Yeah, but no. Proton is the best thing that happened to Linux gaming, but sometimes it's still not good enough to get full Windows-like experience.
HDR still doesn't work properly, there are no codecs (Atmos, DTS:X) for my surround system, latest nvidia driver broke Microsoft Flight Sim and other games on wayland. The list goes on.
And as for Copilot - I'm sure I'll be able to rip it out, just like the other crap MS forcefully pushes on people.
Yeah I guess the card companies will adapt somehow as well (in fact there's a follow-up video on how to discourage this technique [1]), but there's still a huge market for "vintage" cards and packs that will be affected.
They ship a k8s operator that deploys Synapse, will try that later. Supposedly it's free up to 200 users. But it seems like there's 0 documentation past the README.
A reminder of how centralized and dependent the whole industry has become on GH, which is ironic, considering that git itself is designed to be decentralized.
Good opportunity to think about mirroring your repos somewhere else like Gitea or Gitlab.
Github is more than a remote host for git repositories. It's become one of the major CDNs for software distributions. Github Pages host a majority of static sites that developer use. You won't be able to use Cargo, Nix, Scoop and other package managers right now because their registries have a critical dependency hosted on Github.
This is not to mention all the projects that rely on Github for project management, devops, community and support desk.
GitHub is also very international, I doubt isolated netziens like those from China are shielded from this outage. I imagine very, very few software shops are unscathed by this. The whole affair is very on brand for 21st century software which is to say pitiful.
- Champion a hard to use VCS which to its credit is distributed
- Make everyone dependent on all the centralized features of your software to use Git[1][2]
- Now you have a de facto centralized, hard to use VCS with thousands of SO questions like “my code won’t commit to the GitHub”
- Every time you go down a hundreds-of-comments post is posted on HN
How to get bought for a ton of cash by a tech mega corporation.
[1] Of course an exaggeration. Everyone can use it in a distributed way or mirror. The problem occurs when you’re on a team and everyone else doesn’t know how to.
[2] I’m pretty sure that even the contributors to the Git project rely on the GitHub CI since they can’t run all tests locally.
We installed a private GitLab instance on our own servers exactly out of fear that Github might suddenly alter the deal or just cease operations. Pretty happy with our decision so far.
Actually both. Our internal closed source projects are only in our GitLab. The open-source stuff is both on GitHub and our GitLab. Since our GitLab instance isn't public we only use the issue tracker on GitHub for public stuff.
The key difference is being able to mirror communication channels. While you can continue to work fine with your local repo, the only way to share those changes are via another forge, or sending patches through some other channel. Having another forge to distribute code is generally more ideal.
The odds of all services rm -rf / at the same time are pretty small to be honest. The point is to have your work in multiple places, such that you're not reliant on a single service.
There are a few people on Hacker News I recognize, because they're often commenting on the same subjects: for example, pjmlp, lispm, kazinator, Rochus. Other people I recognize because they use their real names and they're famous: for example, steveklabnik and WalterBright. However, this is an asymmetrical relationship.
Edit: Hopefully this doesn't seem like I'm creepily stalking online strangers. I just notice their usernames a lot!
Yeah discord and slack are the only places I recognize people anymore.
Reddit is a hellhole. I lived on Lemmy for a while and its really just as bad.. maybe worse because you have to deal with the insufferable open source hardliners.
For actual information, hacker news, rss feeds, podcasts, and medium posts are the only things I can stomach anymore.
Because it wasn't the deal when they were consolidating the all online video content into themselves. And then once they've gotten "too big to fail", the greed rolled in.
They bait and switched us.
Youtube killed private video hosting.
Reddit killed small thematic php-bb forums.
If people knew that they'd eventually do that, none of these platforms would be as big as they are today.
Salary is that high in the US because we have no social net or price caps here. Your on your own for everything. Healthcare, retirement, overpriced homes, out of control rent, etc
Overpriced homes, out of control rent, retirement are extremely problematic in a lot of European countries. And in the US, healthcare is usually covered by the company (talking about big tech corps).
So the extremely high salary is still a net positive compared to EU
With this in mind, it's just a good salary. Until they have competition squeezing them on margins it looks like an OK approach. At some point their board most likely won't agree with paying some people below market rates for important roles and other more fungible roles paying 2-3x market rates but while they can keep doing it, it's great free marketing.
