Apparently; when ARM was first sold to Softbank, Softbank made several guarantees to the UK. Nvidia has made no agreement to continue those guarantees.
> At that time, Softbank announced it had agreed to legally binding commitments to increase investment, headcount and preserve its headquarters in the UK.
> It is not too late for the government to impose conditions, but conversations on whether to impose them or what they might be have not even started.
The UK is not in a position of strength at the moment.
Brexit might give us back 'control' from Brussels but does not exactly give us the upper hand in commercial negotiations with the US.
Now, I'm sure that Nvidia will want the deal to close smoothly and will thus be willing to give similar guarantees. Of course the trick is that these guarantees usually (and sensibly) come with a time limit, which also suits governments, so don't mean that much in fine.
I could quote the whole post, but to satisfy UK regulators, NVIDIA committed to:
> NVIDIA will expand Arm’s R&D presence in Cambridge, UK, by establishing a world-class AI research and education center, and building an Arm/NVIDIA-powered AI supercomputer for groundbreaking research
which is much more than Softbank ever did. And the list of things they commited to goes on, and probably will continue to increase as the US and China get their says on this.
Great Britain is now much more desperate.
It needs to compete for market share and access to markets like a 3rd world country but without the associated cheap labour so high tech is one of the few anchors where Britain might have USP.
But as you say with ARM that ship has sailed with the previous sale to SoftBank.
The only chance to salvage some of the know how (not the IP) would be if these specialists could find similar jobs in Cambridge but there simply isn’t enough opportunities especially as the broader market is dire battered by brexit covid and general stagflation.
Not an enviable position- bit like Japan a few years back.
To add to this comment(might be biased as I live and work in the UK): salaries here are just not on the USA level, while costs of items are the same, if not higher(check Apple products price difference on the official website, clothing etc). For many of high demand engineers the choice is London/Manchester or move to the USA
Like most tech people I know in the UK, I've worked for North American companies my whole career. I'd love to work for a UK company and support investment in the UK more, but the pay and working conditions just aren't even remotely competitive (how crazy does that sound, saying I have to go to North American companies to get better working conditions but it's true.) Thankfully more and more let you work remotely from the UK now.
I might be misremembering and exaggerating but I think I looked at ARM internships a decade ago and they were paying about the same daily rate as the hourly rate I got from an American company. Guess where people went?
>how crazy does that sound, saying I have to go to North American companies to get better working conditions but it's true
Same for my time in Germany. I got way better working conditions(not talking about money) working for US companies who had offices there than for German ones.
> I'd love to work for a UK company and support investment in the UK more, but the pay and working conditions just aren't competitive (how crazy does that sound, saying I have to go to North American companies to get better working conditions but it's true.)
Why is that crazy ? From what I've seen the standard of living in the US is actually really good if you're a skilled professional in a high demand field and the labor market is more competitive - better than the EU IMO.
Which is why I'm not sure why I see so much US negative comments around here and this smug EU stance - like just recently I heard from two former coworkers that got a job at similar role/experience level one in Munich and one in Chicago - the guy that went to Chicago got 60% higher salary and his cost of living is roughly similar (didn't go in details TBH).
Also on a personal and cultural level I prefer working with Americans - with Europeans there's so much posturing and pretending to be professional and formal (with skills usually lacking).
Because people think the big benefit of being at a European company that balances the worse pay is more vacation, more reasonable working hours, better work-life balance, working autonomy.
But that's not true. It's the opposite.
I get far better vacation, working hours, work-life balance, working autonomy at North American companies. And better pay. So what's the benefit of working for a European company?
Sure but the US has plenty of advantages over EU and EU is quite bad in some regards as well (especially with regards to equality across the EU - US is usually grouped together but people seem to be talking west Europe and Scandinavian countries when discussing EU, meanwhile I just saw a report how in eastern Europe women are doing surrogate pregnancies as a paid gig because of their living conditions ... if you travel through parts of EU like Bulgaria you'll quickly encounter some medieval living conditions)
Romania is pretty bad too, but the whole point is joining the EU is to help IMPROVE all this, which it does. I have driven across the EU and the US and at the lower socioeconomic end, neither has much difference, except that the EU is committed to improving the lives of its citizens (as far as I have seen) through investment and legislation, and the US isn’t. Quite the opposite.
Not sure if your comment is asking about those things or implying that what I said is incorrect.
Healthcare costs: I personally do not have experience with USA healthcare system. In terms of UK healthcare system I have mixed feelings: key reasons(short list):
1) While it's free, getting many basic things(like blood, urine tests, ultrasound scan) is complicated if you have no symptoms. It's much cheaper and better for the health to treat things at the earliest stage possible and it's not always easy to do so in the UK, even with some private health insurance.
