not requiring becoming an EIT to graduate and eventually a PE to practice. Had they followed law and medicine it would be a lot harder to offshore work, and salaries would be higher due to fewer engineers. In addition, like law or medicine engineering schools would have to be accredited so there would be fewer new graduates which also would dive up salaries. Licensing is not about ensuring quality as much as limiting supply and erecting barriers to entry.
That doesn't work with for example PayPal, because they ask all sorts of other security questions. I suppose it is very possible for someone to hack into an email account and then try to use that to hack into their paypal account and other things attached to it.
True, but I've found companies such as PayPal will generally fix such a problem when you raise the issue.
Yes, I have this exact same problem. However, I do not keep other people's e-mail.
I have been able to track down the correct people to whom the e-mails belong. In two cases, the people are lawyers and the e-mails contained either personal or confidential information. Another case is a general contractor, and I've received quotes from subcontractors, blueprints and general correspondence. In one case it was a confirmation of tickets for a theme park. (I debated showing up as soon as the park opened and claiming the tickets, but ethics got the better of me.)
These people now reside in my address book. I forward the e-mail in question over to them, and CC a copy to the sender.
One guy kept signing up for things using MY e-mail address instead of his. (name@isp.com vs name@gmail.com) He finally got the hint when *I* got the login information for his match.com account. (Ethics was still distracted by the theme park tickets case and lost.) Considering he was a single lawyer in San Francisco, I think my updates indicating he was gay, submissive, into BDSM and wealthy might've paid off. He seems to be extra careful in which e-mail address he uses now.
I generally do what you do. Most of the folks, when contacted, are appreciative. I generally simply ignore activation emails or simply cancel accounts.
I've only had a few problems. One is some sites don't realize gmail properly ignores periods in address names and will let someone signup with my address either without periods or with one in an odd place. Gmail, of course, directs all emails to me and I can cancel the account or ignore activation emails.
I had one person who insisted the email address was correct even after I explained I was getting emails for a parent of one of their students. The idiot sys admin went so far as to suggest I change my gmail account. I simply said, fine, any further emails about xx will be considered my property and that I have no duty to keep them confidential. I resisted the urge to email various teachers with a "I don't care about the kid, he isn't mine anyway and I have no idea who the father really is, stop e-mailing me..."when they contacted me about problems at the school and just dumped the emails to spam. I figured sooner or later the parents would miss an important email and all hell would break loose. After a while the emails stopped. Problem solved.
I had another case where someone signed me up to their mailing list. After repeated nice attempts to get off the list were unsuccessful, i started flamewars (it was a political list) by correcting each and very misstatement, sending cartoons of the opposite persuasion, questioning the basic intelligence of the list members, etc. Basic flamewar 101 with a bit of AFU advanced trolling thrown in. Eventually, I get an angry email from the exasperated list owner, accusing me of all kinds of things. I responded with a note saying I had requested nicely several tines to be removed but you were obviously too clueless to figure out who to do which necessitated my using a clue by four to get his attention and get my name off of his mailing list. As much fun as the flamewars and trolling was I really didn't need his stuff clogging up my in basket.
If it ain't broke don't fix it. I've run into that where a developer hoes to a new version of something and as a result what used to work fine now has problems. When the developer says 'I can fix that...' I tell them just to roll it back. Unless there is some new feature that makes upgrading useful there is no reason to run the risk of problems. Users don't care about the underlying technology as long as it gets the job done with a minimum of fuss.
I think it would be worse for US to store their data in Canada because at that point, NSA is just spying on another country rather than in their own turf. Something that is in high scrutiny at the moment.
Excellant point. Data stored abroad would not necessarily be afforded the same legal protections as data stored in the US. Even given the recent revelations companies should take that into consideration as well.
still determine if the are real or not. Have Hadeed turn over his database to Yelp's lawyers and let them match the reviewers. For those that don't match then Yelp turns over the names. This wouldn't be much different then when a court allows discovery but places safeguards in place to ensure only truly relevant information is revealed. That way, fake reviews are unmasked and Hadeed can decide if he wants to take action against them.
... let's just say that right now, this is all just marketing to cover up the fact that game ownership is being undermined and taken away and they are feeding the dumb half to the population PR to shove it down their throats.
