Except there is more competition in brick-and-mortar stores.
6,714 karma · joined January 14, 2011
But I don't understand the hand wringing about the publisher changing newer editions of the book. All media either changes with the times to find a new audience, or faces obsolescence. My generation grew up watching Romeo + Juliet and 10 Things I Hate About You, rather than pouring over the original Shakespearean plays.
The changes in Roald Dahl's books are limited to asides about characters or superfluous details that are archaic. We are not loosing a literary gem by dropping the cheap "Wong number" joke from the Great Glass Elevator.
It's not like this is some new thing, either. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was edited after publishing by Roald Dahl himself, because having Oompa Loompas be enslaved pygmies from deepest darkest Africa is kinda shitty.
That said, the actions section does feel too tactical to me. Strategy would be more about the goals and targets.
This can be a good thing. In my experience these people are generally unambitious people who's claim to fame is that they held a job for a long period of time rather than any innate talent.
And when you have a majority of seniors who's only value is in being a well of knowledge, they're resistant to any change that reduces the value of that knowledge. This can quash innovation and perpetuates the anti-pattern of information hording.
If your manager wants to fire you they don't need to create a complicated ruse to get evidence that you're unhappy, or that you have opinions or think that they are a bad manager. None of which are anywhere near a justification for firing, anyway.
In fact, at most companies, telling your manager that you're unhappy and looking for work elsewhere is more likely to get you rewarded with a promo or bonus.
This, and the myriad of other stories about Amazon, leave me scratching my head. They aggressively filter candidates based on questions designed around these principals. Either they're completely failing on a cultural front, or the values and their hiring process are a weird in-joke.
How long do you think that advantage will last for. Years? Months? Weeks?
I've been really surprised at how naive senior people in our parent company are on this front. Many have spent their whole careers at this one company, so they have very limited understanding of anything that doesn't align to what their company does.
Combine this lack of experience with a big dollop of hubris (they work for BigCo!) and it's easy to imagine a well-intentioned executive destroying the value of the acquired team and product.
At other companies I've worked at the norm is that the rank and file feel powerless, and it doesn't even occur to them to offer their opinion.
If it is a EULA, a rental contract on an iPad, or an employment contract delivered through DocuSign then I can't strike or amend any clauses I disagree with.
* The scammer keeps the focus on the upsides (job, office supplies) which are good but not unrealistic.
* The scammer is keeping the victim overwhelmed with interviews, paperwork, training, etc. The actual scam part is a small percentage of the victim's focus. This is classic misdirection.
* The scammer gets the victim to commit a lot of time and energy. Loss aversion and social norms stops people calling out slightly suspicious activity immediately.
* The big one is that the scammer drip feeds pieces so that the victim doesn't see the big picture. It's not like the scammer lays out the scheme on day one. They start with the company providing supplies (not suspicious), bureaucratic fumbling meaning the process changes (understandable), the new hire submitting the order themselves (ok), etc. Each step is logical and only slightly peculiar in isolation. Once the victim is comfortable with each step they are fed the next lie.
The last one works because even if people are suspicious of new information, once they've decided something is true they rarely reconsider their position. In this case the scammer got the victim to believe that the job was real, and the scammer was a legitimate HR person before introducing the scam element. If you believe the company is real, why would you imagine the check is fake? If you truly believe the check is real, how does the transfer risk your own money? They build a foundation of trust by layering a lot of little lies.
Finance purchase Concur because it solves their problems and integrates with their existing tools. They don't care that people hate it, or that it wastes the company's resourcing when people are fighting a broken UI instead of doing their day job.
Normally engineers are shielded from this pattern in their day jobs. But I have worked at companies that have gone the other direction. In one I met with a risk averse gatekeeping team and told them that for a newly acquired product we were not going to be able to meet the (arbitrary) SLO for the glut of tickets they assigned us, and asked for help. Their suggestion was to pull the app from market.
It sounded like thought he could use the SOS button as an instant escape button. In the end the Sheriff's department literally came and got him and his complaint is that they made a snarky Facebook post. That wasn't professional, but personally I'd prefer them doing that than me freezing to death.
The embedded Tweet shows that the thumbnails for push notifications are stored on AWS as a secret URL. Thats not great, but also expected for the convenience of having push notifications include media.
The part about VLC seems to be a completely different issue.
> This week, we repeatedly watched live footage from two of our own Eufy cameras using that very same VLC media player, from across the United States — proving that Anker has a way to bypass encryption and access these supposedly secure cameras through the cloud.
The part about streaming from across the United States is irrelevant. Just because can be accessed over the internet doesn't mean it's using "the cloud."
And of course Anker has the capability to access streams. They allow you to login to the app using a username and password and then start streaming from your devices. Them abusing that capability was always a risk.
Thats not so different from how humans do this. When we need to add or multiply we switch from freeform thought to executing the Maths programs that were uploaded into our brains at school.
A human might have a thought process that starts with the idea that people are food for Bigfoot, and then connects that to phrase of "playing with your food".
But GPT generates responses word by word. And it operates at a word (token) level, rather than thinking about the concepts abstractly. So it starts with "Because it likes to play" which is a predictable continuation that could end in many different ways. But it then delivers the punchline of "with its food".
Was it just a lucky coincidence that it found an ending to the sentence that paid off so well? Or is the model so sophisticated that it can suggest word "plays" because it can predict the punchline related to "food".
The "I'm sad about this" is aimed at the remaining staff. He wants to retain the appearance of being empathetic and authentic as a leader. But in doing so he comes across as self-centred to the other audiences.
But he conflated two things that he didn't really understand and reached a completely wrong conclusion. He's shared that conclusion with confidence and never admitted he was wrong. That's a fatal flaw for someone who holds a Chief Engineer title at a rocket company.
He's a CEO who is has been incredibly successful at selling a vision and getting people to do what he wants. He is not an engineer. He should stop role playing as one.