I'm downgrading my original comment. People achieving something through hard work is incredibly rare. People achieving something through a lifetime of effort are non-existent. Even among the people who achieved something through "hard work" their achievements boil down to a handful of specific moments that suddenly elevate them to a point where they can capitalise on other achievements, and making that moment in an hour recording a video is far more effort than most successes actually get.
You're trivialising a single moment of her efforts ignoring her other many videos she uploaded in her quest for fame along with god knows what else she's doing other than playing with Youtube (people craving attention rarely limit themselves to one platform).
I still don't see it at all relevant. Breaking an NDA doesn't make it better because it's a kid vs an adult trying to get Youtube hits (in this case the latter).
Focusing on this is missing the issue. Missing the issue is what causes people to direct anger in the wrong place and Slashdot is full these posts right now: damn kids, damn people promoting their site, damn Apple instead of the only single issue that matters: damn idiot who has just been punished for breaching an NDA.
when 60-80% of your people are living paycheck to paycheck
A useless metric that has no relation to wealth of people. Many chose to put themselves through this situation. e.g. one of my colleagues, same pay grade as me. I end up with a net disposable income of several thousand euros each month which is rapidly paying off my mortgage at a faster than required rate. He's living "paycheck to paycheck" driving his Tesla, living in a big house and feeding his 5 kids.
That doesn't mean Portugal doesn't have a problem, but it would be better to point out their well below OECD average income, well below OECD average workforce participation between ages 18-65, and the reflection of their governments books (though ratings agencies have only 2 months ago raised them from "junk" status).
I remember Australian mobile phone providers starting with the social networking craze by offering "Free Facebook" as part of their crappy packages. Sucks if you're a Facebook competitor.
People used to only earn recognition by either achieving something through hard work
Not sure if you don't understand history or you don't understand people, but since the dawn of the human race people have earned fame, recognition and importance through blind luck, critical social connections, or inheritance / ancestry. People who achieved this through hard work are incredibly rare.
but today's generation is all about looking for ways to be noticed any way they can.... People used to only earn recognition by either achieving something through hard work.
I know you didn't intentionally contradict yourself but you managed to congratulate her for her efforts. She's putting work and effort into a follow up video to promote the windfall she got. Maybe be less angry at the next generation and realise they aren't that different.
You want to slow that down and increase line costs so you can spend money on upgrades for planes that could be replaced by new planes coming off the production line?
Yes. The solution to buying 100 lemons that you only realised were lemons after the first 20 were delivered is not to try and get all 100 lemons as quickly as possible, but to stop and attempt to find out what needs to be done so you get at least the 80 oranges you originally wanted.
Contract management and production 101, if something is not as expected stop and think.
It changes the dynamic of the story reading this depending on how old I imagine the daughter to be.
She's a grown up if you watch the video, but really the more important question is: why? How does the dynamic of the story change? The age, gender, or relationships have no bearing on the case in question which is generalised to: Person who signed NDA gives thing under NDA to person who has not signed NDA in breach of the NDA, and person who has not signed NDA posted it on the internet likely due to not being told about the NDA.
How on earth could she not have known that she'd get into trouble for posting this before release? Did she think she was entitled to a world exclusive hands-on preview of the device because her dad is an Apple engineer?
Did she read, sign the NDA, go through training, know in detailed the device was secret and not to be published?
You're criticising someone who doesn't know something when they also can't know something. Unless her dad specifically told her anything where was she supposed to get this information from? "Oooh dad gave me his phone to play with, I better second guess him and go ask Apple's legal department!"
The buck stops with the last person required to be in the know. The family member is fully vindicated by the fact that she was (almost certainly) not covered by the NDA.
Being aware and giving a shit are two different things. It's amazing to see how far you can get with quite obviously breaking rules without someone stopping to speak up to you.
It's amazing how much you get away with if you show the confidence of someone who is supposed to do what they have. I remember at once chemical plant I worked at I occasionally have to take pictures. If I'm using my phone I get stopped every 5 minutes by someone asking to see my photography permit. When I brought in my DSLR and a tripod, not a single person questioned me.
