I am working on a answer engine for Hindu Scriptures and old Sanskrit works. I already have a corpus of all the documents which are indexed and currently working on a LLM based answer engine that focuses on answering questions from Vedas and Upanishads and Mahabharata (for ex). Think perplexity but completely focused on Sanskrit sources with proper quotations from the exact verses where the answers are found.
Planning to release this into the wild for people to use. I currently am struggling on how to fund this properly as the server costs are going to be huge for such an effort (search engine + LLM).
Dont know if this is available in US and Europe markets but I would consider Mahindra XEV 9e, BE 6E and BE 9E to be in the $25k segment and afaik, they are the best in the class for that price point ( in terms of looks and maybe even features ). I dont know if these are being exported out of India right now, but they definitely should be hitting the US and UK markets sometime soon.
Lol, whats disingenuous is your arguments, honestly. So, either you have to argue that Pakistan's military is extremely idiotic / naive that it could not even detect a known terrorist living just around the corner or you have to argue that they knowingly kept him in their "shadow". The vast majority of the people believe its the latter - you are free to believe that they were idiots.
I do think the Pakistani intelligence and military are probably as competent as the Indian ones given the money, similar levels of development of state, etc. And Indian intelligences are not Mossad-level in any way. My belief is that they didn't know and were embarrassed. I mean, what would they gain from harboring Bin Laden, so wanted he can barely move anywhere, and Al Qaeda, a group that's basically been useless since way before his capture? There are new groups they could fund and arm all while giving up Bin Laden. They already caught and turned over other AQ figures before, so even if they sponsored other terror groups, why keep him?
The main reason for this is the exhorbitant cost of Energy in the country - apart from the constant 6-8 hrs powercut even in the urban centers.
I have seen videos where a layman, who earns around 20-30k a month is slapped with a 32k electricity bill. I am not sure if a layman with means of this level is adopting Solar, but surely anyone else with the money to afford it will. Mostly because it makes economic sense.
Why are you guys building Yet Another DB ? Not trying to dissuade you, but what are you trying to solve that the plethora of DB's currently in market in the same space have not solved ? This should be highlighted in your landing page and since your primary audience is other dev's ( tough-est crowd to sell ), be very specific on what value your product brings over the other choices.
The one thing I want to find is my earpods inside their case. I mean how hard is it to implement this for a company? Take my money please ? Just allow me to find my earpod and its case ?
Companies attempting to pay an engineer according to location, in my opinion, is another kind of discrimination. You are supposed to pay an employee based on his/her abilities, not her location.
We have rules in govts that companies should not discriminate against employees based on sex, religion, sexual orientation etc etc.. But it is fair to discriminate the salary of an employee based on location? For ex: I know a few friends who have moved from Europe to Asia with the same role and are getting paid less compared to what they were getting paid in Europe. Its the same role, its the same person, but getting paid less just because of location ?
> You are supposed to pay an employee based on his/her abilities, not her location.
You are supposed to pay them the minimum amount it takes to get them to show up to work. When someone moves to a less competitive market, where getting another job is harder, then they are more likely to show up for lesser pay.
And remember that a country may have a less competitive market, even if the workers are remote and not seemly bound by a local market, because governments often love to put up huge roadblocks when it comes to international hiring. If you are being paid less than you were in another country doing the same job for the same employer, this is almost certainly why you have agreed to take a pay cut.
That’s up to them. It’s the worker who chooses how much it takes to show up. I suppose if they want to truly play the part of being female they may want to accept less.
I disagree. I believe a company should pay based on ability of employees to have comfort and wellness, not some universal measure of value (which I believe to be impossible). What you are advocating for inadvertently breaks community and exacerbates gentrification and destruction of social fabric via inequality. Location matters.
You could also argue that difference in pay is less discriminatory. You are paying employees to have the same quality of life, same type of housing, same opportunity to provide for family, send your kids to the same type of schooling. These things cost differently in different countries, so require different income.
Exactly this! Location-based pay is not so much about cost of living as it is about buying power. In the end, money is just a place holder for real value which comes in the form of goods and services. And the real value of the same amount of dollars wildly differs per location. So if you want to pay fairly and not discriminate, you have to try and make sure people can roughly buy the same things in their differing locations for the money you give them.
