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 deeply support Google, Google Maps, Google Images, Bing, Baidu, and a lot 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.
Why would you feel guilty for the actions of Iran’s government? That doesn’t seem like the appropriate reaction, even if you’re directionally “pro” Iran because they’re directionally opposed to Israel.
(Ultranationalist/reactionary states like Iran and Israel love this kind of absolute framing, because it allows the state to ratchet, rather than de-escalate, cycles of violence.)
The guilt trip is aimed by people who support the genocide at meek liberals who might be worried that they're not demonstrating "equal" concern about Iran.
It was the same shit back when they used to accuse meek liberals of being antisemitic for criticizing some of the most extreme racists on planet earth.
It doesnt matter how Iran frames things. This isnt a "both sides" issue. Youll only get iran's opinion if you read presstv, they dont flood english speaking forums.
I don't know what equal concern means, per se. It seems normal for people to express more or less concern about individual tragedies based on their background, etc. This is distinct from being unable to acknowledge that any given action is bad, which would be the territory of an ideologue.
(I get Iran's opinion because I have Iranian friends.)
Not sure if serious but I don't think that's precisely it. To me, it's more that it rehashes a point until it's fully beaten to death, putting obvious aspects in a list, being subtly wrong, writing a conclusion paragraph to the previous three sentences... it's boring but not because of what it writes but, instead, how it writes it. Of course, it can also be inherently uninteresting but then you should have entered a prompt that causes the autocomplete function to ramble about something you're interested in :P
> disingenuous pretending at human experience; alluding vaguely to "that [relatable experience]" and hoping we won't notice that there is clearly no actual knowledge of the qualia it tries to invoke
> subtly detached or glossed-over metaphors
> feels empty
> alluding to things without actually talking about them
It also feels way too sanitised, like it went through some companies PR department (granted, that's because it went through openais pr department, but still)
With FSD , that is a very very capable system in 2026, You need real multi media for driving (once it's solved), for camping , movies during charging, and not phone somehow ugly slapped by some plastic holder to your car.
I wonder is the GP is referring to the CLOUD Act, as it is true that US companies cannot be compliant with both the GDPR and the CLOUD Act, but it doesn't weaken the case for European tech sovereignty.
Sounds like a broad blanket statement, have any specifics about this?
GDPR and cybersecurity laws are designed to be compatible, not mutually exclusive, but I'm sure there are edge-cases. Still, what exact situation did you find yourself in here in order to believe they're mutually exclusive?
All US companies selling to European customers have to comply with GDPR. European companies selling only to non-European customers don’t have to comply with GDPR. It’s all about who your users are. Not where your company is registered.
I think what OP means is that a US company cannot simultaneously comply with the CLOUD act and the GDPR. That case has also been made by some courts in the EU, that US law and practice are incompatible with the requirements of the GDPR. US companies who claim to process data in accordance with the GDPR seem to be deceiving their customers. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that companies in the EU who rely on US services, corporations in the US, and even governments themselves keep quit about this unpleasant truth. It means that Microsoft Windows violates the GDPR, Google violates it, every US social network violates it, etc.
Of course, as someone else mentioned, that is not an argument against EU sovereignty but rather one of its motors.
> European companies selling only to non-European customers don’t have to comply with GDPR.
Usually they do. European company processing personal data of non-EU customers falls with article 3(1) "This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not."
Of course if they do not process any personal data then it wouldn't apply but that's pretty unlikely (and if that was the case the EU customers data wouldn't fall within GDPR either).
It's called a grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT) and more than beng able to retain the initial investment at the end of a period of time, he would be able to take loans against the principal itself in the meantime (LALs).
However -
> The USPOC currently supports ~4500 athletes, or ~$22,222 each.
Machinations of the uber rich and the morality of them aside, they would've gotten nothing and now they're getting something.
Not if he controls the funds. Tax deductions are only afforded to contributions if they are charitable and am actual gift. If the contributor benefits, it is bit deductible, and control of donated funds is a benefit, as is the ability to direct funds to a particular person or persons.
No not directly but he can control it. So he can invest in a shell company that invests in other shell companies that buys shares of operating companies.
It’s not like he needs these funds to buy groceries or pay the mortgage. He’s essentially hoarding assets like all billionaires are.
This is a simplistic example for illustration, the actual financial engineering would certainly create much more complexity in order to obscure things for auditors and the like. But the point is that he/his fiduciary is the one controlling it all.
This is a positive though.
> The Apple on the lid isn’t shiny
The light has stopped shining at Apple for a bit now