The delivery model is shifting. So what? I have a large DVD / Blu Ray collection; most of which gets watched maybe once or twice. Much of it is available on Netflix so I don't even bother to rip my DVDs since it's easier to stream it than rip it. They only rips are of older shows that are not available for streaming or stuff I want on my iPad to watch while traveling. I'd be happy to be able to d/l it from Netflix and have it viewable for some period of time before I need to reverify an account; in fact that would be easier than ripping it. Fortunately, a lot of newer disks also have iTunes versions included so at least I don't have to rip them. Quite frankly, storing all those disks is becoming a pain. Sure, if I cancel my subscription I lose access and don't with DVDs; then again I get a lot more content for my Netflix subscription then I could ever buy with what I pay for Netflix.
There is also the convenience factor. I don't need to run to Redbox or a store to get a movie or show; I simply look at the options for streaming, which include a large library from my cable provider as well as Netflix,and pick what I want to watch. As a bonus, they are never sold out. I suspect convenience will win out over ownership. The downside is when the content owner decides to terminate a license resulting in the content no longer being available. In that case, I've simply bought the disk, or if it is show I really like I generally buy it anyway.
will not be over rent vs buy. People have already demonstrated they will pay a monthly subscription if it gives them easy access to a broad range of interesting content; Netflix is a prime example of people's willingness to pay. The real battle will be over data use. Streaming services push bandwidth use up dramatically and as they become more popular ISPs will look for ways to make money off of the increased usage. ATT has already fired a first shot with their "content owner pays for data use" model they just announced. As more content becomes available via subscription look for ISPs, especially those that are cable providers, to look for ways to recoup money that is lost as people jump from cable to streaming content. I could even see the cable companies adding Sony's service as a package deal much like they have HBO and other premium channels, the only difference is what device uses the content.
Just as with other important papers I keep a copy of my password manager password and a copy of urls user ids and pws in hard copy inside. Reasonably secure and easy to recover.
What if the driver becomes involved in a lawsuit or is accused of a crime? Could the automakers be forced to provide the data? Or, if the automaker had reason to suspect the information may be subpoenaed would they have to retain the data or risk legal sanctions? A formal destruction policy may help in the latter case at least.
He was subjected to petty harassment instead of arrest and/or imprisonment. I think that indicates a response at the level of disgruntled agents instead of an official one with the resources of a Nation behind it.
Considering he was arrested, indicted (twice) and tried I'd say it was more than just the actions of disgruntled agents.
Perhaps, but that has no bearing on what Snowden did. he made a choice and now faces the consequences. Quite frankly, since he committed espionage against the US while a citizen, given the challenges others have had trying to secure a release in such circumstances I would be surprised to see Snowden get any sort of clemency. A plea deal, perhaps, but that's his bets hope if he wants to return to the US.
And if the friend is under strict instructions *not* to surrender the keys if he has any suspicions that Snowden might be under duress?
Then Snowden is screwed unless he convinces his friend otherwise.. We can go on about hypotheticals but the reality is that Snowden not having the keys in his possession no way ensures they are not revealed.
That's fine, but there are plenty of non technical ways to get him to give up the keys.
There is no way, technical or non-technical, to get him to give up the keys if he doesn't *have* the keys.
However, if as you pointed out he gave them to a trusted friend to two then he could retrieve them. He may not have them physically in his possession but has access to them; so physical possession is irrelevant as long as he can get to them.
That's assuming Snowden *has* the password to his encrypted files. The best way for him to have done it, near as I can figure it, for him to take the encrypted files but not the keys, and leave the keys with an trusted friend or two. So no matter what the Chinese or Russians might do to him, they wouldn't be able to get the files unlocked.
That's fine, but there are plenty of non technical ways to get him to give up the keys. The states he went to have a large apparatus that they can bring to bear to solve such a problem. If, as others pointed out, he was afraid to be sent back to America that alone would be a serious threat if he refused to cooperate with them.
You can't be an Ellsberg any more. That's absurd. You'd get the Bradley Manning treatment.
The only sane thing to do is dump then leave the US for the rest of your life. For someone with talent there is zero reason to want to come back.
Kim Philby was of another, distant, almost (as it was pre-internet) pre-communication age and considering his background of course he was alien to the Eastern Bloc. OTOH Snowden can make new friends in his new world because he has peers there.