Similarly walking through one company's plant without hearing protection on, I got pulled up straight away (even though it was a quiet area). Same company different site which I wasn't familiar with I walked into the plant protected area after turning down the wrong street. I was in suit and tie, people everywhere. No one dared to question the "important looking" person.
An obvious breach of the rule often look so deliberate that they may not be breaches of the rules.
It's possible he was already on the edge, one more mistake from being fired, and this was the last straw. But it doesn't sound like that at all.
There are zero tolerance rules for even the best out there. The better companies enforce them equally on all employees.
Apple could have docked him some pay. Have him not get the bonus, accept a pay cut, even demand he take an unpaid leave of absence. Summarily firing him sends all kinds of bad messages
That depends on the circumstances. If there was clear policy that was broken and the punishment was end of employment then firing him sends all kinds of GOOD messages, like the ones that say "we stand by the rules we set". I'm not sure about this case specifically but Apple is quite well known for this kind of thing.
drink deep of the company Koolaid that this firing was totally justified. Must be a stressful place to work
You're making a lot of completely unjustified assumptions.
Apple's fans and customers could feel bad about what happened, and punish Apple for it.
Apple fans and customers happily let the company shit on them, tell them they are holding things wrong, let their devices bend in their pockets, and do things *directly* to them, and they don't punish Apple. No one will care about one guy getting fired. Most people won't even know. Of those who do know, most won't remember this happened tomorrow.
Given that they dropped their price on avocados and that some millionaires and politicians keep attributing the poor millennial's inability to afford to buy houses to their consumption of avocado on toast I would say Amazon's price drop is attempting to single-handedly solve* the housing affordability crisis facing our next generation.
* For those of you who don't get the obvious sarcasm, this was obviously sarcastic.
Define "moderation". From your own wikipedia page the first paragraph points to the IARC which lists everything which can cause cancer regardless of the dosage. This include things like sunlight (something without which you would eventually become sick due to vitamin d deficiency).
The link is clear, but the risk... from the two studies linked the one in Australia basically is talking about 4 cans of beer a day, the European study talks about greater than 1 pint of English ale.
Both of those exceed the definitions for "moderate drinking" by not only the respective governments where the study was done but also from the CDC's definition.
So yes, it can be considered unsafe.
So let's assume I do drink enough to be over the legal driving limit every single day. Those studies basically tie a worst case of 10% attributed to set of very specific cancers the most common of which in men in that list of people who don't smoke is pancreatic cancer with a 1% chance of development and an even smaller chance of that before the age of 65.
So define for me "unsafe" because right now I'm more concerned about having a stroke thinking about the poor genes that my father may have passed on me causing me to die 10 years earlier because of cancer than I am from drinking, even if I didn't drink in moderation.
The problem comes to the calculator storing numbers in a way that gives more precision than its capable of displaying. But storing that precise number in memory. Sqrt(4) in windows is apparently stored as 55604229018504692596833125437922908794411 over 27802114509252346298416562718961454397319 which on a display that only shows 32 digits comes out as 2.
The question is just how do you want to lose precision? Making a calculator less precise by arbitrarily truncating an answer to make an imprecise number look more precise in a few select scenarios is not a sensible approach.
Sensible would be to simply calculate digit by digit and throw processing power at the problem since that algorithm will terminate.
I was bored at work today. Turns out I was wrong with the floating points. Windows calculator uses quotient of integers to represent numbers which introduces its own set of errors.
Gnome calculator uses digit by digit calculation. It's a searching algorithm that's actually quite a slow but you're bashing numbers into a screen here, not generating bitcoins so the slow speed isn't an issue. It also terminates so it's just fine if you truncate the output to a reasonable set of decimals. In my engineering degree one of our assignments was we had to make a scientific calculator. This was the default algorithm everyone tried (including me) and we quickly found that in a few bytes of code the slow 8bit processor both took forever to get lots of significant digits, and the algorithm also used up all the memory leaving none for other functions. The lecturers tested out product using large numbers (which truncated quickly), and numbers resulting in small answers which then exposed the students who just copied what math.h used.
