Our Newest Developer Is Ten Years Old(tech.osper.io)
tech.osper.io
Our Newest Developer Is Ten Years Old
http://tech.osper.io/post/95466827667/our-newest-developer-is-ten-years-old
48 comments
I'm stuck here trying to figure out if this is a satire article promoting that silicon valley show.
I used to work for the Squirrel who Max mentions. This seems like a 100% plausible Squirrel move.
Whether Squirrel is a satire on Silicon Valley is, i believe, an open question.
Whether Squirrel is a satire on Silicon Valley is, i believe, an open question.
[deleted]
our newest developer is 45 years old.
i'm not sure which one is more rare these days.
i'm not sure which one is more rare these days.
I imagine both are. At TIM Group I regularly hired grey beards and they made a huge contribution - but it was definitely bucking a trend.
[deleted]
Child Labor: It's Not Just For the Garment Industry Anymore!™
It's a shame children can't work more often. I think people are smart enough to tell the difference between abuse and an awesome opportunity for experience.
People may be smart enough to tell the difference but I don't think they're smart enough to write an ironclad law that won't allow for abuse.
It's the letter of the law, not the spirit, that we have to worry about.
It's the letter of the law, not the spirit, that we have to worry about.
You don't need an "ironclad law" no such thing exists. You just need to recognize that it's wrong to abuse children. That's like saying you need an "ironclad law" to determine how wrong it is to be drunk when you've killed someone in traffic.
...What? It's manslaughter, wtf are you talking about?
...What? It's manslaughter, wtf are you talking about?
Yes because everyone has the same morals and follows them exactly. You're basically arguing that we don't need laws if everyone just recognized wrong from right.
No, I'm not. Pay attention. I'm saying you don't need to pack on unnecessary arbitrary laws because you think you're smarter than everybody else.
There are universals, for the times when there is not, you MUST recognize that by forcing them you ONLY cause harm. There's no arguing that.
There are universals, for the times when there is not, you MUST recognize that by forcing them you ONLY cause harm. There's no arguing that.
So, this is a bit off topic on a super click-bait-y story, but I think the notion of child labor laws is that we specifically include child labor as statutory abuse, in the same way the basic speed limit law ("don't drive too fast to be safe") is augmented by the more specific and easily enforceable speed limit signs. It'd be great if we had the throughput to actually make wise decisions about such a broad range of potential disputes -- that way, we wouldn't discourage non-traditional calls that might suck up a lot of time -- but I think this is a fair compromise.
And just like nobody actually thinks they are driving to fast to be safe, nobody would think that the jobs they provide would be abusive. Even long hours in a sweatshop would be randized as providing opportunities in a free market.
No. You're turning a fallacy into a bumper sticker. First of all, speed limits are way below the capabilities of how safely cars can move today. Hence, the original federal law that said limits should represent the top 80th percentile of drivers. (That's obviously not used anymore.) Slow can mean dangerous, don't depend on obvious quips for all your thinking.
Second, "sweatshops" in the derogatory sense only exist in socialist countries where families are starving to death trying to support the government. If kids didn't work, they wouldn't have food. You know very well they and their parents would prefer that school be an option.
Third, the work that these companies provide are NOT inherently wrong. Making clothes? Sounds like a good skill to me. Don't base your "opinions" on some dark imagery you've developed in your head.
Second, "sweatshops" in the derogatory sense only exist in socialist countries where families are starving to death trying to support the government. If kids didn't work, they wouldn't have food. You know very well they and their parents would prefer that school be an option.
Third, the work that these companies provide are NOT inherently wrong. Making clothes? Sounds like a good skill to me. Don't base your "opinions" on some dark imagery you've developed in your head.
Stop thinking of things in some petty nationalist sense. Communities can handle their own problems in a much smarter and more efficient way.
Identifying an abusive employment opportunity is necessary but not sufficient to being in a negotiation position where people are not abused.
This is exactly right, and the thing people most frequently forget when considering labor laws generally, particularly minimum wage, overtime, and child labor.
The unfortunate thing here is that even if most people are willing and able to say no to abusive employment practices, it only takes a few underinformed/underrepresented/broke people to create systemic issues. These are exactly the sort of situations we really do need statutory protection for.
The unfortunate thing here is that even if most people are willing and able to say no to abusive employment practices, it only takes a few underinformed/underrepresented/broke people to create systemic issues. These are exactly the sort of situations we really do need statutory protection for.
You're already talking about a much different issue than what you listed.
Laws on everything you listed reduce opportunity and all cause problems with unemployment. Yet, you've avoided the entire issue by saying, "Well... dumb minority poor people!" Let's ignore the fact that these are the people most harmed by "statutory protection" for a second and address the issue of superiority.
