and that too only few of them manage to earn a fortune but everyone else is worse off. Far more importantly USA has very inefficient and expensive healthcare system.
I remember in uni I found EE topics much harder and boring then Software topics. Anything below C is a big nope. Verilog, VLSI, FPGA, anything to do with embedded IoT.
Yeah america wont survive if kids today stop valuing EE topic just due to some misguided economical models/interpretation.
The rockets that will land on mars wont be designed solely by software guys - it will require a lot of EE innovations - if america gives up then some other country will take its place.
Reminds of the movie Interstellar.
There never was a labor shortage, or as it's occasionally framed, a "talent" shortage.