Anyway it's fine for computers, but no so fine for something like a pocket calculator from the 80s. Since so much of math is based on exponents, calculators emphasise algorithms for computing exponents and then solve square roots via the exponential identity. For whatever reason Windows calculator also solves squareroots using the natural identity and
e^(0.5*ln(4)) = 1.999999999999999999999999999999999999991835153404448571283147881 (it gets longer but I got errors trying to post:-) )
subtract 2 you get -1.0605907030850721689734498566293e-38
The reason you got -1.068281969439142e-19 is because your calculator was in standard mode but mine is set to scientific, and windows doubles both the calculation precision and the number of significant digits display (from 16 to 32).
So it comes down to the method used (speed vs computational time trade-off) and the number of displayed digits. Ironically enough the Windows calculator is the one that calculates more like a traditional pocket calculator, the only difference is that it keeps the answer in a higher precision that it displays it on screen.
Hyped technologies which completely failed in real life.
They didn't fail in the slightest. Just because every idiot didn't need one doesn't mean they aren't incredibly actively used for everything from actual production, to prototyping, down to hobbyist fun. Just because you don't have one doesn't mean you can't use one right now with the ability to simply upload a file online and have a part delivered to your door a few days later.
That's if you live in the desert, otherwise I'm sure you could simply drive to a local shop which would offer this service for you as well. Hell I could cycle to two places which would do that within 15min and I live in a shitty nothing of a town.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly with every idiot crying wolf these days I almost wish the malevolent did come out and get them.
I don't think you understand
I don't think you read to the end of my post.
ie a lifetime of work
I'm downgrading my original comment. People achieving something through hard work is incredibly rare. People achieving something through a lifetime of effort are non-existent.
Even among the people who achieved something through "hard work" their achievements boil down to a handful of specific moments that suddenly elevate them to a point where they can capitalise on other achievements, and making that moment in an hour recording a video is far more effort than most successes actually get.
You're trivialising a single moment of her efforts ignoring her other many videos she uploaded in her quest for fame along with god knows what else she's doing other than playing with Youtube (people craving attention rarely limit themselves to one platform).
I still don't see it at all relevant. Breaking an NDA doesn't make it better because it's a kid vs an adult trying to get Youtube hits (in this case the latter).
Focusing on this is missing the issue. Missing the issue is what causes people to direct anger in the wrong place and Slashdot is full these posts right now: damn kids, damn people promoting their site, damn Apple instead of the only single issue that matters: damn idiot who has just been punished for breaching an NDA.
when 60-80% of your people are living paycheck to paycheck
A useless metric that has no relation to wealth of people. Many chose to put themselves through this situation. e.g. one of my colleagues, same pay grade as me. I end up with a net disposable income of several thousand euros each month which is rapidly paying off my mortgage at a faster than required rate. He's living "paycheck to paycheck" driving his Tesla, living in a big house and feeding his 5 kids.
That doesn't mean Portugal doesn't have a problem, but it would be better to point out their well below OECD average income, well below OECD average workforce participation between ages 18-65, and the reflection of their governments books (though ratings agencies have only 2 months ago raised them from "junk" status).
I remember Australian mobile phone providers starting with the social networking craze by offering "Free Facebook" as part of their crappy packages. Sucks if you're a Facebook competitor.
People used to only earn recognition by either achieving something through hard work
Not sure if you don't understand history or you don't understand people, but since the dawn of the human race people have earned fame, recognition and importance through blind luck, critical social connections, or inheritance / ancestry. People who achieved this through hard work are incredibly rare.
but today's generation is all about looking for ways to be noticed any way they can. ... People used to only earn recognition by either achieving something through hard work.
I know you didn't intentionally contradict yourself but you managed to congratulate her for her efforts. She's putting work and effort into a follow up video to promote the windfall she got. Maybe be less angry at the next generation and realise they aren't that different.
The fact that the daughter posted a follow-up video really says it all. Let me guess, she wants to be a social media star?
You needed a follow-up video to get to that conclusion?
But it does look great on a GDP point of view.
