222 karma · joined August 22, 2019
1. Tries to capture all profit from the edges.
2. Extracts value "unreasonably" both to grab what they still can and to create an explanation for the death. This could be high fees, ads, or extraction of market intelligence.
3. Begins embracing the new platform with compatibility layers.
4. Starts making 2 offers on everything. One with their legacy and one with the rising platforms.
5. Treats their nonfounding CEO as significant and someone to listen to.
Plenty of companies make this transition successfully (I chose IBM as the example) and make huge profits from not having to charge uniform prices across the entire market. But the discussion was the windows platform being replaced by Linux, not Microsoft profits.
That is the future of Microsoft and the non-future of Windows.
I'm curious if anyone knows of a table summarizing these products and what their licensing would mean for a laptop you may take to work, etc?
But I do think sending unsolicited emails in this fashion is illegal anyway in many places. I always found their attempt to get around this with a specific sender interesting, but I doubt it is universally legal.
There are a significant number of frauds committed by police (using official resources to stalk, bully, or sell information) and they are caught and prosecuted only when people don't help them bypass things the system can reasonably audit.
They should have just given coins to existing active keybase users. They would have had healthy increase in users based on regret and fear of missing out again.
In this respect a keybase like model makes more sense to me.
Needing to say I have a new phone just trust me largely defeats the purpose.
And this changes how? (You just sent me a link to the real trusted source.)
Making more people happy to go through WebMD like commercial portals that can learn more about the user and sell the data is bad. Adding legitimacy to these is bad.
In recent years I've dealt with naming so little that I end up relying on getent, which is great until it's time to look into anything DNS specific.
So and so has a higher probability of having X or having X in their family based on the category of questions they asked about X.
At any rate, all I am saying is workplaces are astoundingly good at filtering negative information about themselves from past employees and there are plenty of psychologists who can tell you why whistleblowers are rare and often get the brunt of the negativity.
There are a million examples of the Rashomon that don't have the same flaws as using it to discredit what little information you can find in public about a workplace.
Obviously you should not assume everything is true or literal, but if many ex and even current employees are talking then its highly likely they were traumatized in a way that overrides their natural self interest. So ignore them at your peril.
A company can make money and not be a good company to work for, many companies make money by being horrible employers..
I think you are trying to defend things that clearly don't need help defending themselves.
CEOs fire employees all the time, no one brings up the Rashomon effect then, they just say:
"Good riddance to the toxic guy, everyone knew he was trouble, can you believe it took so long?"
Memorizing a starting DoH url and the parameters actually seems like a more universal solution to be ready to bootstrap to naming anywhere from now on.
At any rate maybe a good related topic or comparison possibility. I found it interesting that I couldn't find a simple cheat sheet and just had to wing it on the parameter names.