4 ms·

Hey siscia, MSFTie chiming in here. I'm probably the wrong person to speak to the "cloud backround check itself" but I can tell you that on multiple azure tea

Hey siscia, MSFTie chiming in here. I'm probably the wrong person to speak to the "cloud backround check itself" but I can tell you that on multiple azure teams I've worked for, I've had the opportunity to work alongside Iranian, Nigerian, Australian, <take your pick of esoteric location>, citizens/peers. As such I'd be somewhat surprised if that was a hard prohibition. Reading the official documentation here [0] I'm inclined to be confident in my assessment, the citizenship requirement seems limited to those working on USGovt clouds (there are similar fascinating rules for e.g. German cloud to conform with their regulations) As always I'd encourage you to talk to a hiring manager to sanity check this statement, but I would simultaneously encourage you to not let US citizenship stop you from applying. MS (and I'd make a similar statement for other bigcos too, to be fair) always needs good people. [0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/enterprise/office-365-personnel-controls#microsoft-cloud-background-check https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/enterprise/office...

rrt_eerq_tyywg 7y ago
> I've had the opportunity to work alongside Iranian, Nigerian, Australian, <take your pick of esoteric location>, citizens/peers. Saying non-US citizens would suffice. On a planet with ~200 countries none of them should be considered exotic.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- emiliobumachar 7y ago
  They're conveying more information then the lack of a requirement for US citizenship. Iran is under embargo from the US government. Nigerians suffer a lot of discrimination in tech. These two examples were useful to me to illustrate that the job is actually not restricted by nationality, more then simply stating "not restrictive" would.
- atonse 7y ago
  Parent said esoteric, not exotic. Seems perfectly fine in this context. Unless you feel every country shares an equal mindshare across the world.
  - lacker 7y ago
    For what it's worth, "esoteric", meaning "understood only by a small number of people", doesn't really make sense in this context.
    - atonse 7y ago
      Sure it does. If you picked any random 1000 people, most would know more about Russia, Norway, or Finland than they would about Djibouti, Luxembourg, or Cypress. Wouldn't you agree? Literally the only thing I know about Djibouti (without cheating now and looking at Wikipedia) is that the capital city is also named Djibouti. Maybe the disagreement is between "known" and "understood" maybe? This is also the most pedantic internet argument I've had in my life.
- irishcoffee 7y ago
  Can’t even be not-racist correctly these days. Is there any hope of this “find a reason to be offended” culture dying out or are we stuck with it forever?
  - diegoperini 7y ago
    "Be offended on behalf of someone" can die alongside as well. Point well made.
    - diegoperini 7y ago
      Maybe a small exception can be made when that other has little to no voice due to circumstances but it does not apply in this context. I've seen people from all nationalities express opinions on HN without worry.
      - wolco 7y ago
        In situations where one has little voice. Having someone more powerful speak for them usual results in them still having no voice but the person speaking for them can use this to further their voice. We must allow others to use their own voice. Teach them. In the past many of sins have resulted in assuming someone else's pain. The rich do gooder's action doesn't always help and frequency hurts. I will give you an example. A shoe factory in India employing children and offering a dollar a day pay. Twitter campaign mounts company closes plant. Twitter folks rejoice and feel they have done good. But back in India everyone loses their job, the kids working were supporting sick parents who cannot work and get sicker. Children are forced into the sex trade. People on twitter are still rejoycing because no one followed up on the people they were speaking up for. In fact they were not speaking up for these workers they were speaking against the shoe company. After they caused the shoe company pain they didn't care about the rest. The question becomes are you speaking for the voiceless or yourself? If the voiceless wanted to reduce immigration because they want to increase the chance of getting a good paying position would you share those voices if they didn't match your views/voice? Or would you try to mute that voice but increase the volume on some other aspect you believed in? Speaking for someone else is probably a bad idea.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  What's wrong with being exotic? If you spent your entire like on some small atoll in the Marshall Islands, somewhere like Shanghai or New York might very well be exotic. I must have missed the Twitter outrage memo on exoticism. Besides, "esoteric" and "exotic" are different words.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Oh, come on. Your last sentence is correct, but "exotic" certainly has connotations that people have issues with before Twitter was invented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_fetishism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_fetishism Merely saying something is exotic (if someone had) isn't equivalent to all the stuff on those pages, but it has those associations.

rrt_eerq_tyywg 7y ago

> I've had the opportunity to work alongside Iranian, Nigerian, Australian, <take your pick of esoteric location>, citizens/peers. Saying non-US citizens would suffice. On a planet with ~200 countries none of them should be considered exotic.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
emiliobumachar 7y ago
They're conveying more information then the lack of a requirement for US citizenship. Iran is under embargo from the US government. Nigerians suffer a lot of discrimination in tech. These two examples were useful to me to illustrate that the job is actually not restricted by nationality, more then simply stating "not restrictive" would.
atonse 7y ago
Parent said esoteric, not exotic. Seems perfectly fine in this context. Unless you feel every country shares an equal mindshare across the world.
- lacker 7y ago
  For what it's worth, "esoteric", meaning "understood only by a small number of people", doesn't really make sense in this context.
  - atonse 7y ago
    Sure it does. If you picked any random 1000 people, most would know more about Russia, Norway, or Finland than they would about Djibouti, Luxembourg, or Cypress. Wouldn't you agree? Literally the only thing I know about Djibouti (without cheating now and looking at Wikipedia) is that the capital city is also named Djibouti. Maybe the disagreement is between "known" and "understood" maybe? This is also the most pedantic internet argument I've had in my life.
irishcoffee 7y ago
Can’t even be not-racist correctly these days. Is there any hope of this “find a reason to be offended” culture dying out or are we stuck with it forever?
- diegoperini 7y ago
  "Be offended on behalf of someone" can die alongside as well. Point well made.
  - diegoperini 7y ago
    Maybe a small exception can be made when that other has little to no voice due to circumstances but it does not apply in this context. I've seen people from all nationalities express opinions on HN without worry.
    - wolco 7y ago
      In situations where one has little voice. Having someone more powerful speak for them usual results in them still having no voice but the person speaking for them can use this to further their voice. We must allow others to use their own voice. Teach them. In the past many of sins have resulted in assuming someone else's pain. The rich do gooder's action doesn't always help and frequency hurts. I will give you an example. A shoe factory in India employing children and offering a dollar a day pay. Twitter campaign mounts company closes plant. Twitter folks rejoice and feel they have done good. But back in India everyone loses their job, the kids working were supporting sick parents who cannot work and get sicker. Children are forced into the sex trade. People on twitter are still rejoycing because no one followed up on the people they were speaking up for. In fact they were not speaking up for these workers they were speaking against the shoe company. After they caused the shoe company pain they didn't care about the rest. The question becomes are you speaking for the voiceless or yourself? If the voiceless wanted to reduce immigration because they want to increase the chance of getting a good paying position would you share those voices if they didn't match your views/voice? Or would you try to mute that voice but increase the volume on some other aspect you believed in? Speaking for someone else is probably a bad idea.
nkrisc 7y ago
What's wrong with being exotic? If you spent your entire like on some small atoll in the Marshall Islands, somewhere like Shanghai or New York might very well be exotic. I must have missed the Twitter outrage memo on exoticism. Besides, "esoteric" and "exotic" are different words.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Oh, come on. Your last sentence is correct, but "exotic" certainly has connotations that people have issues with before Twitter was invented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_fetishism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_fetishism Merely saying something is exotic (if someone had) isn't equivalent to all the stuff on those pages, but it has those associations.