nness

Three questions immediately come to mind:

1. Is this more cost-effective than just writing-off the lost inventory? At least in TJ Maxx's case, is it really that high?

2. What good is the footage? I doubt police are going to investigate petty theft.

3. Doesn't this make the staff a target of violence?

Surely there's a term for "a team not understanding all the implicit complexity in a system, changing that system, and not comprehending the wider impact of that change." It feels like the "get LLM's into every product" push is lowering the quality of these established products.

I've noticed it gets quite murky when dealing with fibre-to-the-premises, particularly in the UK. Although I don't think an ISP would disallow BYOD, I imagine they'd just not be as likely to support it.

I recently moved ISP, partly because of cost, but also because they offered a great home router as part of their bundle. The installer could not utilise any of the existing wiring in my house, had to be all drilled a second time...

Conversely, my last ISP used some awful Nokia modem that barely supported any kind of routing or customisation and I picked them specifically because it was a rental and the fibre wiring had already been done.

It's fairly common for ISP's in Australia to also give you a choice of BYOD or buying one of theirs. Usually you pay outright for the modem, however, so its yours to keep. That said, this is changing with the national fibre roll-out. But with ADSL being the de-facto choice, BYOD makes sense.

It's pretty awful on a M1 Pro too, at least until the page has fully loaded. I'm assuming all of the inline styles are forcing a few seconds of re-layouts and that kills the initial performance.

If you are required by law to put a fence around your pool and include a child-safe door, and you fail to do so, and a child drowns — why shouldn't you be liable?

(Although I think many from the US may interpret a "fence around a pool" to be an overreach of government regulation. But in Australia, "barrier laws" exist in every state/territory to avoid accidental drownings.)

> On April 24, 2024, Dropbox, Inc. (“Dropbox” or “we”) became aware of unauthorized access to the Dropbox Sign (formerly HelloSign) production environment. [...] Upon further investigation, we discovered that the threat actor had accessed data related to all users of Dropbox Sign, such as emails and usernames, in addition to general account settings. For subsets of users, the threat actor also accessed phone numbers, hashed passwords, and certain authentication information such as API keys, OAuth tokens, and multi-factor authentication. [..] we believe this incident was limited to Dropbox Sign infrastructure and there is no evidence that the threat actor accessed the production environments of other Dropbox products. We are continuing our investigation.

Oompf.

Griswold v. Connecticut?

What on earth did I just read... I can't tell if there's a point between all the slang or if this is a Terry Davis situation.

I think we're past bias... there's certainly enough evidence.

(In terms of details, they're quite literally provided in the opening sentence.)

You'll have to investigate the fleet owned by each airline and pick airlines which pick non-Boeing aircraft. Because pilots trained on a Boeing aircraft can't just jump to a different airframe (i.e. origin of the MAX disaster,) or manufacturer without training, a lot of airlines will prefer one over the other. But this will vary with the routes they fly, and how old vs. new their fleet is.

If you're in the US, that is going to be very difficult. In EU, its more likely but will depend on the carrier.

I think it is next to impossible to accomplish on a per-flight basis, given frequent equipment changes can be.

Open Source software is an awful example because by-and-large no one gets paid to do make it.

OSS doesn't exist to spite IP, it exists because of IP rights protect creators from others stealing their work.

> Discoveries of R&D that was done anyway

Not sure I agree — That's still investment. All that time spend doing research, even if for a completely different goal, doesn't come for free. Discovering two things in a process intended to discover one doesn't half the value of both things.

> None of the successful technology companies made their business by patenting > written so broad as to just create a moat to prevent any newcomers from entering

I agree — software patents are ridiculous, too broad, and stifle the intent of IP rights. But parents protect other industries. My point is that a blanket "get rid of intellection property protections" statement is not realistic. It's nuanced.

Yes, that's an interesting problem — the more capital you have to invest, conceptually, the more you can invest in talent and the faster you can research compared to smaller competitors.

Great for the rate of technological advancement, not so great for fairness.

If you are arguing that non-competes shouldn't exist therefore patents shouldn't exist — I think you're framing the issue too broadly.

If a professional joins an organisation, creates something novel and valuable, and then is poached to another organisation to do the same thing — that's exactly what patents are there to protect.

Say they spend 5 years developing a nice kind of lubricant — the company can patent that lubricant. Then if the professional goes and joins another company, even if they have that knowledge, they'd have to conduct new research to find a new approach which doesn't run afoul of the existing patent. That's the point — patent's don't protect your market dominance, they just protect against imitation/copying.

Now say the work of that professional is systems architecture for some Google project, and they leave and join Facebook to build the same systems architecture for Facebook's project — of course that shouldn't be patented (although sometimes it is, and that's a different issue.)

A "restraint of trade" agreement in your employment contract (a "non-compete") is intended protect companies from others copying their product when other IP rights don't exist — and I agree that it shouldn't exist. It quite literally prevents new invention and done through an imbalance of power. But, organisational already have plenty of mechanisms to mitigate that risk — pay the person more, better working conditions, or just pay them a long gardening period.

The first patent was issued in the 1400's — it is exactly how humans have progressed technologically and sociality. Let's stop being so absolutist about these topics.