Wouldn't an employee making that $201k salary in another country be responsible for paying all the taxes to support the socialized healthcare, etc? In other words the take home pay may be significantly less.
Other taxes (GST~VAT 15%, city rates, high petrol excise, etcetera) will easily take another $10k. Interest on your home is not deductible (NZ has very few deductables). People earning six figures will often pay for private health insurance and medical fees on top of the socialised healthcare - maybe another few thousand.
retirement is covered by social security
healthcare by insurance (offered by the state if you can't afford it yourself)
homes, etc is true though and we just need to build more inventory IMO. but there are tons of areas with affordable homes, they just aren't near the big cities like NYC or SF or LA
You can not live on Social Security, no way. If you don't have a job your not getting healthcare and even if your job provides healthcare. Its too expensive to actually use. Also you need to be living below poverty wages before a state will give you healthcare.
While that may be true, it's also unfortunately true that stock in startups has a high probability of ending up worthless. It's important to compare real money now, not just theoretical money in future.
I doubt my Aspen vacation home developer will accept payment in startup stock.
That's probably [EDIT: decidedly] on the low side for the bay area for rock star devs, and Oxide has lots of rock star devs. I haven't looked but I assume they pay bonuses, probably differential bonuses.
Hi Steve, bit of a tangent, I stumbled upon your blog from intro section and went down the rabbit hole. Wanted to ask if you have any recommendations on documentaries. TIA!
Like Steve, I also took a pay cut (from around 400-600k a year TC at a FAANG) to work at Oxide. I'm very passionate about what we do and was attracted to the values-oriented culture.
Exactly, man! That's the way it should be done. It's not a company's business to decide how much your life should cost. It's its business to reward you for the value you provide, and that value is not tethered to your location, so neither should be your salary!
This really is one of these things where every employee in a cheap cost of living area will say "Exactly, man!" and people in an expensive area will see it differently because it might cap them lower than what they could get.
I always find that a very naive point of view, of course I would want to earn a US tech salary while living somewhere in the country side, who wouldn't. But I'm also aware that this is not how the world works in reality, there's different tax systems, different expense costs and we don't live in a global one-market world.
I find the strategy of defining different "zones", like most of the remote first / salary transparency companies much more realistic.
> of course I would want to earn a US tech salary while living somewhere in the country side
It's not about what you want, it's about knowing your value. If your work is worth a SF salary then that's what you should be getting.
Moving from Idaho to SF doesn't magically make you more productive. The company knows it's still getting more value from you than what you're being paid. They just want to keep more of that value for themselves whenever possible.
Have some respect for yourself and know your worth
Being in SF makes the market for your labor more competitive. If I'm living on a ranch in rural Idaho, I would interact with very few people on a given day, and most of them would be the same people I interacted with yesterday. In SF, I'd be interacting with far more people, and far more new people, with a much higher probability of those people working in tech, some subset of whom will be willing to offer me a job.
> Moving from Idaho to SF doesn't magically make you more productive.
If your entire world consists of staying home and interacting remotely with a company, then you are correct: Location doesn't change anything.
However, moving to a high-energy city with a high density of experienced engineers and tech companies can increase your rate of learning, career advancement, and experience much more rapidly than living in a smaller city. You have to actually branch out and interact with local companies and people, but it does happen.
But this is all beside the point. Hiring is a labor market. Developers who live in SF have more high-paid job options to choose from than someone living in Idaho. As a result, you need to bid more to get them into your company. Hence, the higher salary.
The discussion about cost of living misses this point. The real reason developers from places like SF get paid more is because if you don't pay them wages that are competitive with their local companies, they're just going to walk away and take any number of higher paying jobs they have access to.
I am so confused by this. I demand more in the Bay as Bay area landlords and their Nimby pals are exploitative jerks and California taxes and fees add up quick. Why is that cleanly separated from the discussion? I see it as more “I will demand more here than other places” vs. “I know my worth and it’s exactly X”
> This really is one of these things where every employee in a cheap cost of living area will say "Exactly, man!" and people in an expensive area will see it differently because it might cap them lower than what they could get.
Well the co-founders live in the Silicon Valley area, with their physical HQ being in Emeryville:
If you owned a home in the Bay Area prior to 2020 and refinanced down to a sub 3% mortgage 200k is plenty. If you’re trying to buy now on that salary it will be challenging.