You want to slow that down and increase line costs so you can spend money on upgrades for planes that could be replaced by new planes coming off the production line?
Yes. The solution to buying 100 lemons that you only realised were lemons after the first 20 were delivered is not to try and get all 100 lemons as quickly as possible, but to stop and attempt to find out what needs to be done so you get at least the 80 oranges you originally wanted.
Contract management and production 101, if something is not as expected stop and think.
It is time to regard the ME (and the AMD equivalent) as what they are: Hardware back-doors.
It's time to regard Slashdot posters for what they are: Tin-foil hat wearing nutjobs who think everything is a backdoor.
It changes the dynamic of the story reading this depending on how old I imagine the daughter to be.
She's a grown up if you watch the video, but really the more important question is: why? How does the dynamic of the story change? The age, gender, or relationships have no bearing on the case in question which is generalised to: Person who signed NDA gives thing under NDA to person who has not signed NDA in breach of the NDA, and person who has not signed NDA posted it on the internet likely due to not being told about the NDA.
How on earth could she not have known that she'd get into trouble for posting this before release? Did she think she was entitled to a world exclusive hands-on preview of the device because her dad is an Apple engineer?
Did she read, sign the NDA, go through training, know in detailed the device was secret and not to be published?
You're criticising someone who doesn't know something when they also can't know something. Unless her dad specifically told her anything where was she supposed to get this information from? "Oooh dad gave me his phone to play with, I better second guess him and go ask Apple's legal department!"
The buck stops with the last person required to be in the know. The family member is fully vindicated by the fact that she was (almost certainly) not covered by the NDA.
and everybody being aware of her doing it.
Being aware and giving a shit are two different things. It's amazing to see how far you can get with quite obviously breaking rules without someone stopping to speak up to you.
It's amazing how much you get away with if you show the confidence of someone who is supposed to do what they have. I remember at once chemical plant I worked at I occasionally have to take pictures. If I'm using my phone I get stopped every 5 minutes by someone asking to see my photography permit. When I brought in my DSLR and a tripod, not a single person questioned me.
Similarly walking through one company's plant without hearing protection on, I got pulled up straight away (even though it was a quiet area). Same company different site which I wasn't familiar with I walked into the plant protected area after turning down the wrong street. I was in suit and tie, people everywhere. No one dared to question the "important looking" person.
An obvious breach of the rule often look so deliberate that they may not be breaches of the rules.
It's possible he was already on the edge, one more mistake from being fired, and this was the last straw. But it doesn't sound like that at all.
There are zero tolerance rules for even the best out there. The better companies enforce them equally on all employees.
Apple could have docked him some pay. Have him not get the bonus, accept a pay cut, even demand he take an unpaid leave of absence. Summarily firing him sends all kinds of bad messages
That depends on the circumstances. If there was clear policy that was broken and the punishment was end of employment then firing him sends all kinds of GOOD messages, like the ones that say "we stand by the rules we set". I'm not sure about this case specifically but Apple is quite well known for this kind of thing.
drink deep of the company Koolaid that this firing was totally justified. Must be a stressful place to work
You're making a lot of completely unjustified assumptions.
Apple's fans and customers could feel bad about what happened, and punish Apple for it.
Apple fans and customers happily let the company shit on them, tell them they are holding things wrong, let their devices bend in their pockets, and do things *directly* to them, and they don't punish Apple. No one will care about one guy getting fired. Most people won't even know. Of those who do know, most won't remember this happened tomorrow.
Given that they dropped their price on avocados and that some millionaires and politicians keep attributing the poor millennial's inability to afford to buy houses to their consumption of avocado on toast I would say Amazon's price drop is attempting to single-handedly solve* the housing affordability crisis facing our next generation.
* For those of you who don't get the obvious sarcasm, this was obviously sarcastic.
Define "moderation". From your own wikipedia page the first paragraph points to the IARC which lists everything which can cause cancer regardless of the dosage. This include things like sunlight (something without which you would eventually become sick due to vitamin d deficiency).
The link is clear, but the risk... from the two studies linked the one in Australia basically is talking about 4 cans of beer a day, the European study talks about greater than 1 pint of English ale.