The problem here isn't that patents exist, intellectual property protection is critical to investment and research. The issue here is two fold:

1. Patents usually involve a lot of research — and existed as a way to ensure that competition couldn't imitate your product without also making that investment, licensing it from you, etc. If there was no protection, they would immediately undercut you since they don't have investment costs to cover. Tech patents, however, are so broad and require so little actual material science that the "protect the investment" part doesn't add up.

2. Patent offices couldn't keep up with the rapid rate of technical advancement and may have granted overly-broad patents for what we would now consider rather general topics. The only effective way to invalidate these patents is expensive and lengthy court proceedings — which is fair, if you think about it, you wouldn't want your rights taken away without a defence. But when weaponised, it can count-intuitively stifle the innovation it was trying to protect.

What we need is a better criteria and definition of IP which better suits modern industry.

Guess I'll take a half-day...

Immense but the Dutch angle is disorientating and maybe defeats the purpose of such photography?

After the Horizon scandal, I have little surprise nor compassion that this has happened.

Not sure why this is downvoted — its exactly the right question. Google has a hard fight ahead keeping its loss-leading services alive.

At some point they will need to invest properly in their Workplace suite and start competing in the corporate productivity space — or, as I expect, risk being relegated to the small-business/home-user segment.

It's the inter-connection of tools in the workspace. Microsoft is one short purchase of Mural or Miro away from having the complete ecosystem from documents, to meetings and calls, to whiteboarding all wrapped in a single package. They know that its the ecosystem that matters, not the individual tools.

Multi-user editing is now table-stakes. And whilst applications, like Excel, still are behind Sheets in collaborative editing, its still functional.

Google is losing a lot of ground in the office productivity space. I can see Docs, Sheets and Slides being wound-down in the next few years as the distance between these tools and Office widens.

The only advantage for the above tools is that they are vastly cheaper for an organisation that is already part of Google Workspace — than switching to Office. It is appealing for small businesses and start-ups, but not much else.

I can say from experience that Google requires third-parties use Angular when they are developing experiences on behalf of Google — i.e. through their agency partners.

I've been an advocate for Firebase and Firestore for a while — but will agree to all of these points above.

It's a conceptual model that is not sufficiently explained. How we talk about it on own projects is that each collection should have a conceptual security profile, i.e. is it public, user data, public-but-auth-only, admin-only, etc. and then use the security rule functions to enforce these categories — instead of writing a bespoke set of conditions for each collection.

Thinking about security per-collection instead of per-field mitigates mixing security intent on a single document. If the collection is public, it should not contain any fields that are not public, etc. Firestore triggers can help replicate data as needed from sensitive contexts to public contexts (but never back.)

The problem with this approach is that we need to document the intent of the rules outside of the rules themselves, which makes it easy to incorrectly apply the rules. In the past, writing tests was also a pain — but that has improved a lot.

Would the MAX lines be used on trans-atlantic flights? (I mostly fly mostly seen more Dreamliners and triple-7's)

It reminds of a concept, which barring a better name, is "action through inaction" — if you know an employee is unhappy through external signals like these, you could make the active effort to not engage with them knowing that it may lead them to quit; instead of a lengthy severance/redundancy discussion.

I've seen similar insights, derived from a person's social-graph through email exchanges, and it was decided to not be used by managers as it could be a liability.

I feel that, and I mean this politely, you are over-estimating the worth of your ideas.

Ideas is worthless without execution — and most only generate value in an environment where the is the right people, funding, influence to execute it successfully. If these are ideas you could execute on your own, or with your own team through your own funding, then it might be worth considering why you aren't.

Why PostScript had to be Turing-complete makes no sense to me. Loops, code-execution, functions, it all seems so unnecessary for a markup and presentation language.

Anecdotally, nutrition labels are often mathematically calculated based on the underlying ingredients and often are not measured or tested for under laboratory conditions. When they are tested for, the variation appears to be substantial. The reason is that testing is expensive, and as it's often not required, there's little reason to do so. It's almost completely voluntary, and there does not seem to be any significant repercussions for false-statements — at least those made non-maliciously.

Deliveroo, and really any gig-economy services, have a real problem — their largest markets are also the ones with significant cost-of-living issues affecting both riders and customers. Customers are spending less, especially in London, and riders need are being priced out of the market (reducing the supply of riders across a number of competing apps.)

There was a trending tiktok by economist Kyla Scanlon on the topic of "subsidizing affluence" and how these services were able to be offered so cheap because of incredibly low interest rates and investment. Rates have risen dramatically, affecting both the appetite of debt for start-ups and the spending power of consumers. Shareholders recognised this, and it showed through Deliveroo's historically bad IPO.

Ultimately, I suspect Deliveroo will continue to underpay (relative to the cost-of-living) because of the poverty trap — poor people don't have many options, and being underpaid as a Deliveroo rider may be the only option for survival in London and other similarly major cities.

I wonder if this might be a case of PayPal in the US vs. Europe — at least with regards to charge-backs.

It seems that the burden of proof in the EU is much higher before an issuer will allow a charge-back — at least anecdotally, the credit cards I've used require you to prove that you tried to resolve the issue with the merchant first, prior to charge-back. Even then, charge-backs would negatively impact your account standing with the issuer, so are dissuaded.