What if I told you, that even mentioning this shows how little free time people get in the US?
There is actually no SWE job (and I do mean actually 0 positions, I watch job postings way more than average person) in CZ that offers less than 5 weeks of paid vacation. When you look for companies that give actually nice benefits you can get 7-8 weeks, big chunk of it being sick days that you can claim whenever you want.
And that all is on top of MUCH longer parental leave, often shorter work week (lol @ 40h a week being noteworthy), much more leeway given to people with health issues and generally shorter commutes.
Not even mentioning difference in cost of living . . . The values are just different here.
understood. my point is it’s still pretty good by international standards, and if it’s 3x the salary, it’s not a “no brainer” like you claim. It depends on what your goals are.
That’s all i’m pointing out. I agree that the U.S. really lags in terms of taking care of its people. I am NOT recommending the U.S. as a great place to work for most people.
> This isn't a counterpart because nobody is trying to explain a significant drop in tourism numbers to Paris.
Actually there isn't much to explain. Every single person I know that has been to Paris has been disappointed by it and complained how there are way too many people everywhere. Maybe there were just too many tourists in Paris?
> This assumes infinite demand which is not a good assumption imo.
Yes, but "AI replaces people by improving productivity by 20-50%" is clearly a case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy. So maybe the "people are losing their jobs" is just totally unrelated to AI . . . but people keep repeating that "companies can do same work with fewer people thanks to AI" nonsense, so there will always be a need to remind them how actual economics work.
Starlink was also ridiculed. "Some upstart beating industry veteran at crewed spaceflight" was also treated as a ridiculous idea (see extra funding Boeing was able to extract from congress).
I am super bearish on Tesla but I still would take the side of "not going under" of that bet. The factories have value, and once the brand is de-Musk'd, it can have value too. So most likely scenario is being bought out by someone once the company valuation goes down 10x-100x.
Well SpaceX does not need outside financing anymore, even while continuing to build out Starlink and developing Starship. Seems like a bold claim to say Starlink is not profitable.
But it is still not a business you would want to be in, because it is enabled by super cheap rockets, which no one else has.
Status page is very funny - claiming "We’re fully operational" while https://chatgpt.com gives 404, lol.
reply