Ultimately, it becomes an issue of trust. The Russian intelligence apparatus aren't going to trust Snowden because they've already seen what he will do if he decides he doesn't like what you are doing so there is a big incentive to keep him away from anyone beyond those who can extract information from him. In addition, the have an incentive to keep him under tight control because once they've gotten information they do not necessarily want others to know what they have. Giving him free reign would risk him telling someone what he has given up. The question is not, could he make friends but whom will he be allowed to befriend.
Snowden could have been an Ellsberg; instead he chose to take his information to China and Russia. One would have to assume is the first things those country's intelligence agencies would do is get their hands on his files. He could refuse; but then again they could simply bundle him up and ship him back to the US and core political points. In addition, if what Kaplan says is correct and he did this in a premeditated manner then his whole story starts to unravel. At this pony, he has to start wondering what happens when he is a bigger liability to Russia than an asset? Putin certainly, as a former intelligence officer, will have no qualms over cutting him lose once he is no longer useful. finally, there is no upside for any President granting clemency. Cutting a deal, maybe, where Snowden gets a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperation.His biggest problem, in many ways, will be his ego. As his value fades and the world loses interest in him, if Russia doesn't cut him loose he'll probably wind up like Kim Philby, cutoff from friends and family, largely forgotten and ignored. That will take a harsh psychological toll.
This is interesting in light of the recent story stating that the FEC Will Not Allow Bitcoin Campaign Contributions. Maybe the candidate doesn't read Slashdot. I look forward to hearing the FEC respond, and how much of a fuss this guy is ready to make.
The publicity value of the stunt aside; my guess is ultimately he is "accepting Bitcoin" the same way the car dealer "accepted Bitcoin for a Tesla." In other words, convert Bitcoin to dollars via an exchange and give me the dollars. Saying that is accepting bit coins is a bit disingenuous; it's like saying "I paid for my house with Google stock" because you sold enough to pay for your house.
You misunderstood my antecedent, I'm talking about evaluating character by proxy, how people evaluate others is itself a dimension for how they themselves can and should be judged.
Certainly, but I would put far much more stock in whom they chose as business partners than their s/o. There is a far broader emotional component to an s//o than a business partner and a business partner impacts your reputation and dealings in a more direct manner. In short, people do crazy things for love which does not by any means make them crazy. In this specific case, his s/o was making a point about politician's promises in a very unorthodox manner; and not intending to be taken literally. Or, in politico speak, I know what you thought you heard me say but what I said was not what I meant.
And joke or not, it's a pattern (i.e. done more than once) of very irresponsible and tasteless behavior to pretend to offer bulk sexual favors in exchange for political action.
supplies cut in and out unpredictably makes that very difficult
The supplies are not cut in and out unpredictably... the actual output is constantly measured and the future yield is forecasted with localized weather reports and "plant operator experience".
Nowhere in the world where people use renewable energy a plant or grid operator does not now hours before how the yield of a certain plant will be.
Except we are not talking about a plant that uses renewable energy but individual homeowners. Sure, a plant has a dispatch order and baring unforeseen circumstances the load dispatcher knows exactly what they will have when and then use leakers or other means to match generation with demand. If things get boring on a mid shift you can always drop 50 MW in the blink of an eye and watch your phone light up with an angry LD. Individuals, however, are not as reliable. They can decide to crank up a/c or charge a car or simply go out and turn off the a/c and lights. As more and more supplier alike that come on the grid yo need to plan for a spinning reserve to make up for unexpected shortfalls and will need to ramp others down when production is unexpectedly high. Power plants don't generally like to maneuver; and even expensively fueled diesels like to run at full load. So in the end, as individual solar installations become a greater percentage of the supply there need sot be a way to predictably control their output and demand.
Somebody who is a bad judge of character where it is most important is most likely either a) deficient of character themselves or b) dangerously/irresponsibly naive/gullible. Neither is a quality I want in somebody acting as an intermediary for millions of dollars. Quite frankly it's only the responsibility factor that makes it even important to me. If I was just casually interacting with somebody who had a crazy s/o, I wouldn't even give it a second thought. However I wouldn't want them to be, for instance, my business partner for the reason outlined above.
While I understand your POV I think a s/o is different from a business partner. I know a lot of people with a s/o whom I consider crazy or unstable, but whom I still think are decent and trustworthy. I wouldn't chose their s/o as a business partner but that is a separate issue form working with them. Again, if the org is making their financials available and audited by an independent party than the s/o antics are a non-issue to me. YMMV.
