We're building out our NYC-based API platform team as our API-based business rapidly grows. We're a European -based company, so you'll enjoy the best of both worlds with competitive compensation, 30 days of PTO from day one (your manager, me, will make sure you use them all) "work from anywhere" days, addtional compensation for on-call shifts (including additional time-off if you actually have to do something after hours)
FWIW, I worked on map rendering in a past life at another large tech company. General policy was to show "official" names and borders based on the user's country. It wasn't quite that clean, but IIRC there were a surprising number of disputed borders and place names in the world.
Means nothing. Google changed before government data was updated. It was deliberate support of the change. Google is buying what they want by playing ball. It's time to break them up.
I don't know how to tell you this, but... pretty much the only reason why Apple/Google/Microsoft have escaped breakups comes down to their obedience to the feds.
Most countries with a modern bureaucracy actually do maintain an official database of geographic feature names of some sort to ensure consistency in government documents. But their naming is not binding to anyone else, of course.
What was the point you were trying to make by linking the executive order? The actual law simply states that the "Secretary of the Interior shall provide for uniformity in geographic nomenclature and orthography throughout the Federal Government".
Just thinking out loud here but I wonder if there is a case to be made that by renaming Lake Ontario to something that nobody actually uses, the President has violated the law that requires "uniformity in geographic nomenclature and orthography". Not that anyone would have standing to actually get anywhere with that.
I grew up in a house with little to no sugar and never really developed a "craving" for sugar. I'll absolutely eat it if it's there, but really only consume it if it's zero effort, and generally in small amounts since many sweet things taste overly sweet to me.
There is a genetic component to disinterest in sweet food. It quite evidently runs in some families. These are people who never eat any sugary food or often even fruit regardless of availability because they actively dislike things that taste sweet. It isn't a matter of environment or self-control. To them, a donut is about as enticing as a bowl of plain oatmeal.
Anecdotally, people that don't eat any sweet food always seem to gravitate toward salty/bitter flavors instead.
...and Coinbase directs you to send a physical letter when their voice chatbot fails. Seriously. I had a login issue preventing me from accessing tax forms and the phone tree eventually got to the point where a sane provider would hand you over to human chat.
When the Coinbase voice agent gave me an address to mail a letter to and hung up, I was so shocked I had to call back and go through the process again. I was told to mail a letter describing my issue to an address on 5th Avenue in NYC.
> Buying a house can be an investment, but it's also buying a place to live.
I'm a strong proponent of both owning and renting, and each has tradeoffs vs. the other. I've moved between renting and home ownership a couple times, and I appreciate the customizability of ownership along with the very real financial advantages.
On the other side, I've also enjoyed "freedom" of renting, where I didn't have to spend any additional time, energy, or money on maintenance tasks. In my HCOL part of the country, I could also afford the rent to live "downtown" when owning anything remotely similar was out of the question.
Your "also a place to live" line is fantastically underrated. When the housing market was flat or declining, I'd always get annoyed when people said something like "I've owned this house for 5 years, but now it's worth $20k less than when I bought it!". That also means if they sold it right now at that $20k "loss" then they effectively paid $333/month plus upkeep to live somewhere for 5 years!
> That also means if they sold it right now at that $20k "loss" then they effectively paid $333/month plus upkeep to live somewhere for 5 years!
This also ignores the costs in buying/selling, including agent fees, lawyers, etc. You should probably only buy if you plan on living in a single place for at least a decade.
That isn't true. States levy taxes and buyers brokers are a thing in some states, and in some cases they're less fully paid by seller (less than the customary 2.5-3, leaving buyer to provide 1 or 1.5).
Closing costs include mortgage costs, too.
I've only ever heard of that stuff paid by seller if seller was a sponsor, and the market was a down market. Think new build in 2020 or in a depressed housing market today.
I saw this in action on a smaller scale. In a past job, my wife organized events for a decent sized company. After an event, she'd typically have a $300k+ balance on her corporate Amex. When she went on maternity leave, the person filling in for her job neglected to actually pay the bills, so when she returned there were quite a few emails and voicemails from Amex regarding the over $500k balance.
