SerpApi | https://serpapi.com | Junior to Senior Fullstack Engineer multiple positions | Customer Success Engineer | Hiring Coordinator | Python/Ruby/PHP/Js/Rust/Cotlin/C#/Crystal/Nim/Elixir Developer Advocate positions | Based in Austin, TX but remote-first structure | Full-time | ONSITE or FULLY REMOTE | $150K - 180K a year 1099 for US or local avg + 20% for outside the US
SerpApi is the leading API to scrape and parse search engine results. We provide 100+ APIs to Google, Google Maps, Google Images, Bing, Baidu, and more.
Our current stack is Ruby, Rails, MongoDB, and React.JS. We are looking for more Junior and Senior FullStack Engineers.
We have an awesome work environment: We are a remote first company (before Covid!). We do continuous integration, continuous deployments, code reviews, code pairings, profit sharing, and most of communication is async via GitHub.
We value super strongly transparency, do open books, have a public roadmap, and contribute to the EFF.
Hi, I applied for the junior role two months ago. I never heard anything back, but I'm also somewhat concerned my email got lost entirely because I sent emails from two separate addresses - one got an immediate automated response, the other got nothing. (The second email that received a response was just a generic inquiry checking on the first, so I'm concerned that one got tossed by the automated system as well). I'd be grateful if you could let me know if it was ever seen!
I have trouble seeing the points of using less capable models.
I just want the smartest, best, and most capable models. It feels smaller models for speed and cost are just transitions towards better hardware allowing the very best model.
And that is why i always carry my groceries with an Antonov An-225 Mriya. Is it really needed? No, but i refuse to compromise on what is(was/will be) the best.
That plane was destroyed by Russia, wasn't it? I believe it was partially disassembled when Russia invaded Ukraine and so it wasn't possible to save it. :(
My experience has been that responsiveness is value. For tasks where you need steering, responsiveness allows for better steering. For tasks which you want unattended, better models are just better.
There are still tasks that even Fable is bad at doing. And many are just mundane things. Because of the fact that you have to steer it on those tasks, you might as well steer an 80% model that is 5x faster. And those do exist.
Naturally there’s a bit of a gap because the faster models need steering on tasks the slower models don’t so there’s no smooth transition but I find it worth it. Especially if you want to stay in flow.
Ironically this sometimes means starting a plan with a great model, planning with a worse model, iterating, then submitting it to a better model for review, and then having the better model do the implementation.
If you're hacking a US-based entity, using a high-performance Chinese model through a VPN is probably safe enough. I doubt a local model is going to be sufficiently smart to hack any major company.
Some reasons:
- Smaller models will always be cheaper
- Smaller models will always use less energy, therefore better for the environment
It's a bit like saying you always want the fastest and best car; Sure, you can have it if you keep paying for it. But a small car will also get you from A to B, will use less gas and will be much cheaper.
It depends on what you're trying to do. For non-coding tasks luna is quite often enough. Flash models are more than enough for summarizing a text, for example, or whipping up a small script to save me fifteen minutes. If you're on a 200/month plan, I see your point. If you're on a dollar limit - or worse, paying per token out of your pocket - you look to be more efficient.
There's a difference between want and need. I want a 650hp V8 supercar. I need a 150hp I4 toyota corolla. Why choose a less capable car? Because I don't want to spend 10x as much money to get groceries.
Tarrifs are the worst decision a politician can make.
The main reason we have open-ish border for people and goods is to reduce the risk of war. You are not going to wage war with a country that do business with.
> Maybe letting other countries rob us blind is worse.
I find this argument interesting because the US economy is the largest in the entire world by a fairly wide margin. That the US is being robbed implies it's operating from a position of weakness, which is an absurd idea.
Are other countries with factories really responsible for US companies outsourcing manufacturing to them? Do you want cheap goods or do you want your fellow Americans paid pennies?
They're not robbing us blind. They're taking care of our manufacturing so that we can invest in things like the financial industry, fossil fuels, and AI.
Feel free to start your own factory in US, nobody is stopping you. Just keep in mind that for commoditized products (most consumer stuff, for example), prices are all that matter. "Buy American" is not a product feature.
Some years ago. I learned about a new -ish technology that fascinated me. I started to research ways to get in on the development of this technology: i.e. what sort of opportunities might there be for a startup or small business in the space.
The answer I found was very sobering and mildly depressing. There was no room for developing the technology itself. That had already been done by large companies with the capital and resources to commoditize things early.
Instead, the real opportunities were found in business/management consulting selling the product and tangential things, like having a construction company to help build out infrastructure needed for the technology.
At this point I think technology no longer interests me because it doesn’t have a place for me.
No, we're robbing them blind. We used "free trade" to dump subsidized agricultural goods into countries, destroy their farmers, then buy up their farms. We used it to push wages down both here and overseas so that our poor got poorer, and so in other countries they couldn't take advantage of the work to improve their lives, just inflate the incomes of a bunch of elite middle men.
The international monetary system as envisioned by Keynes was supposed to use a central world bank and settlement currency (the Bancor) to make sure that strong countries couldn't be parasitic on weak countries. This was sabotaged by a US official who was also working as a Soviet spy, Harry Dexter White. Neither pole of the new postwar bipolar order wanted anything that would limit their dominance.
The long-term outcome, however, was that the poverty of the world was much more attractive to exploit than the workers of the US, the consumer base for all of this production was left to deteriorate - to shrink to just the wealthy whose income came from investments, as all production shifted overseas.
Everything would have gone great if it weren't for those dastardly Chinese, who didn't let oligarchs shape their economy, and planned for the well-being of China, not their own personal well-being. Western oligarchs were going for a slave planet controlled by the largest bank accounts; this required no competition because it had (and desired) few real assets. China cultivated a manufacturing powerhouse, perfected its infrastructure, and operated from a base of actual, controlled domestic capital.
The West is now stuck trying to trade paper, and manufacturing whose only value is the poverty surrounding it, for Chinese goods. Now they're going to treat the US like the US treated Mexico. Manufacturing will come back in the US, owned by the Chinese.
Tariffs and the well-being of US workers are the only way out of this. Elite Americans will do anything but this, because they are 1) bad people, and 2) barely American.
The idea that trade decreases the risk of war is old. It dates back to pre-WW1.
Think tanks around Europe were celebrating an "end to hostilities". And then WW1 happened. Trade does not prevent war. War is not always a rational consequence or act.
What does prevent war is a good standard of living. Eliminate resentment, and one of the great causes of war is lost.
Whether you need tariffs or not to ensure good standard of living I don't know. But the goal should always be to increase standard of living and uphold justice, tariffs or not.
It's a surplus tax, and one that apparently doesn't exist for the majority of dairy imports: https://archive.is/kKsYc
that tariff would only apply if we were able to reach and exceed the quota on U.S. dairy exports agreed to under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
[...] the U.S. has never gotten close to exceeding our USMCA quotas
thanks, key quote from the link (for others)
"“It is accurate that Canada imposes a tariff of approximately 250% on U.S. exports of certain dairy products into Canada, and even more with Canada’s 25% retaliatory tariffs in place. However, that tariff would only apply if we were able to reach and exceed the quota on U.S. dairy exports agreed to under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Frustratingly, the U.S. has never gotten close to exceeding our USMCA quotas because Canada has erected various protectionist measures that fly in the face of their trade obligations made under USMCA."
So I think this supports the point that Canadian politicians are bad for protectionist trade policies, right?
reply