In this specific case it appears the s/o's offer was made in satire and part of an effort to draw attention to Parliament rather than a serious offer; as evidenced by the nature of the campaign and how it came to closure.
What I say is not bullshit. The guy's s/o is Tania Derveaux and her 'antics' are well recorded. I have a hard time trusting somebody who gets into a serious relationship with a person on record as trying to buy votes with blowjobs. (Even if that's potentially more honest and ethical than most political behavior.)
I'm do think it's fair to judge someone by the s/o. As long as he is transparent with the organization's financials what they do elsewhere is generally irrelevant. Who know, maybe Tania's ability to "get out the vote" is what he found attractive.
Slashdot Mirror
not requiring becoming an EIT to graduate and eventually a PE to practice. Had they followed law and medicine it would be a lot harder to offshore work, and salaries would be higher due to fewer engineers. In addition, like law or medicine engineering schools would have to be accredited so there would be fewer new graduates which also would dive up salaries. Licensing is not about ensuring quality as much as limiting supply and erecting barriers to entry.
That doesn't work with for example PayPal, because they ask all sorts of other security questions. I suppose it is very possible for someone to hack into an email account and then try to use that to hack into their paypal account and other things attached to it.
True, but I've found companies such as PayPal will generally fix such a problem when you raise the issue.
Yes, I have this exact same problem. However, I do not keep other people's e-mail.
I have been able to track down the correct people to whom the e-mails belong. In two cases, the people are lawyers and the e-mails contained either personal or confidential information. Another case is a general contractor, and I've received quotes from subcontractors, blueprints and general correspondence. In one case it was a confirmation of tickets for a theme park. (I debated showing up as soon as the park opened and claiming the tickets, but ethics got the better of me.)
These people now reside in my address book. I forward the e-mail in question over to them, and CC a copy to the sender.
One guy kept signing up for things using MY e-mail address instead of his. (name@isp.com vs name@gmail.com) He finally got the hint when *I* got the login information for his match.com account. (Ethics was still distracted by the theme park tickets case and lost.) Considering he was a single lawyer in San Francisco, I think my updates indicating he was gay, submissive, into BDSM and wealthy might've paid off. He seems to be extra careful in which e-mail address he uses now.
I generally do what you do. Most of the folks, when contacted, are appreciative. I generally simply ignore activation emails or simply cancel accounts.
I've only had a few problems. One is some sites don't realize gmail properly ignores periods in address names and will let someone signup with my address either without periods or with one in an odd place. Gmail, of course, directs all emails to me and I can cancel the account or ignore activation emails.
I had one person who insisted the email address was correct even after I explained I was getting emails for a parent of one of their students. The idiot sys admin went so far as to suggest I change my gmail account. I simply said, fine, any further emails about xx will be considered my property and that I have no duty to keep them confidential. I resisted the urge to email various teachers with a "I don't care about the kid, he isn't mine anyway and I have no idea who the father really is, stop e-mailing me..."when they contacted me about problems at the school and just dumped the emails to spam. I figured sooner or later the parents would miss an important email and all hell would break loose. After a while the emails stopped. Problem solved.
I had another case where someone signed me up to their mailing list. After repeated nice attempts to get off the list were unsuccessful, i started flamewars (it was a political list) by correcting each and very misstatement, sending cartoons of the opposite persuasion, questioning the basic intelligence of the list members, etc. Basic flamewar 101 with a bit of AFU advanced trolling thrown in. Eventually, I get an angry email from the exasperated list owner, accusing me of all kinds of things. I responded with a note saying I had requested nicely several tines to be removed but you were obviously too clueless to figure out who to do which necessitated my using a clue by four to get his attention and get my name off of his mailing list. As much fun as the flamewars and trolling was I really didn't need his stuff clogging up my in basket.
If it ain't broke don't fix it. I've run into that where a developer hoes to a new version of something and as a result what used to work fine now has problems. When the developer says 'I can fix that...' I tell them just to roll it back. Unless there is some new feature that makes upgrading useful there is no reason to run the risk of problems. Users don't care about the underlying technology as long as it gets the job done with a minimum of fuss.
I think it would be worse for US to store their data in Canada because at that point, NSA is just spying on another country rather than in their own turf. Something that is in high scrutiny at the moment.
