A personal anecdote: as soon as companies starting paying these salaries to remote workers, I found myself a company willing to pay me for my experience. Now I get to reap the benefits of lower cost of living, higher quality of life, and higher pay. I don't know how long this gravy train will last, but I suggest anyone with the experience to hop on get their ticket immediately.
Oddly enough it is illegal to serve raw wild fish that has not been frozen, in the United States. (Though, there are exceptions for some farming scenarios and some Tuna species)
Anyone trying to tell you they are selling you never frozen sushi is likely lying or violating food code.
See FDA Food Code 2017 3-402.11 Parasite Destruction.
I'm in this business too, and it's not just the direct features supporting the law, its the law driving out time and talent trying to make things better. We don't have time to improve systems because we are all too concerned with meeting the latest regulatory pipe dream of interoperable systems.
Systems that nobody has ever asked us to use. Entire APIs with full access to key data, that nobody uses.
Yes, this is probably the bigger impact, to be honest. Teams have limited resources and more and more of it is cannibalized by regulatory compliance work.
We've created so much regulation that no one person can know it all - not the legislators, not the agents/bureaucrats, not the judges, and certainly not the workers or patients who would be most affected by them.
I was just on a 40-person call with Micky Tripathi today. I was on a gov-only call with his minions yesterday. They mean well, but they're policy people, they don't promote by repealing policy (remember, the boss promoting them wrote that policy). No programmer will stoop to a government salary to clean up the mess. Something has to give, and we've decided to break the doctors and nurses until the patients die. Things might change once a few major city trauma systems implode.
Keep in mind, the boomers are retiring and there aren't enough Gen X to replace them. Here's the graph of job postings for my specialty (takes a bit of finagling for it to render, esp. mobile, but suffice to say the system is going bonkers): https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/jobs?jbl=1
I read the first two pages and still had no idea what this was supposed to be about, so I stopped reading it. Needs an abstract at the top to get me to commit to 78 pages.
This project reminds me of another way to avoid dealing with taxing corporate policies that are nonsensical; receipts. If you are interested in this, you might also be interested in https://makereceipt.com/
What would one need a receipt for other than tax purposes? I suspect submitting one of these with your tax return to HMRC or the like, is quite probably "fraud" of some description.
Submitting it to your employer simply puts you or them on the hook for that same fraud if it happened to get picked up in an audit by the tax office.
Is there some other less legally grey use for these (because I like the idea)?
I don't know about legally, but if you actually bought something for business and actually lost the receipt or they weren't willing to give you a receipt, I'd consider it ethically okay to write up a receipt.
Presenting a self-written receipt as a fake of a real receipt, not so much.
But if they aren't willing to take a self-written receipt, what do you do ...
Say I get lunch on a business trip and lose the receipt, I now can't expense it. In a world where I never keep receipts normally this happens all the time. Being able to recreate a receipt so I can expense looks super cool.
Though I've at times not been given receipts on some of my business trips, my employer has always allowed me to claim the expense back with a reasonably accurate amount, without receipt.
I guess the company takes the fairly minimal tax hit by nownactually claiming it, and they allow it due to trust (and low numbers).
Unless you paid cash, your bank or credit card company will remember the amount for you. I don't know if most restaurants receipts are going to itemize the bill. But even if most do you can just say you went to one that didn't.
Some places want it itemized. Also if you use cash you don't have a CC bill. Back when I was a student I had to often buy things for student events with several hundred dollars in cash because the CC company wouldn't give me a higher credit line at the time. I didn't want to use a debit card, that's risky.
That's easy, because the prices might still be physically listed somewhere if it's a store, or you might still have the Craigslist email thread, or whatever.
If you simply lost or don't have a receipt and it's done in good faith I don't think it should be considered fraud.
It’s only fraud if the information on the fake receipt is false, and if you used this false information get money or a benefit that you’re not entitled to.
I haven't been able to find out what the situation in the States is. But in Germany, for instance, it is definitely illegal as it is considered document forgery. It is thus punishable by up to 5 years in prison, or even 10 years in severe cases[0].
In fact, AFAIK a company is not even allowed to issue an invoice twice without clearly labeling it as "copy of the original" and most companies must keep the invoices they issued as well as their books (and thus the invoices they received) for at least 10 years[1].
I suppose the legal situation must be very similar in other EU countries. One reason being, for instance, that invoices are used (by companies that deduct VAT) to request back from the tax authorities the VAT that one pays on invoices by other companies (in the EU). The invoice you receive from a company must therefore match that company's books. All hell would break lose if everyone could just forge invoices, whether with bad intentions or not.
Case in point: Here[2] is a guy asking for legal advice as he's being charged with document forgery even though we wasn't trying to defraud anyone or anything. Specifically, he had lost the invoice of the TV he was trying to sell on Ebay, so he ended up forging it because Ebay required people to upload the original invoice to sell TVs on the marketplace.
Invoices, and more generally the receipts underlying bookkeeping transactions, are the fundamental building block of reliable bookkeeping (and company audits, mind you).
It's similar but it also brings in a challenging problem: coding tests costs candidates far more than it costs employers in terms of time. I am currently interviewing and two of the companies I am otherwise excited for sent take-home tests that just exhaust me, especially after a long day of otherwise productive work. I've got 12 years of experience under my belt but somehow great references and a killer resume aren't enough to convince them I can find a security vulnerability.
I do coding tests for the first interview. Nothing hard, just enough to do basic data modeling and writing a unit test. I also time cap to under an hour, and the internet is available as a resource.
This is the best technical university in the world offering the best technical education in history. It's where the smartest minds learn foundational knowledge that will enable them to make amazing technological contributions to mankind.
Not everything needs to be a battleground for the boring diversity of skin color. It's actually important that we get the most qualified people in these seats.
No, not here. 100% of MIT admissions should go to pupils who are the most capable of succeeding and who are already the best prepared to succeed before they arrive. Utopia aside, as a society we require elite science and engineering ability. If we don't have it we lose out to another society that doesn't do this incessant navel gazing, simple as that. To whatever extent "starting point" is a problem it should be remediated entirely upstream from admission into the world's most prestigious technical university.
If someone has "elite science and engineering" ability and came from a background where they were raised by a family with a household wealth of $5, and someone has a slightly more "elite science and engineering" ability and was raised by a family with a household wealth of $1,000,000, I am not confident that long term the second person will be the greater innovator.
I agree with you completely, and a lot of talent surely goes to waste. I'm not sure what difference you think that makes. If the kid from the poor family isn't well prepared by the time he gets to MIT on day one, all of the natural talent in the world isn't going to change that.
One of two things will happen: He'll fail out; this is common for diversity admits. Or, he may require a remedial curriculum to develop these natural talents he is believed to have, but may not, nobody's really sure yet because he can't demonstrate them as well as the other students from richer households. Either way, a prestigious university is not the proper forum for that.
I've never seen somebody who opposes meritocracy actual suggest taking starting points into consideration - instead, they demand that easily observable, intrinsic physical characteristics be used as a proxy for "starting point".
But there are a number of studies demonstrating how race & class impact things (when controlled for other factors) like teacher perception, grading, letters of recommendation, not to mention just the fact that if you are growing up in a black (or white) household that has $5 in wealth, you'll have less access to educational opportunity than the white (or black, albeit far more rarely) household with $200,000 in wealth.
No. That only tells you to fix those factors but the outcome is what they are. By the time of the ACT/SAT test it's too late to fix those things. Fix those upstream.
Based on this MIT press release stating that controlling for socio-economic factors test score was still significant in predicting outcome in college. You want to challenge that you need to come up with data.
18 years of growth differences cannot be made up by "exposure to things" from age 18-22. It helps, but it does not resolve it. If someone is truly smart they will score well on the not-very-difficult ACT/SAT without any test prep in the first place. These are stupidly easy tests by international standards. Just suck it up and recognize that at the high level that these schools operate at, if you are below a certain score range, you are not ready, regardless of how many "opportunities" you are given.
That's not to say that some people aren't capable in other ways and will do just fine in life, but these schools are not for them.
What do you mean by "whites". American "whites"? The last IQ report has many Asian countries at the top followed by "white" European countries. Whites and blacks are such generic terms. There are many different types of white, black, asian, etc peoples that have different cultures and phenotypes based on the region.
That site is a mess. Shows a chart where the average IQ is 82, links to a page saying the average IQ is 100 (which is the original design). Also cites a eugenicist and thinks that worthy of a passing footnote. Frankly, I wouldn't trust anything I read there.
You can look for "intelligence" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT. From memory, Human Intelligence by Earl Hunt has plenty of references as well if you're into this topic.
They way they handled it was exactly the correct one. You allow the test to continue with the minimum of disruptions for everyone. The academic consequences come later, after a university investigation, and they may face criminal charges as well, but the people who didn't cheat deserve to have their test proceed with the minimum possible disruption.
Criminal charges for cheating on an exam? Seems a bit absurd to me. I'm all for preventing fraud (especially when were talking about peoples lives), but I also like to think I'm a reasonable human being and criminal action seems unfounded here. It sounds to me like expectations and filters for exams are too unrealistic now combined with lack of alternative realizable opportunities, otherwise you wouldn't see this level of cheating nonsense.
Every day I see more and more ridiculous levels of competitive forces pushed on the bulk of society just to survive and it makes me wonder where the tipping point for social competitive forces for survival begin to exceed natural forces for survival and faith in societies destabilize to a point people just stop participating or at the very least many just "give up." You already see this in Japan, Korea, China (tang ping, "lying flat") and it seems to be an increasing trend in the US. I'm not intimately familiar with India but from what I have seen, it's not roses there either.
We have some fundamentally skewed power and control mechansim increasingly governing people in 'democratic societies' to which citizens seem to have little real democratic say in anymore.
Cheating in a medical exam can get an unqualified person licensed as a doctor. It can have serious consequences and kill lots of people. In a regular college exam I think criminal charges are a bit much but for a public safety related exam like doctor, pilot, etc. I think it's appropriate.
Adults are adults. 18 year-olds who defraud the military face punishment (with due process). Nearly all universities take public money and should stop treating 18 year-olds like children who need to be coddled on publicly subsidized dime.
That being said, most such punishment records should generally be expunged once rehabilitation has been completed. We're all human and make mistakes, and only a pattern of misconduct should be permanently on record.
The frisking could have been done one-by-one in an adjacent room. But once you find the cheating, the best way is to let the test continue as normally as possible. Otherwise it creates a huge distraction for the other students as they wonder why that student had to leave.
Depends on how quietly he goes. Asking someone nicely who went to such lengths to cheat might turn bad fast, and then you're looking at the potential for physical altercations, calling security, etc.
Or you just give them another sheet and worry about punishments later.
Actually doing nothing and stopping them on the way out would be ideal, in my opinion. It gives them the chance to get cocky ("woohoo haven't get caught yet let me ramp this up a bit") and be more obvious about it, as well. (Unless it's the kind of cheating that disrupts others, of course, but hopefully it isn't?)
the person is usually accused and maybe not guilty. Normaly you let them finish the exam and start the legal stuff afterwards (proof, counter arguments etc.)
It can also serve as additional proof if on the new answer sheet given after confiscating the devices, the exam taker performs significantly worse than on the original answer sheet.
