Every few years someone forces me to use Windows and I find that my data is apparently worth nothing since it being one giant anti-pattern wastes my time.
I agree, I switched to Mac last fall with the incessant Windows 10 popups that my CPU is not supported and I can't upgrade to Windows 11, so buy a new PC chump or you'll be EOL! Okay, I bought a new PC Mr. Nadella, it just doesn't run Windows.
That ended up being the last straw in a long line of complaints with data privacy and things being forced on me in Windows. Somehow that stupid Bing toolbar would constantly re-enable itself and re-appear on my desktop after every update despite being disabled everywhere I could find a setting for...
I wasn't very happy with Apple's bizarre UI or out of date libraries.
The easiest way to make an OS with ideal support on one platform is to only support Apple's hardware instead of the PC cosmos, so I will be interested if Asahi getting the relatively little resources it needs will gradually make it the least waste of time choice to use Linux on Apple hardware.
If an actual nutritionist says you can eat it every monkey in a lab coat knows they can sell it as a lotion with substantially less work than testing something else.
The article is about Senior Engineers where time spent is a huge factor in the distinction. It would be more that theory building becomes a tuned skill for an engineer over time as a fundamental result of their job than whether they use it every day, started with it as their primary method, etc.
The claim seems quite self explanatory. As someone who isn't against my WiFi router or NAS matching my desktop, I don't understand why graphics as a fundamental element of the OS is a plus. I also think Linux not being as broken as Windows was probably a reason WSL's development path wasn't the same disaster Microsoft usually has.
AFAICT from the article the takeover deal is agreed and in process, so assuming they end up able to pay on time and meet any other requirements I don't see how other interest matters?
I don’t know what the agreement is, but if either party is allowed to pull out at a 10% cost, and this fund raising goes crazy viral it might make financial sense for the seller to pull out, and make a new offer.
Sure bad things could happen depending what terms they could negotiate. The counter proposal seems to be to not have made the deal probably not being able to raise enough money to do so in secrecy (or not maintaining secrecy and making more spicy gossip about an opportunity.) The old owner is probably happier to be done with owning the brand and getting more than they could have with no free advertising.
AFAIK Sun gave Netscape free use of the JavaScript Trademark purely to side with Netscape against Microsoft in the browser wars, language wars, etc. I would think there is still something related to the original agreement.
It looks like JScript is still trademarked by Microsoft, why not ask them to do whatever the community thinks is right for ECMAScript names and then we can all refer to the language a little faster?
Company finally uses a qualitative test to make lay-off decisions and gets torn apart on the details unlike the companies that use badge photos to rate employees.
>Mr Saleh’s evidence was that 35 of the 100 posts did not load when he attempted the test.
>He also took issue with the fact that the test was based on TikTok’s rules for the English-language market, which were different to the rules for the Middle East and North Africa where he had primarily worked.
If you're going to do a test, you should probably make sure it works and that it's relevant.
'primarily worked'. If he was also covering the other market he needs to know those rules - he was in a supervisor role. The company is still at fault for the bad implementation though.
The problem is that 50% of staff not knowing the company's moderation rules points to a systemic problem with internal training, not a problem with the staff themselves.
Cynically, I suspect that they wanted to cut staffing costs by 50% and this was seen as an easy way to justify it without going through a consultation process.
In what sense do you need to be cynical to believe the purpose in testing employees and then keeping the 50% of staff that did best when reducing staff was for the reduction of staff?
In many countries, making a large percentage of your workforce redundant requires following special procedures. This is true in the UK and Ireland (as in this case), and if more than 20 people are being made redundant within 90 days a certain process has to be followed, which will add at least 2-3 months before the staff can be let go.
The reason it would be a cynical view is that firing a lot of people for failing to reach some required standard wouldn't be classed as redundancy, but a firing. This also reflects worse on the affected employees when seeking future employment.
I actually hope some of the people challenge this in court, as there are also regulations around this - if the people had already passed their probation period, and especially if they had already been working a significant length of time without issue, and then fired because of this test, it might well be found to be unfair dismissal. And, as I said before - if over 50% of your workforce don't know your policies, that shows a failure in management for not providing adequate training, not a reflection of the employees.
It's clearly a serious problem that GPs ignore things that will surface but it is also a problem that experts surface things that don't need to be surfaced and in the worst cases even did not exist but fit a fad theory.
One should be very careful with measures claiming things like 90% as GPs defer to experts for these measures.
Ah, yes, I took this to be a reference to general doctors don't take psychological issues seriously, which is both true at times and sometimes exaggerated.
The "satanic panic" was certainly an extreme example, but in general the entire industry spent a few decades inducing false memories. Because of the nature of trust in authority few people question when they are pressured to have a trauma and psychological effects from events that never occurred.
On the lesser end, I think many of the consumer oriented psychologists will take you in this direction with events that did occur but are probably typical experiences and only actually effect specific personalities.
Even more so, “satanic panic“ is a term that contains some truth (“tread carefully, conspiracy nuts territory“) but the overgeneralization makes it so actual organized abuse structures and its victims are dismissed too easily. Plenty of hard fact cases of such structures exist. See also for example the recent warning by Europol and the research into structures such as 764. The Bhagwan/Osho cult and many others can serve as prominent examples.
Reality is all shades of grey (or colors), not black and white. I find it important to warn of the dangers of such spiritual abuse communities and its techniques, and to not dismiss it as nonexistent and an invention of some esoteric nutjobs with the wave of a hand, which is what this terminology is doing. This attitude drives more people into such structures.
I don't really get your point. Our skepticism toward reports involving real cults and incompetent insititutions is certainly higher since 12000 patients were hurt by non existing satanic institutions in bad therapy. They are not less hurt by the fact that it could have happened.
Percentages from the lost in a mall experiment don't seem to show anything surprising about how I would expect these traumas to end up integrating with real experience, and the patients that were going to be most susceptible were probably not going to look like a random selection study, see far more in the importance of their relationship with their therapist, etc.