2) Relatively long waiting times for procedures, A&E[1] etc
3) Biased(and potentially selfish) reason: healthcare costs need to be looked both in terms of general population and personal level. If you are healthy and young your chances of using healthcare services are lower.
Education: can't comment as haven't studied in the USA and people from outside of the UK(me) had to pay tuition fees in the UK
Vacation(I might be wrong on this one): from my understanding speaking to some tech working from the USA, amount of days is only 5-10 days lower than than of the UK for many tech companies.
Above does not mean UK is better or worse than USA, I love it here, I love British countryside,it is majestic!
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/nhs-services/urgent-and-eme....
[EDIT] First sentence replaced "what I wrong is incorrect" with "what I said is incorrect" and added some commas
> It’s 2020, and Americans are more burdened by student loan debt than ever.
Among the Class of 2019, 69% of college students took out student loans, and they graduated with an average debt of $29,900, including both private and federal debt. Meanwhile, 14% of their parents took out an average of $37,200 in federal parent PLUS loans.
Can't comment about Wales and Norther Ireland but can make an educated guess about England and Scotland.
University cost of English unis are higher than of Scottish unis. Eg please see Edinburgh university link https://www.ed.ac.uk/tuition-fees/find/undergraduate/2020-20.... For "Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science (BSc Hons)" the cost for Scottish students is £1,820, where for Home - RUK its £9,250. I would assume that many Scottish families can cover the £1,820 cost, where £9,250 is more difficult to cover for more families
> While it's free, getting many basic things(like blood, urine tests, ultrasound scan) is complicated if you have no symptoms.
I feel like you've misunderstood this.
If you don't have symptoms but are asking for testing then you're asking for screening. We have strict criteria for screening because it has potential to cause harm.
>If you don't have symptoms but are asking for testing then you're asking for screening. We have strict criteria for screening because it has potential to cause harm.
Blood/urine test =/= testing. Also from the link you provided: "Screening is the process of identifying individuals who may be at higher risk of a disease or condition amongst large populations of healthy people." People who are not at risk might want to do blood/urine test to check if they currently have underlying issues.
> Here's a blog that explains why testing people who don't have symptoms causes more false positives.
The link you provided talks about Covid19 situation, don't think that was part of the discussion.
>> It's much cheaper and better for the health to treat things at the earliest stage possible
>This is often incorrect.
Last time I checked that was the thing suggested, can you please clarify and elaborate why you say so?
> Blood/urine test =/= testing. Also from the link you provided: "Screening is the process of identifying individuals who may be at higher risk of a disease or condition amongst large populations of healthy people." People who are not at risk might want to do blood/urine test to check if they currently have underlying issues.
This sentence doesn't make much sense.
> Blood/urine test =/= testing.
If the patient has symptoms then it's a test. If the patient does not have symptoms then it's screening.
> People who are not at risk might want to do blood/urine test to check if they currently have underlying issues.
But this is screening, and screening is often harmful, which is why it's strictly controlled.
The blog is not only about covid-19, it uses Covid-19 testing as an example. But the information about screening, especially false positives, applies to the type of blood testing you're talking about.
Take 1000 men aged 50. Give them yearly screening for prostate cancer. Take another group of 1000 men and don't give them prostate cancer screening.
In both groups about 7 men will die from prostate cancer, and about 210 men will die from any cause. But in the screening group 160 men will have a false alarm and needless biopsy, and 20 will have needless treatment. (And the treatment for prostate cancer can leave people incontinent or impotent).
If you're a high demand engineer, you're probably right but SV is special. If you compare London to NY or Birmingham to Altlanta the gap isn't really there. Esp check taxes and healthcare in the US. I've worked both and I'm living in NY based on what I saved when I worked in London, money wise the USA has been surprisingly bad.
You sure? I just did a quick search for EE salaries in London[1] compared to Detroit[2] (the closest large city to me) and Detroit comes out ahead by a lot. And I'm sure rent is cheaper.
However, I agree that salaries are ridiculous in some cities. I'd love to give living in NYC or LA a shot, but the salaries I see for EE jobs are marginally more than what I make in the middle of nowhere.
You're right. Detroit is higher than I expected. I guess low GBP rates make a difference, when I was in London 1 GBP = 2 USD. (Rent in London is definitely not cheaper.) London isn't a great place for EE. Software in Banks had/has crazy demand.