While I'm sure it's very kind of companies to care about my quality of life and the type of my housing, it's honestly none of their business. Even if they tell me I'm "family."
Fair pay to me, at least, means paying for results. Not paying for hours spent toiling. Not paying for where I am on the planet. Not paying for how I get the results, just for the results.
Instead, there are all of these gamey factors inserted into the mix. They're emotional. They're manipulative. Yuck!
That’s not how free markets/capitalism is supposed to work. Companies are expected to just shop around for the lowest price on the capabilities they need. Are you suggesting we should adopt something else then capitalism/free markets?
Why are you supposed to pay based on abilities? Where is that stated?
As a company you need certain abilities, and you pay whatever the market decides these abilities are worth, and nothing more. Depending on location, the market will set a different price on these abilities, so you pay different.
Discrimination is around things that an individual can't choose (religion being the weird elephant in the room). Fair or not, this isn't discrimination.
In the UK, the Equality Act (2010) protects: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership (in employment only), pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.
Pregnancy, maternity, marriage, civil partnerships and gender re-assignment are usually chosen by individuals, not forced upon them.
Many people can’t choose where they live either. Getting a visa to the US is a ludicrous process and even if they wanted to they maybe tied by family obligations.
But people don't choose to be rich or poor exactly either. As a general rule, discrimination is around things for which there's no choice. Having a choice over where they live or whether they are rich doesn't mean it's easy or practical. But that can't make it grounds for discrimination, even if unfair.
A worker in country X or country Y are very different for companies' balance sheets. For instance, my company is Canadian, and we are eligible for significant tax credits through SR&ED[0] for software developers. If a software developer moved their permanent residence to outside Canada, even if we could magically pin exchange rates to pay them the CAD equivalent in local currency, it would be a significantly different financial impact on the company as they aren't eligible for that program. I'm not an expert, but I imagine there are many equivalent programs in every country, state, and even municipality.
It works both ways, anyway. If those friends had moved from Thailand to Switzerland, would it be discrimination to pay them more?
I agree with this in theory but I can't see how it will work in practice. There isn't a global "value of ability" to base the pay on. It's valued differently in every location.
> You are supposed to pay an employee based on his/her abilities, not her location.
I don't believe that is a legal requirement, anywhere. Remuneration is based on many factors, which can include the cost of living. A company will not be able to hire someone in New York City, for the same price as someone in a less expensive jurisdiction.
This isn't discrimination, it's simple economic reality.
> Companies attempting to pay an engineer according to location, in my opinion, is another kind of discrimination. You are supposed to pay an employee based on his/her abilities, not her location.
So you’re saying, we should be paying engineers in Europe and in the US the same as an engineer in LATAM or India or Asia that has the same level of experience and skill.
The only way to be non discriminatory is to have a standardized formula of compensation that takes into account cost of living (rent, food, healthcare, taxes etc) where the final take home pay in locations around the world are equivalent - which I believe should be the case at most companies
> You are supposed to pay an employee based on his/her abilities, not her location.
I don't think this make any sense on so many levels. First, "abilities" are not a good way to think about wages. If you hire a neurosurgeon to do your gardening, you won't pay them more than a run of the mill gardener.
Rather, you as the employer compete against other employers on different markets in a fairly classical supply and demand situation. The "abilities" of an compliance expert with tech skills did not change much when GDPR was introduced, but as all EU companies scrambled to figure out the regulation (and the DPO role was popularised by fiat), the compensation went way up.
If the employee can participate in e.g the SF labour market, you have to pay a competitive salary in that market, if not you don't have to. As long as there are barriers, e.g a on-location worker in SF has more opportunities for whatever reason, the location premium makes sense.
To take your example in the opposite direction. Let's say a east-european company want to expand into the US and open up a sales engineering office in SF, and want their best sales engineers to go work their, it would be completely insane to not raise their wage. "We pay people after ability here you have 40k USD, have fun finding housing".
Yeah I absolutely hate that. I get why they do it from a business point of view but as an engineer, I'm instantly put off when I see something along the lines of "up to $x (depending on location)".
Planning to release this into the wild for people to use. I currently am struggling on how to fund this properly as the server costs are going to be huge for such an effort (search engine + LLM).