Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | michaelt's commentslogin

A lot of the salary figures I see thrown around for tech employees in the US are pretty wild [1] - $200k, $400k total compensation without even getting 'Senior' in the job title.

That's in a country with a median household income of $84k [2]

I think it's understandable why someone would feel they were doing well at bargaining and negotiating if they were taking home 4.7x as much as their neighbours and loved ones.

Folks in the games industry by all accounts have really shitty pay and working conditions so I can 110% understand why they'd unionise.

[1] https://www.levels.fyi/?tab=levels&compare=Google%2CMeta%2CA... [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N


Salary is only one of many workplace issues that organizing can help with. Those US tech people who make $400k, that's great for them! But how is their mental health / burnout? How good is their health insurance? Are they getting enough vacation time or time with their families? Are they regularly expected to work 12+ hour days? Do they have their weekends? Do they want to Work From Home but can't get it? What about permission to moonlight or work on side projects? Do they have satisfying autonomy at work or are they just churning through JIRA tickets?

Collective negotiation power can help with all of these, if we let it. It doesn't just stop at compensation.


Generally big tech workers have very cushy jobs with excellent insurance and working conditions with many barely working over 30 hours a week, much less 40. It is why many do not see the benefits of a union because what could a union possibly give them?

This is far from the norm. If it's true for a small number of employees at a small number of companies in a small number of regions, that doesn't mean it's true for everyone. I don't know a single employee who thinks absolutely nothing could be made better at work.

Sure, everyone has something they'd want to make better but I'm not sure a union is the tool that can fix them, lots of them are management issues endemic to the company.

Some historically powerful unions have enjoyed their power because their strikes not only stop their employers making money, but also impose great inconvenience on many people downstream of them.

If truckers or dockworkers go on strike there's no food on the shelves, if coal miners go on strike the lights go out, and so on.

As a consequence of this, employers are motivated to make a deal not just by missed opportunities to make money, but also by politicians, other powerful capitalists, and public opinion.

Of course there are plenty of unions where this isn't the case; theatres and hollywood are unionised despite the fact nobody freezes or starves when they go on strike.

Game developers are, I think, closer to the hollywood position than the dockworkers position.


Well, the theater and Hollywood workers themselves starve, as seen in the last recent strike, with many not being able to make ends meet.

> Could it be as simple as measuring the delta in median marathon performance?

The popularity of running waxes and wanes - and the performance of the median runner varies with popularity.

Back in the 1980s the average half marathon finishing time was 1 hour 40 minutes - whereas today it's a little above 2 hours because there are a lot more people particpating.


> With modern technology, you can 3D print whatever you need, generate software, and run advanced manufacturing all in a small workshop just by yourself.

I assure you, you cannot.

Go ahead and make a USB A-B cable from scratch. A 30-year-old product that retails for $2 so hardly 'advanced manufacturing'.


I admit that I'm just blown away by the metalwork in tiny little electrical connectors. To me it's as amazing as watchmaking, if not more so, because the connectors are multiple-nines reliable, dirt cheap, and probably have never been touched by human hands when you receive them.

> What exactly is your gripe with MV3?

Running an adblocker is the defining feature of the extensions API. ublock origin has 5x as many users as the second-most-popular extension [1]

Supporting ublock isn't just a nice-to-have add-on feature for an extension API, it's literally the only thing most users care about.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/search/?promoted=re...


Firefox's MV3 implementation doesn't remove the original netRequest API though IIRC.

But MV3 supports uBlock Origin Lite.

Which, in my experience, blocks ads just as well, but also lets pages load significantly faster.

MV3 supports uBlock.


Just as one example: Chrome + uBOL on Reddit will show you plenty of "Sponsored" stuff. You can use Inspector to find the offending CSS classes and then use `display: none` on them with something like Stylus[0], but not everybody wants to play that whack-a-mole game on the many sites that push uBOL past its blocking capabilities.

[0]: https://github.com/openstyles/stylus


Reddit's sponsored posts are blocked by default in uBOL when using _optimal_ (default) or _complete_ mode.

I will recheck my uBOL settings, then, sir. Thank you for your work!

EDIT: I did have it set to `Complete,` so perhaps I have something else going on.


Best is to report the issue using the "Report an issue" in the popup panel while on Reddit site. There could be other issues causing this, for instance if you didn't grant uBOL the permission to inject scripts on the site. Depending on which browser/os the issue occurs, we should be able to narrow down potential causes.

As the creator of UBO, what are your thoughts on uBO vs uBOL? Do you think Firefox’s MV3 will be an issue down the line?

> There could be other issues causing this, for instance if you didn't grant uBOL the permission to inject scripts on the site.

Bingo. That was it. Again, thanks.


UBO lite has a long list of all the types of filters that aren't possibly under MV3: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

Not sure about page load, but CPU time is about the same between the two: https://x.com/gorhill/status/1792648742752981086/photo/1


This list only applies to Chrome, so it's completely irrelevant when talking about Firefox.

It supports limited ublock functionality, not all of it, which will gradually be exploited by ad corps like google unless you think those are saints

The point is that it supports everything that currently matters in any substantial way.

Lots of people have been pointing out that ad companies will figure ways out around it. But they really haven't been.

MV3 and UBOL have been in wide usage for about a year and a half now. And nothing has been changing. Adblocking continues to be great.

The fact of the matter is, the ad block lists were getting so large and the JavaScript functionality was slow and it was significantly impacting page load times. UBOL uses vastly more efficient compiled code that is part of the browser and is just a far better ad blocking experience altogether.

