Go to India or China and look at the average persons buying power, then go to Texas or California. Singapore and Switzerland are in a comparable income bracket, but have a combined population of <15M.
Trick about USA is that it is really open for business and private ownership and investment into anything. Unlike almost any other sizeable country.
Entire world can't avoid the US if they want to say, save for retirement (because stock market everywhere else is an absolute joke because their governments want it so).
Entire world can't avoid the US if they, on the other hand, want VC funding (just because in some countries a "startup" in the American sense is literally illegal, and in almost all countries, in practice impossible because no one will invest without a tangible collateral).
And the list goes on. That's why the world is whole lot frightened now with what Trump is doing because all of us - from Europe to China - know that without America, we are simply not.
It's safe to say that if not the American market, my life and life of literally everyone with any cash who i know, even those not realising it, will simply never happen in any positive way.
> Entire world can't avoid the US if they, on the other hand, want VC funding (just because in some countries a "startup" in the American sense is literally illegal, and in almost all countries, in practice impossible because no one will invest without a tangible collateral).
I'm a bit confused by the sentiment here. Do I understand correctly that you're saying the rest of the world has made "startups" in the American sense illegal, but is also terrified of losing in America what they've deliberately outlawed domestically?
Yes! Because their socialist-ish or simply paternalist/statist governments made things illegal to prevent "inequality" or simply to keep things under state control as much as possible, but the people want to save for retirement and they want to build startups, too.
Quite obviously, interests of people, society, and the state are always in contradiction.
People want to be rich and free.
Government wants to control and redistribute (merely as a tool of control), and make people into slaves.
Society wants equality (inequality creates oligarchy and poor masses too easy to manipulate).
So they are all in inevitable contradiction and countries mostly differ in who of them is stronger: in America, people are the strongest. In Europe, societies are. In Russia, state is.
America provides all of us a way out of the contradiction: countries can be statist of socialist however they like; people channel their capitalist instincts to America. The entire world lives this double life for generations and we are all frightened with the perspective of this ending one day. If that happens, rest of the world could be truly devoured by millions of ambitions people now seeing no way to realise their ambitions.
If your startup is selling to US government, sure, but otherwise I don't think there is much unreliability in selling SaaS, courses, or whatever gadget to US residents?
I agree there's no need for personal insults here, it's not nice to see especially on HN where one comes to expect better, but I think you can understand the place of exasperation it was coming from. The American government has become vociferously hostile in a very pronounced way recently and for the people on the receiving end of the hostility it feels like an attack in itself to hear "what's the problem, why are you worried?"
The opinions on the government differ, the losing side appears to blame all and everything to the government. Although tariffs, if any, will definitely have an impact, but it doesn't seem like any startup will be blocked from selling to the US, and I don't see why will one not want to sell to the US if there are buyers there.
We will get Greenland one way or another. That's a horrid statement if you are Danish (and worse if you live on that island). Realistically it's a horrid statement, anyways.
From a UK perspective (and I'm not a CEO or anything) it looks pretty volatile over there. Tariffs, radical changes to government funding, widespread corporate overhauls... . Predictability is surely desirable when considering dependencies.
If you depend on the US for defense, and the USA says that the victim should just surrender, there's a risk the same might happen to you. It's quite black and white in this case.
Care to elaborate why you think this reading is so wrong? Vo2max has a significant genetic component, and it doesn't improve unless you actually push your anaerobic threshold, i.e. interval training and long distance running. It doesn't improve by "going on a 5 mile walk or whatever".
To me, interval running and HIIT is not the same. I mostly think of HIIT as something done in a gym with a kind of strength/cardio focus, not endurance? But also, even if my run or bike ride was a HIIT, I still would like my normal data / setup for that activity.
>Maximilian Koehler, PhD candidate at ESMT, and Henry Sauermann, professor of strategy at ESMT, make the case for software-as-a-supervisor in a paper titled "Algorithmic management in scientific research."
I guess "AI is coming for the supervision of scientific research" doesn't have the same kick to it as the submissions title. Leadership is about people, not about tasks. But somehow I'm not surprised that this went over the head of "the register".
As someone who “made it” without a formal degree: oh come on. If nobody opens doors for you, it takes a lot more than just intellect and grit to establish yourself. While I don’t have many good things to say about the established education systems, it’s beyond naive to act like “just do it on your own” is a scalable approach. Even today, some doors will stay closed for me, simply because I will always have to justify why I have no formal degree (and the doorkeepers are not incentivized to even listen since the pool of candidates is big), and some of those doors are highly interesting.
I'm in a similar experience as you, but as my career grows longer into the decades I realize that it takes just as much mental fortitude to stay working in this field as it did for us to break into it from the unusual path.
The half life of software engineers is quite short. Even some of the brightest minds I met who went to some of the best schools ended up just being tourists in this industry -- flushed out and disillusioned after only a few years.
I’m not just thinking about software engineering. There are lots of interesting positions which require any degree just as a basic requirement, especially in emerging fields, strategic roles, and generally in big companies. Maybe they’ll consider me qualified after I’ve built my own company, but if they encode the degree as a hard requirement the screening AI will just ditch my resume.
I don’t plan to stay in software for the rest of my life. Currently, my company develops knowledge engineering solutions, but in 5-10 years, I’d like to get some fresh air.
I started blog and Github project, in a year I had a good job. It takes a lot, but there are much more efficient way.
College takes a lot of time and money. If you do this early in your career, it will hobble for decades.
Imagine you spend 30k on education, spend 3 years and get kicked out in final year, because you disagree with teacher. Or someone makes complain.
> Even today, some doors will stay closed for me, simply because... no formal degree
Degree is only needed for higher positions, those are not accessible to young people anyway. You can always get degree latter, it gets so much easier and cheaper, when you have experience . For me it was just a formality, I spend maybe like 200 hours total for my masters.
Go to India or China and look at the average persons buying power, then go to Texas or California. Singapore and Switzerland are in a comparable income bracket, but have a combined population of <15M.