Income levels wise, Numbeo is just a mish-mash full of noise and can't be taken seriously to judge salaries of skilled professionals(that's what we're talking about right?)
Sure, poor people have it better in Vienna because it's cheaper and has better social services than London but skilled professionals(developers and engineers) have it worse as underpaying is rampant in the tech industry there.
Sources: me living there and my friends living in the UK
Since parent comment was deleted here is my answer anyway:
I would say from personal experience, contractor earning 600 quid/day in London is more of an outlier than the norm, unless he is more like Principle level and working for FAANG type companies.
Your answer answers a question similar to mine but not quite what I was asking.
You take people A and B, person A lives in London, rents studio in the city centre, works as mid level engineer in a regular bank. Person B lives in Austria, rents studio in the city centre, works as mid level engineer in a regular banks. Who will have more money left after bills, food, taxes etc? Numbeo suggests that what you said is incorrect, as I pointed above but you might absolutely be right as well.
"Compare that to the likes of Monzo and Austria is at least 15 years behind." Many Monzo features(for example instant notifications when card is used) are not present in many, if not majority of UK banks.
I live in (or near) Cambridge and it is rubbish. It's different if you went to Cambridge University, though. A lot more doors are open for you. But it's far too expensive to live in so most people live miles away and do a horrible commute every day involving crawling traffic and general anger and frustration.
I don't live in the UK but I know that feeling of living in a small but wealthy European college town. It looks nice in photos but job opportunities are scarce for those who aren't doctorate alumni of the local university and also rents are expensive, there's no subway so everyone is bumper to bumper in cars.
Cambridge is small enough, and cycle-friendly enough that nothing is more than 15 minutes away. Bumper-to-bumper is a choice (assuming you live reasonably near the centre)
Well yes, if you're a student or a researcher working at the University and living in Cambridge then yes, you can get everywhere by bike easier, been there done that myself.
The problem is when you get a job at one of the surrounding companies as most of them are outside the city and once you start planning a family you tend to move out of the city as well.
Then your car is your only way to get to work basically as the city and surrounding region is not dense enough to warrant implementing good public transportation.
Is it really cycle friendly? Before I moved here I had this idea that it would be like Amsterdam or something. It's not even close. The roads are potholed and badly designed for bicycles. When I used to cycle in from the edge of the city I'd overtake hundreds of cars, as usual, but barely see any other cyclists. Really no different from anywhere else I've lived in the UK except there are, inexplicably, loads of bike chained to railings everywhere.
As for living in the city, you either have to share with someone or pay exorbitant amounts for something tiny. And what are you even getting for the money? In London you get to live in a world-class city with the best public transport in the country. What do you even get in Cambridge? It's only famous for its university, and that is off-limits for plebeians.
Cambridge used to be very easy to access from mainland Europe with direct flights by Suckling Airways!
Flying low over waves of the North Sea, you were guaranteed to not be bothered by passengers sitting next to you because the noise of those 2 propellor engines made any conversation impossible.
(Funny enough, I took that flight for 30 minute meeting at ARM headquarters. Great trip: the night before was that famous England-Argentina games with David Beckham’s red card. Good times at the local bar!)
I don't know if any of those things are fundamental limitations.
Israel manages to run a thriving high-tech industry, despite not belonging to any currency or trading bloc. As a standalone economy, the Shekel has far less global standing and negotiation power than the Pound Sterling. Yet, Tel Aviv is probably the most successful tech center outside the US or China.
I think the biggest thing holding back the British tech sector is the country's harsh bankruptcy laws. The UK's creditor friendly laws discourages risk taking and startups, which are the necessary pre-conditions for tomorrows tech giants.
What the choosing beggars want, however, is getting ARM back from Softbank for free. After Softbank paid 32bn$ for it. And there you are right, ain't gonna happen.
The irony in all this is that a government that says it wants to create a 'trillion dollar tech giant' has no idea what to do with the one world leading tech company that is based in the UK.
Probably a couple reasons why it's coming up now. First the Japanese have a pretty good reputation as owners of UK businesses, they own quite a few Scotch distilleries and impressions are they manage things well.
Second, I think the world feels a lot more protectionist nowadays vs when the original buyout happened. I know it wasn't that long ago but the trade war tariffs between the US and China sort of set the tone.
But to quote the article:
Softbank [...] agreed to legally binding commitments to increase investment, headcount and preserve its headquarters in the UK.
SoftBank is a financial investor, bankers, so they can have influence, but it's more like having 'a single public investor' instead of a bunch of them.
NVIDIA is another ballgame entirely, it's a corporation in the space, meaning some kind of merger on some kind of scale.
Apple has been designing their own CPU's for a decade, using the ARM ISA. Apple has a perpetual license to the ISA though, so they would not be a source of future revenue.
Apple is also under no obligation to stick with ARM's roadmap for future products.
This is something I have wondered about and had no idea they basically had some sort of perpetual license. Is this normal for ARM to give out such a license? Or are all ARM licenses basically typically under those conditions? I know ARM mostly just licenses specs to their chips.
Wow I had no idea, now a lot of things make more sense to me about why Apple is going the route they are. I honestly wish them nothing but success. Part of me hopes they license their own chips down the line. The Intel monopoly over desktop systems needs to end.
I've been doing a lot of thinking out loud today about the UK's lamentable state with regards to its technology industry today without much disagreement in my back channels – perhaps HN will have more interesting things to say?
It feels like the UK's failings in the technology space are entirely cultural. Looking back at the 70s and 80s when the UK punched above its weight in the microcomputer space, UK tech companies remained very insular and the people who got rich tended to just retire or move on to other industries. This seems to happen wave after wave in the UK. The big names of any decade are no longer around in the next one because they got rich and quit.
The US seems to have a culture of building up business communities in a way the UK doesn't through investment and people staying in the game for multiple decades. There are thousands of paper multi-millionaires who continue to work 40 hour weeks in the US in a way you'd never see in the UK. It's also far less common in the UK for people who got rich off tech to reinvest back into the nascent companies in their space rather than retire. And who's giving multi millions to CS institutions like Imperial or St Andrews in the same way US billionaires do to Stanford and MIT? Where are the charismatic titans of UK technology?
Maybe I'm being unfair, but I can't put my finger on any of it with any clarity because I don't have my head in the UK tech space too much (I live here but virtually "work in the US", so maybe I'm part of the problem) but something smells funny about British culture when it comes to tech and I'd love to know what the cause of that smell is.
The UK is certainly capable of great things. We've seen this in the biomedical, pharma, finance, and energy spaces – how can we be punching above our weight in sectors like those but still have most of our population flocking to American sites like Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram because the local alternatives either don't exist or are terrible?
I don't have easy answers - it's a complex issue and I don't think it's just about tech but about wider issues with British business in general (how many UK companies have tried and failed in the US?) Agreed on pharma but I'm not sure that there are many good examples of success stories outside of that space in e.g. finance.
Just to point out that one reason why Arm was so successful early on was that it looked for business everywhere in the world. I think Robin Saxby spent incredible amounts of time in planes travelling on sales trips. I'm don't think that this is true for many UK companies and / or they are not very good at it. This insularity means that firms are in no position to compete with the scale of US firms when they move into the UK market.
Edit: great interview with Robin Saxby, Arm's first CEO, talking about the early days of Arm here:
>It feels like the UK's failings in the technology space are entirely cultural.
Yes, It is cultural. And I think It is more than what you described, Although I may be over generalising it a bit.
If you look at the US, all of the large tech companies, or in fact any big companies, not just tech all have the same mentality. Rule the world. Whether that is Finance, Energy, Food, Tech. The home market US was merely a testing ground, they always had an eye on the world. They are greedy, pushy, willing to go the extra miles to close the deal. The sales forces between US, UK and Continental Europe are very different. Where in UK and EU there are more towards making both party happy. US tends to be ruthless.
US tech communities and companies also has a rather strange workaholic culture. Where employees are expected to put in the extra hours. But of course the pay in US is also a lot better. It also gives the idea that if you wanted money, go to US, or even working in a US company in the UK, or remote. Most UK / EU tech companies are not salary competitive.
Management Style is also different. Which also mean the working environment in tech also flavours US companies. Some of what is common in US is against the norm in UK. This matter in Tech because the space is moving way too fast. Innovation Efficiency is the key. Before you could gasp the basic of one thing you already have to learn another. Compared to other industry you mentioned which tend to have a slower pace, even in finance. what you learned dont change that often. Only the Data changed.
Not to mention the Brits culturally aren't very good at marketing. Something the US is exceptionally good at.
> Not to mention the Brits culturally aren't very good at marketing. Something the US is exceptionally good at.
Strange to hear this - I've always thought that the UK was particularly good at marketing, [English-speaking] world-leading, in fact. The creative aspect at least. Perhaps I'm conflating this with advertising.
For the case of social media sites, maybe this has to do with the culture at UK universities. Perhaps only in the US do you find people who notice other people socializing with computers and then deciding to exploit, scale and monetize it. Did UK students socialize with computers? You bet they did- lots of UK students on USENET/irc back in the day. So where were the greedy businessmen who would exploit that?
But what you're pointing out is not just a 'UK thing' - it's a 'rest of the world thing'.
The US just has an incredible number of people, it seems, who like working. I think it's a combination of love of the craft, egoism/wanting to make a name (never enough, will 'strike it truly rich soon!'), an ingrained habit of work, a commitment to the cause (innovation as a vocation), low cost of living (dollars go far in the US, this might be an inequality problem, you can buy a huge home on the coast), critical masses (the US has large enough centres of excellence, there's a fraternity to it all, and variety), further career stages (semi-retire as investor - there's a lot to invest it), possibility for global impact (American innovations can go far and wide), and sometimes a sense of frugality - think Warren Buffet. Think of how many Bugattis there would be in the Valley, but you just don't see them in lieu of Teslas or Priuses back in the day. Different culture.
The UK probably does have far more intergenerational transfer than most places though.
The US has a big advantage with its large home market. It's always going to be hard to compete against that.
Also it doesn't help that we have such a large financial services sector. This sector soaks up a lot of graduates that might otherwise be working in technology. It also makes it harder for other sectors to compete. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
Add a government that spends all its time pandering to the over 60's (hence Brexit) and you can see where we are going wrong.
> Also it doesn't help that we have such a large financial services sector. This sector soaks up a lot of graduates that might otherwise be working in technology.
Historically - yes, but I'm not so convinced any more; young people / grads here just don't want to go into banking now (understandably IMO), and not sure the Fintech firms (that aren't pure tech) make up that much in terms of grad numbers.
If arm wanted to stay in the uk they shouldn’t have sold themselves to the Japanese.
The UK has always lagged in tech as they still think it’s the 1800’s and their domestic island is enough as they ignored the world in the 80s with low effort 3rd party sourcing at best.
As usual the state TV and education could have dominated the English speaking world with BBC micros and education, but again they stayed on their tiny insignificant island.
This whole thing is nothing more than sellers re-remorse for selling ARM for next to nothing.
100 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 179 ms ] threadedit: Get rid of little to late and change to too late.
> At that time, Softbank announced it had agreed to legally binding commitments to increase investment, headcount and preserve its headquarters in the UK.
> It is not too late for the government to impose conditions, but conversations on whether to impose them or what they might be have not even started.
Brexit might give us back 'control' from Brussels but does not exactly give us the upper hand in commercial negotiations with the US.
Now, I'm sure that Nvidia will want the deal to close smoothly and will thus be willing to give similar guarantees. Of course the trick is that these guarantees usually (and sensibly) come with a time limit, which also suits governments, so don't mean that much in fine.
Hasn't Nvidia has actually increased those guarantees with everything they have agreed on for buying ARM?
I could quote the whole post, but to satisfy UK regulators, NVIDIA committed to:
> NVIDIA will expand Arm’s R&D presence in Cambridge, UK, by establishing a world-class AI research and education center, and building an Arm/NVIDIA-powered AI supercomputer for groundbreaking research
which is much more than Softbank ever did. And the list of things they commited to goes on, and probably will continue to increase as the US and China get their says on this.
Otherwise it would be pointless having them in the first place, you'd just get out of it (if you wanted to) with some creative corporate governance.
[I used to work at Arm, but not on creative corporate governance.]
> you'd just get out of it (if you wanted to) with some creative corporate governance
... aand you've just "discovered" how large companies routinely get out of their commitments to politicians.
Plausibly the obligation on Softbank could require them, when selling, to require the new buyer agree to the same obligation.
I might be misremembering and exaggerating but I think I looked at ARM internships a decade ago and they were paying about the same daily rate as the hourly rate I got from an American company. Guess where people went?
Same for my time in Germany. I got way better working conditions(not talking about money) working for US companies who had offices there than for German ones.
Why is that crazy ? From what I've seen the standard of living in the US is actually really good if you're a skilled professional in a high demand field and the labor market is more competitive - better than the EU IMO.
Which is why I'm not sure why I see so much US negative comments around here and this smug EU stance - like just recently I heard from two former coworkers that got a job at similar role/experience level one in Munich and one in Chicago - the guy that went to Chicago got 60% higher salary and his cost of living is roughly similar (didn't go in details TBH).
Also on a personal and cultural level I prefer working with Americans - with Europeans there's so much posturing and pretending to be professional and formal (with skills usually lacking).
Because people think the big benefit of being at a European company that balances the worse pay is more vacation, more reasonable working hours, better work-life balance, working autonomy.
