>If you are a Dalit with 50% mark you will get admission to a medical seat and you will be a cardiac surgeon, but if a brahmin girl gets 99% she will not get admission and will be a clerk.
Is it possible for someone with a 50% GPA to finish a cardiac surgery training program in India? Or is that a gross exaggeration?
I'm sure OP is exaggerating a bit but it's no different than the American affirmative action system where if you are black/native then you can get a 1300 SAT and get into an T20 school but if you are Asian then you need a 1600 and a laundry list of achievements.
I'm trying to get a sense of how exaggerated it is.
In the US, someone with a 1300 SAT has a good chance to graduate from T20 school, but someone with a 50% GPA is unlikely to be admitted to any medical school, and if they are admitted, they have roughly 0% chance of getting accepted to / completing a cardiac surgery residency, which is incredibly demanding.
This is indeed true, 50% mark is not exactly like 50% GPA but affirmitive action in India is so f*ed up. I know very bright people kicked out and come to USA for BS in reputed colleges. This is reason, India not able to progress as fast as China or USA
The numbers are trending in the right direction. From 2021Q1 to 2022Q1, revenue grew 43% (vs 34% at AWS and 46% at Azure), loss went down by 4%, and the loss to revenue ratio went from 24% to 16%.
It's likely they bought the house from the home builder e.g. something like Toll Brothers. So the alternative is to take their hundreds of thousands of dollars and buy another house.
Once again, this isn't a pack of oreos you're buying from the supermarket and asking to swap a vanilla in the pack.
Negotiating details is perfectly reasonable at this price point. Swap out the oven or I don't buy the house. This is a case of accepting no and then paying for the privilege.
>Once again, this isn't a pack of oreos you're buying from the supermarket and asking to swap a vanilla in the pack.
That's actually the perfect analogy.
>Negotiating details is perfectly reasonable at this price point.
There is no negotiation possible. It's take it or leave it. Toll Brothers don't care if you walk away; they'll turn around and sell it to someone else.
>Swap out the oven or I don't buy the house.
Right, exactly. Except if you insist on this then the result is you don't buy the house 100% of the time. There's no negotiation.
Appliances are not that expensive, and you are free to sell whatever is in your home and buy what you'd like. If you're getting a good deal on the home you can break even, if not ahead on that.
>What about the overhead of syncing your code to the server every time you make a change, and getting the binaries back to test? What if the network connection is bad?
A bad network connection is severely disruptive to almost all dev workflows so it's not a unique reason against remote development. The other factors you raise are not really relevant. The "overhead" of syncing code should be invisible with modern dev tools, and binaries should be built remotely anyway. I.e. the laptop should basically used as a thin client + web browser.
>What if you want to work from outside the office?
This is an argument in favor of remote development. When everything is on the cloud, it doesn't matter whether you are in the office, at home, or travelling.
Absolutely no way, I often work remotely and can go for hours without even network connection and still be 100% productive, all in my MacbookAir which is not too expensive.
If you are outside the office, chances are your internet connection is not as good. The scenario given here where everything is in the cloud sounds like a nightmare for me.
>It's not a PR move. If my arm is being injured, I move to protect it. I'm sure you would, too.
Stop doing business with Russians who have no power over Putin is not really "mov[ing] to protect" an injured arm. It's more like an angry wail. Which, fair enough. It's a perfectly understandable desire. I'd probably feel the same way if I were a Namecheap employee in Ukraine. But it doesn't really do anything to protect Ukraine's interests.
They are choosing to stop doing business with the country dropping bombs on their employees and their homes. I didn’t read any grandstanding into it, just an expression of moral obligation toward their employees.
That’s about as cut and dried as it gets.
I think people on this board get very much caught up in the business aspect and fail to see the human side that is driving these actions.
That’s not critical ffs. Federal law requires all kinds of things that are not critical (I.e. does not even result in a fine for operating it on the road with it broken). Side curtain airbags, reverse, a rear view mirror, etc are all not critical nor legally required to operate a vehicle on the road.
Manufacturer mandates for general safety have only a small overlap with what is critical.
Federal law also requires manufacturers to use too little water in all your home appliances. That’s clearly not “critical.”
Edit: I really don’t understand why I’m getting downvotes on this. Is it because people are so glad the federal government is in their bathroom making these “critical” decisions for you?
My point is that the federal government makes all kinds of decisions that are obviously not “critical,” and that includes in the auto industry.
The camera is "critical" to manufacturers by definition because it's the subject of regulatory compliance - it's a must have for the manufacturer to clear a gate.
We also know that people have been driving in all sorts of conditions and in all sizes of cars without backup cameras for decades upon decades and cameras are obviously not critical to the act of driving the vehicle. They undeniably help: the field of view is often wider than your mirrors, you can drive backwards at high speed while ducking to avoid bullets, You can see directly behind the bumper of your car to wedge yourself into tighter parking spots and avoid backing over tiny people, etc. I don't believe a functional backup camera is required to resell the vehicle.
If you never learned to drive without a backup camera, it may be more "critical" to you individually.
Emissions systems are a completely different story. Critical to manufacturer and required for resale of the vehicle (technically critical to owner), though who's going to check for that $400 bypass kit? ;)
I’m not trying to get any authority nor questioning the government’s authority. You are saying that every law the federal government has passed is critical?
Would it actually be illegal to cover up/lie about? I assume the company is US based, there is certainly breach regulations in Aus (with a 12 month notification window). I guess if it’s publicly traded then it would be a breach of law, but what about if it was privately owned?
(Well, maybe not price right now because the entire car market is insane.)