Early stage VC-backed startup compensation is very different from later stage companies or bootstrapped companies. It's very common for founders or early employees to receive a lower salary and receive equity instead.
I don't know how you're coming to that conclusion. 200k's not going to buy you a large house, but it'll comfortably pay rent/food/savings for a 2-3 bedroom house or apartment for a family of 2-4 in all but the very most expensive parts of the Bay.
For mortgages, you'd need to be looking in the cheaper parts of the Bay, but that still means "dense, boring suburb" as opposed to "crime-ridden slum".
Assuming interchangeable human resources there are basically 2 options, either the company is extracting more value from everyone than the salaries they pay, in that case paying fairly would eat into the company's bottom line. Poor CXOs would not turn extra profits by keeping less fortunate employees on low salaries but just the regular one. Or the highest paid employees are not pulling their weight and their salaries are already subsidized by the rest of the company, which is also not quite fair.
Nevertheless, I agree everyone looks at this problem from their own POV, however it should not be the norm to provide equal compensation for equal work.
I understand! That's what I suspected, but wasn't sure. I tried understanding it for a minute then thought I'll just ask you! :) haha
Also, thank you for the links. I'll read this because I'm interested in knowing more about thinking behind this. My instinct is in this direction regarding salaries, but I want to develop more clarity. :)
If that's your blog, well done! I am totally on board with everything you say there. I've been thinking this way for years, thanks for articulating some more reasons why this is really important! Love your work! :)
Hmmm...I actually had to look up what crab mentality meant but I don't see how it applies here. From my quick lookup, crab mentality apparently refers to a reactionary state of mind where a person wants to sabotage another's success even when it doesn't directly impact their own.
In the case of everyone making the same salary, you could certainly still sabotage someone's success but I don't see how having the same salary makes this type of mentality _more_ likely than at a company with a more typical salary distribution.
My concern with everyone having the same salaries is that, potentially, employees have less motivation to excel in their individual work and are more likely to do the minimum to just stay in good standing with their employer and not get fired. Maybe a company can offset the lack of direct financial motivation with more of a team motivation that the financial success of the company as a whole results in financial reward for the individual or some other way of recognizing individual success inside the company.
I am doubtful this flat salary structure will result in a more successful company overall but I do think it's good to try new things. And yes this has probably been tried a number of times before but maybe not exactly like this. Or maybe some other external variables have changed w.r.t. other attempts in the past and this time it works. The typical salary structures we see in US companies today are the result of a large number of trials and errors and learning.
Ah I think you misunderstand. I think employees in the west being pissed that someone in a third world country makes the same salary as them is crab mentality.
I totally understand why companies want to pay less though. It's massive cost savings and it makes sense for them to hire for less money.
Replace "somewhere in the country side" with "some other place where the cost of living is lower than the highest one in the country" if it makes you happier.
My employer takes cost of living into account by multiplying your salary by the numbeo factor for where you live. Base salaries are all calculated for Cologne (HO) and then adjusted by the relative cost of living factor for your locale. (we're entirely remote)
I am personally not a fan of this: early in my career, a colleague moved from the Bay Area to Boston to try to save his marriage (which sadly didn't work) -- and our employer adjusted his salary down accordingly. As you might imagine, the difference between the Bay Area and Boston is minimal -- they adjusted his salary down something like 4% -- but I just recall how dispiriting it was for him to have this massive, stressful (expensive!) life transition exacerbated needlessly. Employers don't factor in other elements of cost-of-living (can you imagine giving someone a pay bump when a kid goes to college -- or a reduction when they graduate?!), and I don't believe geography should be factored in either: pay people for their work, not their ZIP code.
Whilst I completely understand your viewpoint, I have a more nuanced take on it (understandably, as I work there). Firstly, we don't pay peanuts. We have never taken outside funding; it has always been a company goal to grow organically. As such, we don't have as much cash to go throwing around like VC-funded startups. However, as I said we still pay well; yes I could make more by taking a job in London (I'm in the UK), but then I sacrifice so many intangible things. Working remotely has allowed me to be present whilst my 18 month-old grows up, and a 4 day work-week has helped even more too. Unlimited holidays, very flexible working hours and being treated like an adult about how you organise them, a flat company structure, a company which genuinely cares about employees and their wellbeing - all of these things add up. Salary isn't everything. Whilst no job will ever be perfect, this company is by far the best place I have ever (and will likely ever) work. Employee satisfaction is always very high and salary is rarely even a factor (let alone the main reason) if people decide to move on.
Just like Wikipedia and many other information sources. Don't trust one source blindly, do your research and you'll be fine. It gives a good enough general indication. A comparison like this will always depend on too many factors to make it applicable to everyone in any case.
Your perspective on egalitarian salaries is intriguing, but it's important to remember you can't speak for others regarding their intentions or their whys, or what it is for them. You can't pretend to define that for someone who is not you.
While you argue it's naive and cite different tax systems and costs, companies are successfully adopting this approach even in high-cost areas like the Valley. It might be hard to argue that the world doesn't work like that in reality, given that it’s already happening.
While it may not be widespread, it doesn’t mean it’s without merit or unrealistic. After all, remember that today's 'unrealistic' could be tomorrow's norm! It's tempting to think that people in less expensive areas would be the main proponents of a uniform salary, but the reality is nuanced. Preferences are likely influenced by a variety of factors, not just cost of living.
Your later points about the differences between compensation at different company stages are well taken, however it could be difficult to assert how much this dynamic affects preferences given the practice is not limited to early stage companies and equity vests often fail to yield returns.
In addition, your suggestion that only people in poor places want egalitarian salaries, could be seen as disrespectful of other people, because it seems to ignores the totality of an individual while preferring to try to reduce them to simplistic motivations. In that way, it’s also considered abusive. And can also be seen as disrespectful of others experience, and maybe arrogant: "Only people in poor areas want such naive, unrealistic salaries."
Looking deeper, this aspect of your comment, combined with its narrow focus on a single explanation, might be interpreted as your attempt to express your personal frustrations at your own salary performance, or justify and rationalize why you may not be making more. This might occur because you may find it easier to view something you don't have as unrealistic and naive, rather than the result of choices you could change.
In short, while you mention that egalitarian salaries and enthusiastic support of them is naive and unrealistic, it could be argued that the view espoused in your comment is naive and unrealistic because: it lack awareness of complex dynamics; ignores the totality of an individual while preferring to try to reduce them to simplistic motivations, and dismisses real practices as unrealistic, which might also be seen as out of touch. Overall, your views unfortunately could be interpreted as narrow and an expression of personal frustration, instead of a reflection of underlying real dynamics.
To conclude, while it's likely there's some truth to the correlation you propose, it's also likely true that even if some correlation exists, location is not the only factor at play. People may have various salary preferences, independent of their location, just as the value they provide is also independent. Finally, indeed, your view could be expressed more respectfully of others.
Anywho, it's understandable you may have that perspective, given what your background might be. Yet it's always good to remember that you can adapt your view over time, can grow and can include more data to expand that awareness of reality which you value! :)
Except if everyone gets paid the same, you're not being rewarded for the value you provide. I don't think salary should be tied to location, but it should be tied to experience, ability, and effort.
You raise an important point. There's certainly multiple ways to look at it.
The egalitarian way where a business can divide the share of revenue that is allocated for salary equally, no matter the role. This makes sense from a philosophy of everybody being a team and contributing equally to the results of the company. It can foster an esprit de corps and and a sense of fairness. On the negative side it could encourage companies to have more burdensome measures of fairness and contribution, and lead to resentment towards colleagues who don't pull their weight.
Then there's the other method, where a value-based salary is allocated to each employee taking into account their experience, ability and effort. Crucially, however, this salary is not adjusted for location. That's the case to which I was speaking, specifically, even tho the type used by 0xide is clearly the egalitarian one.
> I don't think salary should be tied to location, but it should be tied to experience, ability, and effort.
That's the labor theory of value (see: Smith, Marx), which in theory sounds meritocratic but it can't really be measured or assessed.
In reality compensation either becomes a function of power, social currency and negotiation skills, which is the general norm in professions, or you have an institutionalized, perhaps even democratic process to determine salaries. Both of these variants generate overhead and are only approximations to what anyone would see as fair.
The variant here where everyone gets the same, generous piece of a pie seems refreshingly simple and honest. I would also assume that it attracts the right kind of people, who are intrinsically motivated (at least after the threshold of a very high level of comfort is reached.)
Saying that people should be paid according to experience, ability, and effort is absolutely not the labor theory of value.
The idea that contribution "can't really be measured" is a cop-out. Contribution can't be measured perfectly but it can be estimated with some accuracy by people who are involved in day-to-day work. "Some accuracy" is really all that's required: as long as contribution is correlated with compensation to some extent, you have a functioning meritocracy.
> The variant here where everyone gets the same, generous piece of a pie seems refreshingly simple and honest.
I bet it works great if you have a small team, are extremely picky about hiring, and quickly fire bad hires. Otherwise it will be awful.
The problem is that in the end, power, negotiation and social currency often dominate over merit (such as effort, experience etc.) when it comes to compensation.
Even if you actually do measure and agree on metrics, then the measurement can easily become the goal for those who are not intrinsically motivated. Work ethic can't be taught by dangling carrots in front of people, because acquiring the carrot becomes the goal instead of moving the cart. This can be detrimental in a highly collaborative workplace.
Having a flat, generous salary might solve this problem, because you filter out carrot hunters and get cart movers.
> I bet it works great if you have a small team, are extremely picky about hiring, and quickly fire bad hires. Otherwise it will be awful.
Finding the right people to work with is difficult regardless. The same worker can be miserable in one place and flourish in another.
> Contribution can't be measured perfectly but it can be estimated with some accuracy by people who are involved in day-to-day work
This is handwaving in the extreme. Anyone involved in software development knows that a single line of code can be critical to success or failure, as can a blob of 100k LOC, so product-quantity metrics are of almost no use. The "estimate" you're talking about generally comes down to general "feelings" about who works hard, which have repeatedly been shown to be poor metrics for actual contributions.
Life is full of handwaving. In almost any workplace, it's very simple to know who's doing the work (and it's usually a shockingly small number of people). It's the idea that we can reduce this to a mathematical formula (the opposite of handwaving) that's odd.
> The "estimate" you're talking about generally comes down to general "feelings" about who works hard, which have repeatedly been shown to be poor metrics for actual contributions.
How has this been "shown"? Anyway, you're begging the question that there's some way to determine "actual contributions" that we can compare to "feelings".
If you actually work with a group of people on a daily basis and can't rank order them in terms of usefulness, I find that astonishing. And remember, rankings don't have to be perfect, they just have to more accurate that random.
> And remember, rankings don't have to be perfect, they just have to more accurate that random.
No, they have to better than both random and "everyone is, on average, and over an extended period of time contributing roughly the same". That's quite a challenge.
Do you go to customers and ask them which features provide the most value to them, and then follow the code back to the people who implemented them? Do you go to the customers who paid the most, and repeat the question to them only?
We're not talking about some award-prize ceremony speech in which we acknowledge that Dmitri and Aneka led the work to get version 8.0 which has been a huge success. We're talking about actual salaries, which are presumably linked in some way to actual sales, and I'm insisting that connecting individual developer efforts to the sales numbers is extraordinarily hard. "More" and "less" are not enough to come up with actual numbers.
> No, they have to better than both random and "everyone is, on average, and over an extended period of time contributing roughly the same". That's quite a challenge.
This is something virtually all functional companies do when they decide raises. The fact that they don't do it perfectly isn't a huge problem, they just need to be more right than wrong.
> Do you go to customers and ask them which features provide the most value to them, and then follow the code back to the people who implemented them? Do you go to the customers who paid the most, and repeat the question to them only?
Does productivity equal sales? I don't think so. If someone does a good job implementing a feature that doesn't drive sales, that should count toward their productivity. Equally, imagine a task that could be assigned to anyone that drive sales: it doesn't make sense to reward the person who happened to be assigned this task when anyone could have done it.
You're demanding way too much here because you're unwilling to get "handwavy" and instead want some rigorous way to quantify productivity. Instead, embrace subjectivity! Imagine you're in charge and ask yourself questions like:
1. If I need to organize a meeting to address some problem that needs to be solved as soon as possible, who would I invite to the meeting?
2. If someone tells me he plans to quit, how much would I be willing to offer to convince him to stay?
3. If someone quits, how hard are they to replace? In terms of hiring a replacement and/or transferring their responsbilities to someone else.
I suppose there are some workplaces where it's genuinely hard to rank people. But my sense is that they're rare, small, and careful about hiring. Everywhere I've worked, this is not the case and I'm fairly sure this is the norm.