But that's not true. It's the opposite.
I get far better vacation, working hours, work-life balance, working autonomy at North American companies. And better pay. So what's the benefit of working for a European company?
I read your original post as working in the UK for an American company, but now I'm not so sure
What are your working hours?
Because not only the (relatively) rich matter.
I agree that EU vs US discussions can be tedious, but surrogate pregnancies for cash happen in some US states too.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/12/paying-gestational-carri...
Healthcare costs: I personally do not have experience with USA healthcare system. In terms of UK healthcare system I have mixed feelings: key reasons(short list):
1) While it's free, getting many basic things(like blood, urine tests, ultrasound scan) is complicated if you have no symptoms. It's much cheaper and better for the health to treat things at the earliest stage possible and it's not always easy to do so in the UK, even with some private health insurance.
2) Relatively long waiting times for procedures, A&E[1] etc
3) Biased(and potentially selfish) reason: healthcare costs need to be looked both in terms of general population and personal level. If you are healthy and young your chances of using healthcare services are lower.
Education: can't comment as haven't studied in the USA and people from outside of the UK(me) had to pay tuition fees in the UK
Vacation(I might be wrong on this one): from my understanding speaking to some tech working from the USA, amount of days is only 5-10 days lower than than of the UK for many tech companies.
Above does not mean UK is better or worse than USA, I love it here, I love British countryside,it is majestic! [1] https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/nhs-services/urgent-and-eme.... [EDIT] First sentence replaced "what I wrong is incorrect" with "what I said is incorrect" and added some commas
From https://www.statista.com/statistics/376423/uk-student-loan-d...
> In 2020, students graduating from English universities will have incurred an average of 40.28 thousand British pounds of student loan debt...
From https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/
> It’s 2020, and Americans are more burdened by student loan debt than ever.
Among the Class of 2019, 69% of college students took out student loans, and they graduated with an average debt of $29,900, including both private and federal debt. Meanwhile, 14% of their parents took out an average of $37,200 in federal parent PLUS loans.
University cost of English unis are higher than of Scottish unis. Eg please see Edinburgh university link https://www.ed.ac.uk/tuition-fees/find/undergraduate/2020-20.... For "Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science (BSc Hons)" the cost for Scottish students is £1,820, where for Home - RUK its £9,250. I would assume that many Scottish families can cover the £1,820 cost, where £9,250 is more difficult to cover for more families
I feel like you've misunderstood this.
If you don't have symptoms but are asking for testing then you're asking for screening. We have strict criteria for screening because it has potential to cause harm.
https://www.gov.uk/topic/population-screening-programmes/pop...
Here's a blog that explains why testing people who don't have symptoms causes more false positives. https://www.jackiecassell.com/moonshot-moonshine-and-false-p...
> It's much cheaper and better for the health to treat things at the earliest stage possible
This is often incorrect.
>If you don't have symptoms but are asking for testing then you're asking for screening. We have strict criteria for screening because it has potential to cause harm.
Blood/urine test =/= testing. Also from the link you provided: "Screening is the process of identifying individuals who may be at higher risk of a disease or condition amongst large populations of healthy people." People who are not at risk might want to do blood/urine test to check if they currently have underlying issues.
> Here's a blog that explains why testing people who don't have symptoms causes more false positives.
The link you provided talks about Covid19 situation, don't think that was part of the discussion.
>> It's much cheaper and better for the health to treat things at the earliest stage possible
>This is often incorrect.
Last time I checked that was the thing suggested, can you please clarify and elaborate why you say so?
This sentence doesn't make much sense.
> Blood/urine test =/= testing.
If the patient has symptoms then it's a test. If the patient does not have symptoms then it's screening.
> People who are not at risk might want to do blood/urine test to check if they currently have underlying issues.
But this is screening, and screening is often harmful, which is why it's strictly controlled.
The blog is not only about covid-19, it uses Covid-19 testing as an example. But the information about screening, especially false positives, applies to the type of blood testing you're talking about.
If you want a different blog: https://understandinguncertainty.org/node/1279
> Last time I checked that was the thing suggested, can you please clarify and elaborate why you say so?
The problem is of "over testing", "over diagnosis", and "over treatment". https://ebm.bmj.com/content/23/1/1
Your claim is that early detection means that treatment can start earlier, and that this reduces side effects and prolongs life.
My claim is that often screening sometimes does not prolong life, and sometimes causes harm.
https://www.hardingcenter.de/en/early-detection-prostate-can...
Take 1000 men aged 50. Give them yearly screening for prostate cancer. Take another group of 1000 men and don't give them prostate cancer screening.