The messages started as polite and eventually started to get more desperate in tone. At no point were they threatening or adversarial.
I think that this might reflect more on Amex to be honest.
Amex realises that threatening would hurt their business trust more than anything. During the great depression, Amex accepted checks from other banks which were falling and paying through their own wallet as a matter of integrity. Amex has always been built around this idea of trust and prestige.
They make most of money from what I have heard on the transaction fees which are more than others (3% compared to 1%). They might get desperate but I am sure that they are one of the last guys who would wanna threaten you if you are paying some large bills for them (as compared to normal credit card companies which might even hire people to extract your loans in some messy situations)
So perhaps be so rich that the credit card company understands it as well and treats ya differently :-D
Interesting. And hard to square with my perception of banks as completely mercenary and ruthless. I had a decade-long personal boycott (I know, LOL) of Amex after they, because, with otherwise perfect credit, I forgot about a $30 department-store card bill and got a 30-day-late mark on my report, Amex got spooked and abruptly closed both my never-late accounts with them (which were at or close to 0 balances). This was around 2008 though, so perhaps this was a genius algorithm designed to try and detect the very first whiff of consumer defaults, so they assumed that $30 was the first domino to fall of my personal financial ruin that could lead to me charging my accounts to the max and then going bankrupt.
(I eventually admitted to myself that Amex isn't a person and thus not really capable of insulting my honor, but it took a while!)
Most banks are completely mercenary and ruthless unless its in their incentives to other outcomes. Incentives lead to outcomes and mostly AMEX's incentives are in being the most trustworthy because their real targets are mostly billionaires/heavily influential people.
This does feel a bit silly for amex to do from what I've heard. Probably 2008 were a weird time in general where trust in systems itself were mostly eroded, whether of people to banking institutions and also vice versa.
> (I eventually admitted to myself that Amex isn't a person and thus not really capable of insulting my honor, but it took a while!)
My favorite recent example was submitting a resume for a job that was almost a word-for-word description of my current title and job at a similarly sized company. Within 24 hours, I got the rejection, and several days later, a recruiter reached out to let me know that my profile looked like a great match for the role and wanted to schedule an intro call.
I remember applying for one position that was around building care and management systems for pregnant mothers - EHR, practice management, claims benefits, etc., all of which I had over a decade of experience in. "Name something that might stand you out from the crowd." "In addition to all this I've also delivered 12 babies as a paramedic". Twenty minutes later "we are looking for candidates whose experiences and skill sets are more closely aligned with the role we are looking to fill".
I was VP Eng of a 40+ person team at a startup, and my workaholic CEO once asked me if it bothered me that other people on the team didn't work as hard as me. My answer was very tactful, but noted that in any decent exit, I would walk away with multiples of some of those people, so it made perfect sense that I'd work harder.
But it is not only about the money. People just have their own lives, interests, and passions. For me, the lack of autonomy when doing my job kills a lot of the motivation.
I'm in the northeastern US and it's very common for weather reporting to include the Heat Index (https://www.weather.gov/ama/heatindex) which takes temperature and humidity into account.
DeepL is a Language AI Company providing text, document, and real-time voice translation to name-brand companies across the world. Maybe you've seen our recent announcement: https://www.deepl.com/en/press-release/harvey-taps-deepl-to-...
We're building out our NYC-based API platform team as our API-based business rapidly grows. We're a European -based company, so you'll enjoy the best of both worlds with competitive compensation, 30 days of PTO from day one (your manager, me, will make sure you use them all) "work from anywhere" days, addtional compensation for on-call shifts (including additional time-off if you actually have to do something after hours)
If you're passionate about building the platforms that provide the foundation for reliable and high-peformance systems, please check out our NYC openings: https://jobs.ashbyhq.com/DeepL?departmentId=0097f643-f517-44...
reply