I used to use pinboard[1] but since I started dicking around with self hosting I use Wallabag[2] for “read it later” articles and linkding [0] for saving links that I want to refer to later. Linkding is pretty much a self hosted pinboard
And I assume you've already got uBlock Origin. And as others mentioned, try also using Firefox as your mobile browser, so you can send tabs from one to the other, which is pretty neat.
As somebody who fought for a year to get an O1 visa (and an EB-1 green card, though that didn't quite work out), I can attest to the fact that the problem is not that it is an investor vs. a government official that is deciding whether one meets the criteria, but with the criteria themselves.
I had a top-notch immigration attorney, and a solid case. I was the first employee of a company that now employs north of a hundred engineers and generates tens of millions in tax revenue. By any definition of the phrase "individuals with an extraordinary ability in the sciences, education, business, or athletics," I am the kind of person that this visa was meant to attract: talent that results in a net gain for the country.
The problem isn't with the government employees who review the cases; the problem is with the criteria for the visa. It's stuck in a world where 40-year old academics were the innovators. Where instead of showing product traction, revenue, and ability to create businesses, you're expected to show published papers, academic awards, or inclusion in conference panels. Sure, these are still very valid reasons to want somebody to enter the US; but they shouldn't be considered the only reasons.
Quite a few very valuable companies were founded by mavericks, dropouts, or just people who stayed away from academia and instead worked on products. Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Zuck, the WhatsApp guys, the Airbnb guys. None of these guys were academics. Some dropped out of college. None received nobel prizes, but many had shown previous entrepreneurial success. The visa requirements give this no consideration.
--
The full list of requirements, of which you have to demonstrably meet at least three:
1. Documentation of the individual's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;
2. Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields;
3. Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the individual, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary translation;
4. Evidence of the individual's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification is sought;
5. Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;
6. Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals, or other major media;
7. Evidence that the individual has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation;
8. Evidence that the individual has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence.
> what makes software unique in that it would be effectively excluded
I can answer this:
1) Because software is already covered by copyright.
2) Because any given idea or concept in software can be implemented an infinite number of novel ways. Patents only cover specific implementations of an idea... Not the idea itself.
Let's use Amazon's One Click patent as an example: How many different ways do you think that could be coded/handled? How many different programming languages could be used to make it work?
If the One Click patent was actually specific enough to not be a broad concept (as required by patent law) it would include the actual code that makes it work. That's the software equivalent to an engineer's blueprint. However, if you look at the patent claims (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5960411A/en) you can see that every single claim is just generic nonsense (e.g. "The method of claim 11 wherein the client system and server system communicate via the Internet.").
Even if you add all the claims together and examine the patent as a whole you still get nothing but a broad concept on the idea of clicking once to place an order. Repeat after me: PATENTS ONLY COVER SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS OF IDEAS, not the ideas themselves. Which is exactly what every single software patent that exists defines: Nothing more than a broad concept.
You could require that patents provide the actual code that makes them work but then they'd be worthless because any given bit of code can be implemented an infinite number of ways. It would be trivial to change a for loop to a while loop or wrap things in functions or even something as simple as using a different programming language. Any of those things and more would get around a patent on a specific implementation of software, aka "code".
Here's hoping I don't have weird taste in games...
A massively multiplayer RTS that is essentially a combination of Factorio [1], Rust [2] (the game), Planetary Annihilation [3], and Z [4].
Thematically what I've wanted is the persistent nature of Rust, with the logistic focus of Factorio, the scale of Planetary Annihilation, and a dash of the absurdity of Z (which I haven't played in a very long time so I might be off a bit there). Controlling units, managing supply lines, planning complex offensives, setting up a defensive posture for when you're offline, creating one or more bases to supply yourself, researching technology to increase capabilities, and a very open system for cooperation (or not) are aspects of games that I have yet to see combined. I am for sure leaving out quite a bit here, but if I had all the time and money in the world I'd throw this all together as a weird experiment and see what happened.
I can't install Barrier on my work laptop for policy reasons, but I don't want to buy a KVM, so a project I've been interested in building when I have time is porting enough of the Barrier/Synergy protocol to the Particle Photon [1] or BeagleBone Black [2] I've had lying around for a while, and then configuring it to emulate a keyboard and mouse via its USB gadget driver, allowing it to control my work laptop over USB.
On the Photon at least, emulating a keyboard and mouse is incredibly easy and is baked into the firmware, but implementing the Barrier protocol so that it can appear as a client on the network and pass on the keyboard/mouse input seems like it's going to take some effort.
I'd love to get a drone but there's no way in hell I can fly it in NYC airspace. Also, when people travel with a drone, do they actually look up the laws for each place they visit? Do they just wing it? How often do people get caught illegally flying drones? All of that seems like a headache.
My concern is that - like any other portfolio optimization algorithm - blindly optimizing on fundamentals and short term returns will lead to investing in firms who just dump external costs onto people in the present and future; so, screening with sustainability criteria is important to me.
[0] https://github.com/sissbruecker/linkding
[1] http://pinboard.in/
[2] https://www.wallabag.it/en