In both groups about 7 men will die from prostate cancer, and about 210 men will die from any cause. But in the screening group 160 men will have a false alarm and needless biopsy, and 20 will have needless treatment. (And the treatment for prostate cancer can leave people incontinent or impotent).
See also this for a discussion of 5 year survival rates and why they're problematic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24022426
However, I agree that salaries are ridiculous in some cities. I'd love to give living in NYC or LA a shot, but the salaries I see for EE jobs are marginally more than what I make in the middle of nowhere.
1: https://www.indeed.co.uk/salaries/senior-electrical-engineer... 2: https://www.indeed.com/career/engineer/salaries/Detroit--MI
2) Check out numbeo https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/
Wanna see underpaid? Come to Austria.
Sure, poor people have it better in Vienna because it's cheaper and has better social services than London but skilled professionals(developers and engineers) have it worse as underpaying is rampant in the tech industry there.
Sources: me living there and my friends living in the UK
PS will they be saving more in the situation where both of you had promotions?
I would say from personal experience, contractor earning 600 quid/day in London is more of an outlier than the norm, unless he is more like Principle level and working for FAANG type companies.
Your answer answers a question similar to mine but not quite what I was asking.
You take people A and B, person A lives in London, rents studio in the city centre, works as mid level engineer in a regular bank. Person B lives in Austria, rents studio in the city centre, works as mid level engineer in a regular banks. Who will have more money left after bills, food, taxes etc? Numbeo suggests that what you said is incorrect, as I pointed above but you might absolutely be right as well.
"Compare that to the likes of Monzo and Austria is at least 15 years behind." Many Monzo features(for example instant notifications when card is used) are not present in many, if not majority of UK banks.
Sure, there is a fast-ish train link to London but Cambridge itself is quite small and there is close to nothing at all around it.
Edit: Sorry guys! Obviously many people from Cambridge here.
The problem is when you get a job at one of the surrounding companies as most of them are outside the city and once you start planning a family you tend to move out of the city as well.
Then your car is your only way to get to work basically as the city and surrounding region is not dense enough to warrant implementing good public transportation.
As for living in the city, you either have to share with someone or pay exorbitant amounts for something tiny. And what are you even getting for the money? In London you get to live in a world-class city with the best public transport in the country. What do you even get in Cambridge? It's only famous for its university, and that is off-limits for plebeians.
Flying low over waves of the North Sea, you were guaranteed to not be bothered by passengers sitting next to you because the noise of those 2 propellor engines made any conversation impossible.
(Funny enough, I took that flight for 30 minute meeting at ARM headquarters. Great trip: the night before was that famous England-Argentina games with David Beckham’s red card. Good times at the local bar!)
Israel manages to run a thriving high-tech industry, despite not belonging to any currency or trading bloc. As a standalone economy, the Shekel has far less global standing and negotiation power than the Pound Sterling. Yet, Tel Aviv is probably the most successful tech center outside the US or China.
I think the biggest thing holding back the British tech sector is the country's harsh bankruptcy laws. The UK's creditor friendly laws discourages risk taking and startups, which are the necessary pre-conditions for tomorrows tech giants.
Just buy it from Softbank at over 40bn$.
"It's as simple as that".
What the choosing beggars want, however, is getting ARM back from Softbank for free. After Softbank paid 32bn$ for it. And there you are right, ain't gonna happen.
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/09/11/cummings-p...
The second level irony is that it's the UK that has always been the main opponent to every state subsidies while they were in European union.
Sorry for the cheap shot, but the current government is not very good at starting conversations, signing agreements or to to keep them.
Second, I think the world feels a lot more protectionist nowadays vs when the original buyout happened. I know it wasn't that long ago but the trade war tariffs between the US and China sort of set the tone.
NVIDIA is another ballgame entirely, it's a corporation in the space, meaning some kind of merger on some kind of scale.
Apple is also under no obligation to stick with ARM's roadmap for future products.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers#ARM_Ltd.
Article from 1990: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-11-28-fi-4993-s...
Apple got as big as it is by vertically integrating everything and creating walled gardens.
https://archive.org/details/scorpius_architecture
It feels like the UK's failings in the technology space are entirely cultural. Looking back at the 70s and 80s when the UK punched above its weight in the microcomputer space, UK tech companies remained very insular and the people who got rich tended to just retire or move on to other industries. This seems to happen wave after wave in the UK. The big names of any decade are no longer around in the next one because they got rich and quit.