The 2nd and 3rd questions you pose are all about sales.
If your company brings in $10M a year, and somebody plans to quit (or has quit), how much will your sales drop (immediately, and over a period of time). That's the answer to how much you can afford to offer them to stay, and that's how much you should offer their replacement. Suppose that says drop by $1M and you can be satisfied that the drop is 100% a consequence of the departed (or soon to depart) developer - that's how much value they bring to the company, and by the logic of capitalism (which I don't play by, btw), you should pay them some amount less than that.
The problem is: you can't determine the value before they quit, and you can't be sure that their replacement will provide that value after they are hired.
Look, I understand that in an organization of any size, there are likely to be slackers that feel like a deadweight, and others who feel like the contribute far more than the average.
The question is: does tying salary to this perception actually bring the benefits you think it does (which are intimately connected to the notion of incentive) ? There's some good evidence that for developers and other "head-based" employees, it does not, and that flat pay scales create an environment in which you get different kinds of benefits.
I've worked exclusively in a distributed FLOSS project for the last quarter century, so in many respects, I'm not well positioned to talk about what happens inside traditional corporations.
That is not the labor theory of value. The whole point of LTV, at least in Marxian economics, is that workers can't be payed according to their socially necessary labor, because a surplus labor is extracted.
Besides, LTV as a theory is meant to be a description of the world as Smith, Marx, etc. see it, not a prescription for how things should be done.
You're right that it is descriptive and not normative.
But the underlying belief of paying someone according to their effort, is very much based on the same premise.
What I'm saying is that nobody is _really_ paid according to their effort, experience etc. because those things cannot be reasonably measured.
The typical process of determining compensation is based on negotiation and power. In some places the process is more democratized and rules based. Both of these are only to some degree related to actual effort, experience and so on. This discrepancy becomes larger the more people are involved as well.
Location independence is not the interesting part of Oxide’s compensation strategy. It’s that everyone makes exactly the same. There are no negotiations, no levels, no promotions, and consequently no promo packets or promo projects. This is extremely enticing to FAANG types who are tired of a certain kind of bullshit, at the cost of a certain level of ambition.
I wonder if they offer equity. Hierarchies always form, they tried this with Gore Associates in Arizona (totally flat company structure) and has major problems.
Yeah this I’ve seen everywhere, but more related to the company size. In a 50 employee company, it’s hard to pull that off. As organizations get larger, you get this as inevitable part of human nature. If the salary table is flat, then highly ambitious people will ask for more skin-in-the-game.
The skin-in-the-game bit can be promotions, equity, stock compensation, etc.
I don't understand why you would compare total compensation at Oxide with base salary at other employers? Total compensation is the relevant figure across the board, and senior (as in, experienced, not some specific levels.fyi tier) engineers often make significantly more than $201,000.
Oxide equity, like for all private companies, isn't worth anything until and if they go public; it has no cash value. For total compensation purposes, it's $0.
> Oxide equity, like for all private companies, isn't worth anything until and if they go public
Open AI just had a tender offer for employees this month. It's not public. Clearly the equity is worth something even though the company is not public.
Some companies facilitate secondary transactions for their employees.
There are ways many employee friendly companies provide early liquidity without IPO.
That is only a problem if you insist on hiring people from such expensive areas. Given Oxide hires remotely, I doubt this is an actual problem for them.
Hence the word "concentrated". Your snark seems misdirected.
I live in flyover country, and there are no shortage of talented people here, but I wouldn't dispute that the per-capita software developer talent in SF is going to be higher.
I think it's mostly societal perception. For whatever reasons, a lot of people seem to think of professionals in SF and NYC as smarter or more capable than professionals from Boise or Salt Lake City. Just like a lot of people assume those who got into Harvard or Stanford as 18yr olds are smarter or more capable than those with degrees from the large public universities.
user: sunshowers has been replying in this thread and mentioned going from FAANG-> Oxide and taking what seemed like about a 60% paycut.
Yes it is somewhat of a stumbling block, but I'm betting they are getting extremely high quality employees who are doing it for the passion and not just for the money.
We've got designers, me included, and a few others on the team who aren't engineers. I also hail from what people like to call a "third-world country". So far it's working great, and we're hiring more folks from all over the world, not just the USA.