You're telling me that your ideas must be enacted across the entire nation because you think dumb, minority, poor people all need your protection. They can't possibly work things out for themselves or seek help from friends, family and local communities to solve individual issues. Instead, you're going to blanket the whole thing and not harm a single person? How wrong you are.
Laws on everything you listed reduce opportunity and all cause problems with unemployment. Yet, you've avoided the entire issue by saying, "Well... dumb minority poor people!" Let's ignore the fact that these are the people most harmed by "statutory protection" for a second and address the issue of superiority.
You're telling me that your ideas must be enacted across the entire nation because you think dumb, minority, poor people all need your protection. They can't possibly work things out for themselves or seek help from friends, family and local communities to solve individual issues. Instead, you're going to blanket the whole thing and not harm a single person? How wrong you are.
Wow, what a strong reaction! I'm not sure what issue you think I've entirely avoided, I think my comment was pretty fair and direct. But let me try to elaborate a bit.
I certainly wouldn't limit my points to minorities, though the reality of our current society is that the lingering effects of institutional racism means poverty is usually concentrated in communities of color.
The problem with expecting folks to "work things out for themselves" is the extreme asymmetry of information in labor markets. It's far too easy for a single capitalist to take extreme advantage of those in poverty, and far too hard for workers, even when banding together to collectively negotiate, to compensate for that.
The thing is, when you expect people to just "work things out for themselves" it pretty much always ends up favoring those already in positions of power, namely wealthy white males.
I certainly wouldn't limit my points to minorities, though the reality of our current society is that the lingering effects of institutional racism means poverty is usually concentrated in communities of color.
The problem with expecting folks to "work things out for themselves" is the extreme asymmetry of information in labor markets. It's far too easy for a single capitalist to take extreme advantage of those in poverty, and far too hard for workers, even when banding together to collectively negotiate, to compensate for that.
The thing is, when you expect people to just "work things out for themselves" it pretty much always ends up favoring those already in positions of power, namely wealthy white males.
Starting out with "strong reaction" suggests you're either confused, or want to back off from the reality of your original point by trying to take a middle ground or change your wording.
I've never ever heard of a "single capitalist" taking advantage of an entire race. You sound like a Marxist when you say that. OED has a fine definition of capitalism that will help you out here. You can't possibly know what a capitalist is by suggesting such a thing.
When someone makes a choice to take a lower wage, it's usually because they can't get anything better. Guess what? Capitalism implies (and I really do mean implies) competition. The minimum wage (originally lobbied for by white unions) means companies are restricted to hiring only those who can produce more than that minimum. For the "stupid poor minority" you're so hell bent on "protecting", this means making it far harder to gain experience and work their way to the middle class. (You know, like immigrants used to do.) Instead, they're paid not to work via welfare programs (meant to make things "easier" right?) and not allowed to work off the books while living off of others.
Also, you're going to have to say it again if you seriously want to stick to the point that unions have no bargaining power. If this is the case I'll be less "strong" (lol) and we'll do this at a lower level. I'll write you up a whole 10 page step-by-step paper on all of the opportunity cost losses that you'd create if, theoretically, you were in charge of the economy. Hell, if you are indeed a Marxist or even socialist I'd be happy to give you the "See Spot Run" version of what subjective value and economic calculation is.
I've never ever heard of a "single capitalist" taking advantage of an entire race. You sound like a Marxist when you say that. OED has a fine definition of capitalism that will help you out here. You can't possibly know what a capitalist is by suggesting such a thing.
When someone makes a choice to take a lower wage, it's usually because they can't get anything better. Guess what? Capitalism implies (and I really do mean implies) competition. The minimum wage (originally lobbied for by white unions) means companies are restricted to hiring only those who can produce more than that minimum. For the "stupid poor minority" you're so hell bent on "protecting", this means making it far harder to gain experience and work their way to the middle class. (You know, like immigrants used to do.) Instead, they're paid not to work via welfare programs (meant to make things "easier" right?) and not allowed to work off the books while living off of others.
Also, you're going to have to say it again if you seriously want to stick to the point that unions have no bargaining power. If this is the case I'll be less "strong" (lol) and we'll do this at a lower level. I'll write you up a whole 10 page step-by-step paper on all of the opportunity cost losses that you'd create if, theoretically, you were in charge of the economy. Hell, if you are indeed a Marxist or even socialist I'd be happy to give you the "See Spot Run" version of what subjective value and economic calculation is.
When I say your reaction is strong I'm referring to the use of value-laden extreme language like the phrase "stupid poor minority" (which I'm not sure why you quoted since they were your words) and calling me a Marxist, an apparent attempt to escalate what could be a reasonably calm discussion to a heated argument.
1. Stupid, poor, minority are your words. It's funny how you can use terms with the exact same definition, but get scared when reality strikes.
2. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Marxist (despite an obvious misunderstanding of economics).