The US seems to have a culture of building up business communities in a way the UK doesn't through investment and people staying in the game for multiple decades. There are thousands of paper multi-millionaires who continue to work 40 hour weeks in the US in a way you'd never see in the UK. It's also far less common in the UK for people who got rich off tech to reinvest back into the nascent companies in their space rather than retire. And who's giving multi millions to CS institutions like Imperial or St Andrews in the same way US billionaires do to Stanford and MIT? Where are the charismatic titans of UK technology?
Maybe I'm being unfair, but I can't put my finger on any of it with any clarity because I don't have my head in the UK tech space too much (I live here but virtually "work in the US", so maybe I'm part of the problem) but something smells funny about British culture when it comes to tech and I'd love to know what the cause of that smell is.
The UK is certainly capable of great things. We've seen this in the biomedical, pharma, finance, and energy spaces – how can we be punching above our weight in sectors like those but still have most of our population flocking to American sites like Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram because the local alternatives either don't exist or are terrible?
Just to point out that one reason why Arm was so successful early on was that it looked for business everywhere in the world. I think Robin Saxby spent incredible amounts of time in planes travelling on sales trips. I'm don't think that this is true for many UK companies and / or they are not very good at it. This insularity means that firms are in no position to compete with the scale of US firms when they move into the UK market.
Edit: great interview with Robin Saxby, Arm's first CEO, talking about the early days of Arm here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO5PsAY5aaI
Yes, It is cultural. And I think It is more than what you described, Although I may be over generalising it a bit.
If you look at the US, all of the large tech companies, or in fact any big companies, not just tech all have the same mentality. Rule the world. Whether that is Finance, Energy, Food, Tech. The home market US was merely a testing ground, they always had an eye on the world. They are greedy, pushy, willing to go the extra miles to close the deal. The sales forces between US, UK and Continental Europe are very different. Where in UK and EU there are more towards making both party happy. US tends to be ruthless.
US tech communities and companies also has a rather strange workaholic culture. Where employees are expected to put in the extra hours. But of course the pay in US is also a lot better. It also gives the idea that if you wanted money, go to US, or even working in a US company in the UK, or remote. Most UK / EU tech companies are not salary competitive.
Management Style is also different. Which also mean the working environment in tech also flavours US companies. Some of what is common in US is against the norm in UK. This matter in Tech because the space is moving way too fast. Innovation Efficiency is the key. Before you could gasp the basic of one thing you already have to learn another. Compared to other industry you mentioned which tend to have a slower pace, even in finance. what you learned dont change that often. Only the Data changed.
Not to mention the Brits culturally aren't very good at marketing. Something the US is exceptionally good at.
Strange to hear this - I've always thought that the UK was particularly good at marketing, [English-speaking] world-leading, in fact. The creative aspect at least. Perhaps I'm conflating this with advertising.
UK have some of the best 'communications culture' in the world, which lends to agency style stuff.
Marketing, particularly product marketing, is somewhat different. I would still say pretty good though.
But what you're pointing out is not just a 'UK thing' - it's a 'rest of the world thing'.
The US just has an incredible number of people, it seems, who like working. I think it's a combination of love of the craft, egoism/wanting to make a name (never enough, will 'strike it truly rich soon!'), an ingrained habit of work, a commitment to the cause (innovation as a vocation), low cost of living (dollars go far in the US, this might be an inequality problem, you can buy a huge home on the coast), critical masses (the US has large enough centres of excellence, there's a fraternity to it all, and variety), further career stages (semi-retire as investor - there's a lot to invest it), possibility for global impact (American innovations can go far and wide), and sometimes a sense of frugality - think Warren Buffet. Think of how many Bugattis there would be in the Valley, but you just don't see them in lieu of Teslas or Priuses back in the day. Different culture.
The UK probably does have far more intergenerational transfer than most places though.
Also it doesn't help that we have such a large financial services sector. This sector soaks up a lot of graduates that might otherwise be working in technology. It also makes it harder for other sectors to compete. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
Add a government that spends all its time pandering to the over 60's (hence Brexit) and you can see where we are going wrong.
Historically - yes, but I'm not so convinced any more; young people / grads here just don't want to go into banking now (understandably IMO), and not sure the Fintech firms (that aren't pure tech) make up that much in terms of grad numbers.
The UK has always lagged in tech as they still think it’s the 1800’s and their domestic island is enough as they ignored the world in the 80s with low effort 3rd party sourcing at best.
As usual the state TV and education could have dominated the English speaking world with BBC micros and education, but again they stayed on their tiny insignificant island.
This whole thing is nothing more than sellers re-remorse for selling ARM for next to nothing.
Go and do something new.