chaosharmonic
Second -- as much as abuse of this program does happen, the problem is that they aren't decent wages or working conditions.
The only requirements of this program are that you're not paying less to a local employee -- which functionally means you can pay the same substandard wages to everyone, and then go to the government saying "we can't find qualified talent in our area." Much like a minimum wage employer with a "NO ONE WANTS TO WORK" sign, at a certain point it's actually that no one wants to work for you... but we don't put strong enough requirements in place for it to function more effectively as a way of filling talent shortages and less as a welfare system for the worst employers in your area.
The solution to this isn't broad crackdowns, or obviously hostile nonsense like that $100k fee. It's actually better labor protections -- longer grace periods so that you can leave an abusive employer, market rate pay, reasonable limits on overtime, and more scrutiny around other violations of stateside labor protections. The problem isn't that specialized fields like tech still need visas to some extent, to attract talent at their hiring bar. It's that there's no validation that these are reasonable jobs that a reasonable person would accept. It's that we shouldn't prop up companies that can't hire on their own merits, or enable large scale market manipulation to every part of our working conditions -- by giving them to companies that are 996ing, or that violate labor protections, or that openly talk about how you won't be happy there if you value pay. Those things harm everyone, and lower our labor standards across the entire industry.
The problem across both is actually the same -- businesses that want to take shortcuts to get employees (real or otherwise) that won't ask for raises, speak up about their other working conditions, or leave for something better.
I personally am in the camp that capitalism just isn't a very good model for getting artists paid, but that isn't really the same thing as believing all creative work should be up for grabs by any arbitrary business and/or political campaign for any arbitrary purpose.
You know how talking about wage gaps doesn't necessarily mean that you're a full-blown Communist, or that you're literally saying everyone should be universally paid the same? It's sort of like that.
Whether it's feasible to release everything under open terms is actually a different issue from whether they're being truthful in how they're advertising it.
When COVID hit, I got sick and had to spend several days inside ordering delivery. And more than once, the store was missing half my order. So I then had to make new orders for the food I wasn't able to get the first time -- while they refunded me only for the items they didn't have, leaving me to eat the (multiple) delivery fees and driver tips.
Those aren't mutually exclusive though. Horizon OS is based on AOSP, and the more applications cross over into big screens on Android, the more Horizon gains the ability to leverage them too. Whether they actually show up in Facebook's store is a separate question, but I also have no idea how common the use of SideQuest is, just that the store is somewhat of an artificial limitation. (Google Play, on the other hand...)
> But the real choice is the unfortunate one of who is least likely to abandon the whole thing when it doesn't take off and leave you with an un/poorly supported device. Both companies have terrible track records on this.
Agreed. I would never buy a device like this from Facebook, and while glasses as a display are super useful, I don't necessarily see the need for a dedicated compute device for them when this experience could just as easily be powered by a phone. (I could maybe see replacing a phone with this, but more for particular minimalist crowds and not as a mass-market sell.)
Lepton may most directly target Quest games, but it's not like it wouldn't also enable flatscreen titles running on AOSP, and it's not like Proton is limited to the use cases Valve intended either.
But good on you for recognizing that we have a pattern of this kind of thing, even if you've stopped just short of noticing that it's a problem.
Especially when, for games of this age, we're talking about going through the secondary market, and paying potentially hundreds of dollars for a physical copy, without the creators seeing a dime of that transaction to begin with.
So what's the story with JSR sticking around then? Does it already see meaningful use among people using Workers, or do they just really want an escape hatch in case we see more long-term issues with GitHub and NPM?
And does it at least mean the stdlib will see continued development?
> Another thing that I tell my students is that AI, used properly, is a tremendously effective TA. If you don’t use it as a code-generator but rather as a partner to help you understand concepts and techniques, it can provide a huge boost to your intellectual development.
I've found this useful myself here and there in picking up new concepts and just generally working my way around their basics. If you toy with this around cybersecurity stuff in particular, you can also test different models for guardrails this way.
I actually put together a writeup[1] a while back on using this and my own logging data to give myself a crash course on SQL. (And still end up referencing it semi-frequently...)
[1] bhmt.dev/blog/osquery
I don't think the solution is just getting rid of them all -- actually a longer grace period (say, a year?) would make it easier to leave abusive employers. But it should include more scrutiny on whether employers really can't find local hires in the first place, or just aren't willing to train them or work with people that have even slightly more bargaining power.
Abuse of the H1-B program is broader than just hiring people for less money right now. It's also about hiring people who won't ask for more money over a longer timeline. It's about having a whole class of workers that is uniquely vulnerable to terrorist bosses, which then gives those employers more leverage over everyone else. And it's about the large-scale market manipulation that comes with having this easily accessible.
(You know... for "Wumbo")
Like, you can do this individually, but it's not the same thing as actually having it in the standard.
Not needing to have opinions about the details has been one of the most freeing things when working on a project, even if it now means having a slight opinion about not wanting to use npm anywhere that I don't have to.
I realize at this point Bun offers a lot of overlapping "Node-like but with lots of extra niceties." But I happen to like that this one is actively trying to contribute stuff back to the core ecosystem -- the stdlib, initiatives like WinterCG, infrastructure like JSR (which is open source and at least a little bit more resistant to consolidation relative to npm)... Instead of just trying to extend it with a kitchen sink full of first-party features.
Like others here said, I don't think it's just one thing.
https://fortune.com/2026/06/22/1-in-3-young-adults-living-wi...
Um. As a developer who frequently switches between them, it's both. There are animation issues on some of my own stuff that are specific to FF and that I haven't been able to pin down yet. (It's low priority because I'm considering reworking the whole frontend in something other than React anyway and I haven't ruled out this being some state or ref related bug.)
The whole point of initiatives like Interop has been to make browsers' rendering and other functionality more consistent.
Phones, that can now run your Steam games through FEX.
That's kind of my point. That this thing is important even if you don't buy one, because everything else that they had to build in order to enable it will trickle out into other places.