15 ms·

Maybe. Here's the thing. Think about this as an MVP slapped together in a weekend, about to hit the biggest batch of software testers around. They're going to

Maybe. Here's the thing. Think about this as an MVP slapped together in a weekend, about to hit the biggest batch of software testers around. They're going to find show stopping bugs. And every one of those bugs is going to be someone's life, uprooted. Visa allocation changes _going_forward_ are certainly a reasonable thing. Fully within the realm of policy. But I'm going to bet that these changes are going to be of a far wider scope than expected and include people on current visas, and I wouldn't bet against visas getting revoked and workers having to go home the next day or get deported.

varunsaini 10y ago
Also if not discussed properly, there is a possibility of trade war.I am all for better VISA policy, but I am sure US doesn't want India to go China route and block american companies or apply more tarrifs(India also has a somewhat populist leader).
794CD01 10y ago
That has some huge problems which we've all seen this weekend, but in the long run, is that really worse than the old style of decades of inaction and debate topped off by an ineffectual bill that does nothing? It's pretty similar to the disruption in the tech industry. "What do you mean you deploy bugs to production and then fix them after end users report them? Haven't you heard of QA?!!"
- lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
  The difference is bugs in the current ad-tech darling or "uber for tindr dogs" won't ruin people's lives. There are good reasons why most professions (and even most difficult software) can't act as flippantly as "test it in prod".
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    That's not true at all. Most tech companies, like uber or tindr, are fundamentally aimed at ruining certain people's lives. And even when it's not intentional, it still happens, whether it's a bug that is effectively slander without a guilty party to bring suit against, an ad that infects you with malware that destroys your life's work, or just people being people.
  - hkmurakami 10y ago
    There are plenty of examples of accounts getting accidentally banned by Google/Amazon and someone's livelihood vaporizing overnight.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  Yes. The process you described is called democracy. Unilateral executive action of the top cabinet alone outside times of declared war (and even sometimes within a war) would be called dictatorial or authoritarian. The debates, compromises checks are not just a tradition to be distrupted.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    Dictatorial and authoritarian are not necessarily negatives. Calls for a businessman to cut through the red tape and run the government more efficiently are almost as old as American democracy itself. Call it whatever you like, we knew that's how this candidate wanted to operate and voted for it anyway.
    - mattnewton 10y ago
      The problem is that many people thought they needed to take Trump's plans & pronouncements metaphorically when they voted for him. People who worked for him even http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-anthony-scaramucci-232848 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-ant... The problem more generally with that is that once you give that much power up with out an expiration date it will be very hard to restore back to a moderate position. And even the proponents of banning muslims to cut back on terrorists entering should be upset at the implementation, because the ban hits none of the countries who have sent us actual real successful terrorists like Saudia Arabia or the UEA. So even if you think it's worth stretching out our democracy to get a no-nonsense strongman into fix border security, you should be upset that this ham handed approach hits the wrong countries, generates backlash, and will likely be repealed by federal judges, making it ineffective and worse than nothing at all.
      - 794CD01 10y ago
        I don't think the policy itself is good either, I'm just saying that the idea of implementing policy now, even if it has bugs, might be preferable to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good to the point where we do nothing about problems - even if they are merely imaginary problems. As for electing someone because you don't believe they will follow through on their campaign promises, only to be disappointed when they try to do what they claimed they would, that is the culmination of a whole mess of other problems.
- KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
  There's also a third option.
chu4n 10y ago
> I wouldn't bet against visas getting revoked and workers having to go home the next day or get deported. As a software engineer on H1B (as is my fiancée) currently at Google, this scares the shit out of me. I've lived my entire adult life in this country. I've got many amazing friends here, I've worked hard, built great products that I'm proud of, paid my taxes, and bought a home here with my fiancée. We're planning to get married and have a baby this year. This is our version of the American dream. And all of that could be destroyed in an instant by an orange monster full of xenophobic rhetoric and wielding immense power. I'd trust a "normal" American president to not accidentally / maliciously destroy everything I've worked for over the past decade, but from the evidence this week, I'm scared. Really scared.

varunsaini 10y ago

Also if not discussed properly, there is a possibility of trade war.I am all for better VISA policy, but I am sure US doesn't want India to go China route and block american companies or apply more tarrifs(India also has a somewhat populist leader).

794CD01 10y ago

That has some huge problems which we've all seen this weekend, but in the long run, is that really worse than the old style of decades of inaction and debate topped off by an ineffectual bill that does nothing? It's pretty similar to the disruption in the tech industry. "What do you mean you deploy bugs to production and then fix them after end users report them? Haven't you heard of QA?!!"

lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
The difference is bugs in the current ad-tech darling or "uber for tindr dogs" won't ruin people's lives. There are good reasons why most professions (and even most difficult software) can't act as flippantly as "test it in prod".
- 794CD01 10y ago
  That's not true at all. Most tech companies, like uber or tindr, are fundamentally aimed at ruining certain people's lives. And even when it's not intentional, it still happens, whether it's a bug that is effectively slander without a guilty party to bring suit against, an ad that infects you with malware that destroys your life's work, or just people being people.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  There are plenty of examples of accounts getting accidentally banned by Google/Amazon and someone's livelihood vaporizing overnight.
mattnewton 10y ago
Yes. The process you described is called democracy. Unilateral executive action of the top cabinet alone outside times of declared war (and even sometimes within a war) would be called dictatorial or authoritarian. The debates, compromises checks are not just a tradition to be distrupted.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  Dictatorial and authoritarian are not necessarily negatives. Calls for a businessman to cut through the red tape and run the government more efficiently are almost as old as American democracy itself. Call it whatever you like, we knew that's how this candidate wanted to operate and voted for it anyway.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    The problem is that many people thought they needed to take Trump's plans & pronouncements metaphorically when they voted for him. People who worked for him even http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-anthony-scaramucci-232848 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-ant... The problem more generally with that is that once you give that much power up with out an expiration date it will be very hard to restore back to a moderate position. And even the proponents of banning muslims to cut back on terrorists entering should be upset at the implementation, because the ban hits none of the countries who have sent us actual real successful terrorists like Saudia Arabia or the UEA. So even if you think it's worth stretching out our democracy to get a no-nonsense strongman into fix border security, you should be upset that this ham handed approach hits the wrong countries, generates backlash, and will likely be repealed by federal judges, making it ineffective and worse than nothing at all.
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      I don't think the policy itself is good either, I'm just saying that the idea of implementing policy now, even if it has bugs, might be preferable to letting the perfect be the enemy of the good to the point where we do nothing about problems - even if they are merely imaginary problems. As for electing someone because you don't believe they will follow through on their campaign promises, only to be disappointed when they try to do what they claimed they would, that is the culmination of a whole mess of other problems.
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
There's also a third option.

chu4n 10y ago

> I wouldn't bet against visas getting revoked and workers having to go home the next day or get deported. As a software engineer on H1B (as is my fiancée) currently at Google, this scares the shit out of me. I've lived my entire adult life in this country. I've got many amazing friends here, I've worked hard, built great products that I'm proud of, paid my taxes, and bought a home here with my fiancée. We're planning to get married and have a baby this year. This is our version of the American dream. And all of that could be destroyed in an instant by an orange monster full of xenophobic rhetoric and wielding immense power. I'd trust a "normal" American president to not accidentally / maliciously destroy everything I've worked for over the past decade, but from the evidence this week, I'm scared. Really scared.