3. From 1 and 2, it is only your politically correct / conversationally damaging standoffishness that creates your perception of "heated". This explains a lot really. You're more worried about being inoffensive than right, which is exactly why you've chosen the path you've chosen. Ignoring facts and complaining about nonexistent "strong and heated" words. This isn't a good way to learn anything.
2. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Marxist (despite an obvious misunderstanding of economics).
3. From 1 and 2, it is only your politically correct / conversationally damaging standoffishness that creates your perception of "heated". This explains a lot really. You're more worried about being inoffensive than right, which is exactly why you've chosen the path you've chosen. Ignoring facts and complaining about nonexistent "strong and heated" words. This isn't a good way to learn anything.
No, the fact of the matter is that "stupid poor minority" are your words and simply that you continue to try to claim that they're mine shows that you're just trolling here.
underinformed/underrepresented/broke = dumb/minority/poor
There is literally no difference. Your concentration on this is just a way for you to tuck your tail between your legs without running. You're wrong, so you concentrate on what you think is "controversial" and pick out semantics so you don't have to confront your own ignorance.
There is literally no difference. Your concentration on this is just a way for you to tuck your tail between your legs without running. You're wrong, so you concentrate on what you think is "controversial" and pick out semantics so you don't have to confront your own ignorance.
There is, actually, a difference. Notwithstanding the difference in connotation (which is significant, but you seem to be willingly ignoring), there is a pretty important difference in denotation.
An underinformed person could get informed, a dumb person maybe not. There are far more underrepresented groups than just minorities, so equating the two is simply ignoring critical facts about the world. And though broke and poor are pretty close to being synonyms, there is still a distinction: broke implies a temporary state.
One day you'll learn that the world is more nuanced than your absolutism would have. Perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion then. For now I'm done feeding the trolls.
An underinformed person could get informed, a dumb person maybe not. There are far more underrepresented groups than just minorities, so equating the two is simply ignoring critical facts about the world. And though broke and poor are pretty close to being synonyms, there is still a distinction: broke implies a temporary state.
One day you'll learn that the world is more nuanced than your absolutism would have. Perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion then. For now I'm done feeding the trolls.
Example?
Just to avoid confusion - Max was with us entirely voluntarily and with his parents' blessing. Our purpose was to help him to learn and to realise his ambition to be a coder. As it happens, he's extremely bright and already knows emacs, git, and some python - so he was actually able to make a real contribution and get a feature live for customers, which was icing on the cake for all of us.
I don't believe "voluntarily and with his parents' blessing" is an exemption laid out by the FLSA.
It's a bit of a clickbait headline, bit of backstory. Osper is a product which allows kids to use a debt card, funds are controlled via parents and kids can see the balance via a smartphone.
Fair cop on the headline, I was mostly just excited to share the story of Max who I think is incredible. He really did contribute to our code and is better than at least half the developers I interview, so we plan to have him back regularly to continue coding with us.
Shouldn't he rather be playing with his friends doing normal stuff 10 years old do.
He's gonna be able to do this kind of work for decades starting in his twenties. What he won't be able to do his reclaim his lost childhood years.
He's gonna be able to do this kind of work for decades starting in his twenties. What he won't be able to do his reclaim his lost childhood years.
Yay!
Actually this is only legal if the child is voluntarily contributing. Which means, of course, than instead of child labor you should let the kids contribute to open source projects and run their own business.
If the kid is running their own business then I don't think it's considered child labor. Although IANAL. So, you see, lemonade stands may still be legal in this country :-P
Actually this is only legal if the child is voluntarily contributing. Which means, of course, than instead of child labor you should let the kids contribute to open source projects and run their own business.
If the kid is running their own business then I don't think it's considered child labor. Although IANAL. So, you see, lemonade stands may still be legal in this country :-P
A number of kids' lemonade stands have wound up closed by police/health inspectors in the US for lack of permitting. Heh.
So, uh, child labor laws?
As a child, I used to voluntarily go around my neighborhood asking people if I could mow their lawn during the summer. In the fall, I'd offer to rake their leaves. Should I have been stopped?
"Should" is a value judgement. Legally, if it's not an agricultural job, age 14 is the lower bound.
Which makes child labor issues almost entirely subjective and driven by emotion.
Kids losing limbs/lives in sweatshops certainly gives rise to emotions, yes.
I thought we were talking about a 10 year old developer?
We are, as well as the fairly strict rules in place on employing said 10 year old because of extensive historical abuses of child labor.
I'm sure there are plenty of situations where children can conceivably work in a positive, safe manner. This looks to be one of them. It is generally illegal, though, because leaving it as a judgement call between employer and child opens a lot of holes in the system.
I'm sure there are plenty of situations where children can conceivably work in a positive, safe manner. This looks to be one of them. It is generally illegal, though, because leaving it as a judgement call between employer and child opens a lot of holes in the system.
We hired a 17 year old intern and she was smarter than me. I felt bad. :(