Both of those exceed the definitions for "moderate drinking" by not only the respective governments where the study was done but also from the CDC's definition.
So yes, it can be considered unsafe.
So let's assume I do drink enough to be over the legal driving limit every single day. Those studies basically tie a worst case of 10% attributed to set of very specific cancers the most common of which in men in that list of people who don't smoke is pancreatic cancer with a 1% chance of development and an even smaller chance of that before the age of 65.
So define for me "unsafe" because right now I'm more concerned about having a stroke thinking about the poor genes that my father may have passed on me causing me to die 10 years earlier because of cancer than I am from drinking, even if I didn't drink in moderation.
No, every white middle class westerner was robbed by him. Claiming "everyone" was robbed by him is stupid on the face of it.
The problem comes to the calculator storing numbers in a way that gives more precision than its capable of displaying. But storing that precise number in memory.
Sqrt(4) in windows is apparently stored as 55604229018504692596833125437922908794411 over 27802114509252346298416562718961454397319 which on a display that only shows 32 digits comes out as 2.
The question is just how do you want to lose precision? Making a calculator less precise by arbitrarily truncating an answer to make an imprecise number look more precise in a few select scenarios is not a sensible approach.
Sensible would be to simply calculate digit by digit and throw processing power at the problem since that algorithm will terminate.
*That natural log precision also depends on how windows calculates the exponential function.
I was bored at work today. Turns out I was wrong with the floating points. Windows calculator uses quotient of integers to represent numbers which introduces its own set of errors.
Gnome calculator uses digit by digit calculation. It's a searching algorithm that's actually quite a slow but you're bashing numbers into a screen here, not generating bitcoins so the slow speed isn't an issue. It also terminates so it's just fine if you truncate the output to a reasonable set of decimals. In my engineering degree one of our assignments was we had to make a scientific calculator. This was the default algorithm everyone tried (including me) and we quickly found that in a few bytes of code the slow 8bit processor both took forever to get lots of significant digits, and the algorithm also used up all the memory leaving none for other functions. The lecturers tested out product using large numbers (which truncated quickly), and numbers resulting in small answers which then exposed the students who just copied what math.h used.
Anyway it's fine for computers, but no so fine for something like a pocket calculator from the 80s. Since so much of math is based on exponents, calculators emphasise algorithms for computing exponents and then solve square roots via the exponential identity. For whatever reason Windows calculator also solves squareroots using the natural identity and
e^(0.5*ln(4)) = 1.999999999999999999999999999999999999991835153404448571283147881 (it gets longer but I got errors trying to post :-) )
subtract 2 you get -1.0605907030850721689734498566293e-38
The reason you got -1.068281969439142e-19 is because your calculator was in standard mode but mine is set to scientific, and windows doubles both the calculation precision and the number of significant digits display (from 16 to 32).
So it comes down to the method used (speed vs computational time trade-off) and the number of displayed digits. Ironically enough the Windows calculator is the one that calculates more like a traditional pocket calculator, the only difference is that it keeps the answer in a higher precision that it displays it on screen.
Because drinking in general moderation is not considered unsafe?
If you wanted to make it safe you'd be drinking alcohol free beverages. You're far more likely to die from impairment than liver damage.
Given how they have a corporate overlord, just because they have 500 employees doesn't mean they don't deal with the shit of a large organisation.
Admittedly though even their parent only has 3000 employees, but with $700m in revenue they aren't exactly small either.
Hyped technologies which completely failed in real life.
They didn't fail in the slightest. Just because every idiot didn't need one doesn't mean they aren't incredibly actively used for everything from actual production, to prototyping, down to hobbyist fun. Just because you don't have one doesn't mean you can't use one right now with the ability to simply upload a file online and have a part delivered to your door a few days later.
That's if you live in the desert, otherwise I'm sure you could simply drive to a local shop which would offer this service for you as well. Hell I could cycle to two places which would do that within 15min and I live in a shitty nothing of a town.
it does not make him a hero in any sane view of reality.
That view depends entirely on if you were robbed or if you were donated to.