But I guess that just doesn't fit the narrative that people want to believe, where MV3 was part of a big evil plan.


the narrative that google, largest ad company proposed MV3 which limits current functionality of UBO so that UBO Lite can be implemented? Yeah, such a narrative... It's clear google is our buddy here who will never squeeze and exploit any option to push more intrusive and targeted ads and we should totally trust it

It supports everything on Firefox on MV3, but not on Chrome.

Most definitely not as well.

It most definitely is as well. In fact it's better because you don't have the slower page loading times anymore.

And everyone I know who used UBO and switched to UBOL has had no complaints about ads not being blocked.

Whereas people who don't actually use it love to continue to insist that it's this degraded experience that doesn't work as well. And usually when one of them comes up with an example of some ad not being blocked, it turns out because they hadn't configured UBOL to use complete blocking mode.


> And everyone I know

Everyone who you know is irrelevant. I've tested and see that ads pass through, and tracking passes through with uBo light on Chrome. I can see it in the browser trace, and I can see it in DNS logs.


Your test is irrelevant. There is always going to be some tiny percentage of ads that passed through with any ad blocker. So the fact that you have seen ads passed through with it doesn't actually mean anything.

The only thing that means anything is how well it operates with your average browsing on a daily basis. And it's such a popular extension because it does an amazing job at blocking ads. That's just a fact. The only people who seem to claim otherwise appear to be the ones with an ideological axe to grind. It's silly.


Your opinion is nothingness. I've tested on the same page that uBo on Firefox blocks more than Chrome, and especially it blocks hidden tracking. That's the reality. All else is irrelevant.

Your one-page test is "nothingness." The internet does not consist of one page.

And other things are relevant, like resource usage.


[flagged]


Your comment is inappropriate. Please read the guidelines.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


So you’re familiar with everybody’s web browsing? Impressive!

> It most definitely is as well.

No. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

uBlock Origin Lite can't do everything uBlock Origin does: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

If Lite is working for you then good. If you want fuller capability then you want uBlock Origin in Firefox.


Reading comprehension is the defining feature of a good commenter.

There's working, and there's working.

20 years ago your Linux installation might not include wifi drivers, bluetooth support, decent GPU drivers, fat32/ntfs drivers, or the widely used video/audio codecs of the era. And you had to be careful when shopping for things like wifi cards, as only certain chipsets could be made to work.

Much of which was kinda fair enough, because if you're a volunteer making an open source OS because of a strong belief on the open source ideal, you don't want to distribute closed-source driver blobs or patent-encumbered codecs. But it meant mean the initial installation process was not always easy. One of the things that contributed to the success of Ubuntu was a particularly easy initial setup process.

Today, things are a lot better - you'll still get unsupported hardware from time to time, but it'll be much less severe. If your laptop has a non-USB integrated camera you might have to download and install a kernel module. Your corporate laptop's built in fingerprint scanner might not work, but who cares?


> 20 years ago your Linux installation might not include wifi drivers, bluetooth support, decent GPU drivers, fat32/ntfs drivers, or the widely used video/audio codecs of the era.

To be quite fair, this is pretty much the only reason Ubuntu exists. It started off as "Debian for people who just want stuff to work", but these days Debian even ships non-free wifi drivers on the install media. I've personally used both extensively and apart from the "enterprise support" argument and the minor convenience of having ZFS pre-compiled, I see no reason to use Ubuntu.


The oppression of people in China like Uyghurs and Hong Kong, the complete lack of free speech, the saber-rattling at neighbours, and the lack of respect for intellectual property are indeed all well documented.

But for folks on the opposite side of the world, the threats are more like "they're selling us electric cars and solar panels too cheaply" and the hypothetical "these super cheap CCTV cameras could be used for remote spying"


Pulled from other technical fields, leading to them having an ageing workforce and struggling against far-eastern competitors.

If an engineering graduate has a chance to make $0.8X at a US company that makes hobby drones, $0.9X at a US company that develops 3D printers, $1X at a US carmaker that's struggling to develop a good EV, or $1.5X at a US adtech company - you can imagine where they end up.


It's exceptionally difficult to avoid the data being de-anonymised.

If an 'anonymised' medical record says the person was born 6th September 1969, received treatment for a broken arm on 1 April 2004, and received a course of treatment in 2009 after catching the clap on holiday in Thailand - that's enough bits of information to uniquely identify me.

And medical researchers are usually very big on 'fully informed consent' so they can't gloss over that reality, hide it in fine print or obsfucate it with flowerly language. They usually have to make sure the participants really understand what they're agreeing to.

It might still work out fine, of course - 95% of people's medical histories don't contain anything particularly embarrassing, so you might be able to get plenty of participants anyway.


In my experience with health data, the dates are usually offset by a random but constant amount for each person (e.g. id 12345 will have all their dates shifted by +5 weeks) to avoid identification by dates.

Unfortunately the sequence of treatments and locations are usually enough to identify someone, especially if it's a rarer condition.


Location data is very readily available, so you can easily correlate visits to a health facility with a treatment, and even with an offset, you can probably uniquely identify someone with 4 visits depending on the size of the medical facility.

I had access to several health datasets for my research in the past. Date of birth was rarely given, especially for the bigger projects where there were more resources to allocate to privacy protection. Neither was date of death, location, or visits to a health facility with a treatment. Typically the relevant variables are age (in years), treatment type and possibly number of cycles. Probably insufficient to identify someone without access to hospital records. But if you have that, you have all these data anyways.

Most researchers likely would want to summarize these data in a similar way anyway, so this works out nicely.


... received a course of treatment in 2009 after catching the clap on holiday in Thailand

Yeah, sorry about that


> Whatsapp powers entire economies, outside of North America.

Whatsapp had 55 employees when Facebook brought them for $19 billion.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: