When tech companies lay off large amounts of workers like this, they often immediately replace them with H1Bs. These layoffs are almost always cost-cutting measures, not caused by lack of work - the work is still there and still has to be done, they just don't want to pay expensive white people to do it.
Thank link does not provide any evidence that no h1bs were laid off.
How many non-h1bs did they hire in that fiscal year? How many h1bs did they lay off?
> It makes no sense to lay off H1Bs only to immediately re-hire them afterwards.
"It doesn't make sense to lay off programmers only to immediately rehire them afterwards", yet that has been happening for the past 4 years in every company.
It does if you stop seeing them as labels like 'H1Bs' or 'Programmers' and start seeing them as human beings with particular skills and strengths and weaknesses or members of particular teams (who get grown or cut at the very high-level whims of directors or VPs, without any regard for who is on them.)
Laying someone, or a team off happens for any one of a million reasons, most of which have fuck all to do with their immigration status.
You're mixing a combination of prejudice with a poor understanding of how businesses actually operate. When some corporate shithead chooses which team to cut in half, they aren't looking at the immigration status ratio in them. And for these mass layoffs, the team's direct and next level managers have next to zero say in them.
I'm sure they don't look directly at immigration status when deciding who to lay off, but they do look at their expected pay and benefits, which just so happen to be strongly correlated with immigration status more often than not.
Wait, so the "community alternative" is also kernel-level anticheat? I think that's different from what I'm proposing - I'm suggesting a comparison between an anticheat and no anticheat (with community policing of lobbies and handing out of penalties).
It was terrible as it required the community to conclude beyond reasonable doubt the suspect was cheating, and cheats today are sophisticated enough to make that conclusion very difficult to make
Because their (or their friend's) computer can't run the anticheat, but they're interested in playing with friends? My sister and mom wanted me to play Valorant with them a free years back, but apparently it needs kernel anticheat, so I just can't run it. I'm not going to buy a new computer for a game.
And the way community policing worked in the past is that the "police" (refs) could just kick or ban you. They don't need a trial system if the community doesn't want that.
> Why would a player knowingly choose to play on matchmaking that is advertising no anti-cheat?
I guess I didn't exactly make that clear...
A few of the arguments advanced by the "anti-anticheat" crowd that inevitably pops up in these threads are "anticheat is ineffective so there's no point to using it" and "anticheat is immoral because players aren't given a choice to use it or not and most of them would choose to not use it".
I don't believe that either of these are true (and given the choice I would almost never pick the no-anticheat queue), but there's not a lot of good high-quality data to back that up. Hence, the proposal for a dual-queue system to try to gather that data.
Putting in the community review of the no-anticheat pool is just to head off the inevitable goalpost-moving of "well of course no system would be worse than a crappy system (anticheat), you need to compare the best available alternative (community moderation)".
> Why would a player knowingly choose to play on matchmaking that is advertising no anti-cheat?
My understanding of the proposal is that it advertises no invasive anticheat (meaning mostly rootkit/kernel anticheat). So, the value proposition is anyone who doesn't want a rootkit on their computer. This could be due to anything from security concerns to desiring (more) meaningful ownership of one's devices.
It might be, although trust factor has a major outcome of match quality.
I have over 10,000 hours in the game, majority played on official servers with quite a low % of matches impacted by cheaters. The match quality does deteriorate with Premier rating. I noticed a decent jump in cheaters after about 25k rating, although the number is not as much as people like to make it out to be.
That is definitely true and why I compared idle watts. That Athlon uses the same idle watts as modern mobile CPUs. So no reason to replace during the mostly idle times. Spot on. I can't have this system off during idle time as it wouldn't come up to fulfill its purpose fast enough when needed and it would be a pain to trigger that anyway (I mean, really, port knocking to start up that system type thing). Else I would. That I do do with the HTPC which has a more modern Intel core i3.
The "nothing" here was exactly meant more for the times when it does have to do something. But even then at 45W TDP, as long as it's able to do what it needs to, then the newer CPUs have no real edge. What they gain in performance due to multi core they loose in being essentially equivalent single core performance for what that machine does: HTPC file serving, email server etc.
reply