The details matter (the type of green card application, the green card category, the position held then, the new position, etc.) so it's impossible for me to comment. You should schedule a consultation with an immigration attorney.
That's a really interesting idea. I would be curious to apply this ML method against a personal diary and see if it is possible to detect mental state changes overtime.
I disagree. I'm a early Algolia adopter(and an engineer) and as an engineer they are a no-brainer for me.
Search is really hard even with the best elasticsearch libraries. IMO the biggest blocker with algolia is the price. It's really hard to get company buy-in because leadership don't get it: "Just build it"
The "lied" bit is debatable because there's multiple ways of interpreting his statement. It could be "there's no liquidity issue [and we could have let GME stock trade freely without running into liquidity issues]" but also "there's no liquidity issue [anymore, because we stopped GME from being traded]". The former clearly favors WSB's narrative, so that's what everyone there believed, even though it's reading too much into the CEO's statement.
That is the other argument, and definitely makes sense, but that's also where things get complicated.
Normally you tax profits, which are gross revenue minus cost of goods sold (and yeah, I'm oversimplifying a bit). But in Europe, Apple has only profits, no cost of goods sold at all, since the costs are incurred in the USA. This would seem to lead to super-high taxes everywhere else, where profits are close to 100%, but huge losses in the USA, where the costs for the whole world aren't met by enough gross revenue to cover them.
To avoid that, the European entity takes on a share of the costs by "buying" from the USA entity. And that's where the games come in. What are they buying? The physical goods? Are what markup? Are they also buying the advantages that come from the Apple name and logo?
They can basically set the cost of that IP to whatever they want, and therefore show as much or as little net profit as they choose. Which is what they've been doing. Again, oversimplifying a bit, they recorded all European revenue through Ireland, and set the cost of product + IP + ad share + everything else so high that the net profit was very, very, very low, and sad that very, very, very low number is what they had to pay taxes on.
You could certainly make that argument but with a multinational company with sales in every country it's not exactly obvious where the money is "made":
Scenario A: Apple (USA) pays $200 for an assembled iPhone from their Chinese manufacturer. Then they turn around and sell the phone to Apple (Europe) for $1000. Apple (Europe) then sells the phone to a customer for $1000. Apple (USA) records a profit of $800, Apple (Europe) records a profit of $0.
Scenarion B: Apple (USA) pays $200 for an assembled iPhone from their Chinese manufacturer. Then they turn around and sell the phone to Apple (Europe) for $200. Apple (Europe) then sells the phone to a customer for $1000. Apple (USA) records a profit of $0, Apple (Europe) records a profit of $800.
In scenario A the money is "made" in the USA. In scenario B the money is "made" in Europe. Apple argues that since they are paying taxes on that money in the USA, they shouldn't have to double-pay taxes to Europe as well. Europe disagrees because they want a slice of those taxes.
(Note that no complex IP transfer schemes are involved here, it's solely a question of which entity records the difference in the retail price of the phone vs the cost of goods sold. Also note that in either case, sales tax/VAT is paid to the appropriate country.)
It gets even more complex and game-able when you consider how easy it is to shift deductible expenses to different locations. Suppose you fix things and force Apple(USA) to sell iPhones to Apple(Europe) for $600. What's to stop Apple from moving $400/unit of debt payments to their European subsidiary?
This is true, but a senior at google is nothing like the median senior in the valley.
This is the problem with level.fyi; it's good information but too many people point at it and say "look how much software engineers make in the valley". This isn't even close to representative.
It's a bit like looking at biglaw salaries in NYC and saying "look how much lawyers make".
> indeed.com puts the average software engineer in silicon valley at $112k with a $5k bonus per year
That figure or the number you edited it to at $141k, is on the low side. The median software developer in the US is at ~$110,000. The top 10% bracket starts at around $165,000.
Emphasis that $110k figure is median, average is higher. The average software developer in SV with 10 years of experience is going to be a lot closer to $200k or over.
Mean salary isn't a very useful number if the distribution isn't close to normal; Without all the data it's hard to be sure - but that plausibly seems to be the case for SV salaries. Certainly matches my personal networks experience (sample biased as that may be).
Where did you get that 110k figure, by the way? That sounds very high for me for a median across all US software. Maybe California specific?
I haven't checked the data and I'm not sure why you're being downvoted since you don't seem to be breaking any of HN code of conduct.
That said, isn't median a better measure in this context, though?
There can be a set of salaries that skews the average by a significant amounts, but most receive ~110k$
Yes it's a numbers game. Apply for as much job as possible and ask for a minimum of $200k base. With a little bit of back and forth you can settle for $180k and then get a lot of equity.