Excellant point. Data stored abroad would not necessarily be afforded the same legal protections as data stored in the US. Even given the recent revelations companies should take that into consideration as well.
still determine if the are real or not. Have Hadeed turn over his database to Yelp's lawyers and let them match the reviewers. For those that don't match then Yelp turns over the names. This wouldn't be much different then when a court allows discovery but places safeguards in place to ensure only truly relevant information is revealed. That way, fake reviews are unmasked and Hadeed can decide if he wants to take action against them.
... let's just say that right now, this is all just marketing to cover up the fact that game ownership is being undermined and taken away and they are feeding the dumb half to the population PR to shove it down their throats.
The delivery model is shifting. So what? I have a large DVD / Blu Ray collection; most of which gets watched maybe once or twice. Much of it is available on Netflix so I don't even bother to rip my DVDs since it's easier to stream it than rip it. They only rips are of older shows that are not available for streaming or stuff I want on my iPad to watch while traveling. I'd be happy to be able to d/l it from Netflix and have it viewable for some period of time before I need to reverify an account; in fact that would be easier than ripping it. Fortunately, a lot of newer disks also have iTunes versions included so at least I don't have to rip them. Quite frankly, storing all those disks is becoming a pain. Sure, if I cancel my subscription I lose access and don't with DVDs; then again I get a lot more content for my Netflix subscription then I could ever buy with what I pay for Netflix.
There is also the convenience factor. I don't need to run to Redbox or a store to get a movie or show; I simply look at the options for streaming, which include a large library from my cable provider as well as Netflix,and pick what I want to watch. As a bonus, they are never sold out. I suspect convenience will win out over ownership. The downside is when the content owner decides to terminate a license resulting in the content no longer being available. In that case, I've simply bought the disk, or if it is show I really like I generally buy it anyway.
will not be over rent vs buy. People have already demonstrated they will pay a monthly subscription if it gives them easy access to a broad range of interesting content; Netflix is a prime example of people's willingness to pay. The real battle will be over data use. Streaming services push bandwidth use up dramatically and as they become more popular ISPs will look for ways to make money off of the increased usage. ATT has already fired a first shot with their "content owner pays for data use" model they just announced. As more content becomes available via subscription look for ISPs, especially those that are cable providers, to look for ways to recoup money that is lost as people jump from cable to streaming content. I could even see the cable companies adding Sony's service as a package deal much like they have HBO and other premium channels, the only difference is what device uses the content.
Just as with other important papers I keep a copy of my password manager password and a copy of urls user ids and pws in hard copy inside. Reasonably secure and easy to recover.
What if the driver becomes involved in a lawsuit or is accused of a crime? Could the automakers be forced to provide the data? Or, if the automaker had reason to suspect the information may be subpoenaed would they have to retain the data or risk legal sanctions? A formal destruction policy may help in the latter case at least.
He was subjected to petty harassment instead of arrest and/or imprisonment. I think that indicates a response at the level of disgruntled agents instead of an official one with the resources of a Nation behind it.
Considering he was arrested, indicted (twice) and tried I'd say it was more than just the actions of disgruntled agents.
Ellsberg himself is on record saying that Snowden did the right thing and that doing what Ellsberg did would no longer have worked:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html
Perhaps, but that has no bearing on what Snowden did. he made a choice and now faces the consequences. Quite frankly, since he committed espionage against the US while a citizen, given the challenges others have had trying to secure a release in such circumstances I would be surprised to see Snowden get any sort of clemency. A plea deal, perhaps, but that's his bets hope if he wants to return to the US.
And if the friend is under strict instructions *not* to surrender the keys if he has any suspicions that Snowden might be under duress?
Then Snowden is screwed unless he convinces his friend otherwise.. We can go on about hypotheticals but the reality is that Snowden not having the keys in his possession no way ensures they are not revealed.
Ellsberg stayed free because his leak damaged Johnson and the Democrats while Nixon was in the White House.
Actually, the Nixon administration went after him, which was partially responsible for the dismissal of the charges brought against him.
There is no way, technical or non-technical, to get him to give up the keys if he doesn't *have* the keys.
However, if as you pointed out he gave them to a trusted friend to two then he could retrieve them. He may not have them physically in his possession but has access to them; so physical possession is irrelevant as long as he can get to them.
That's assuming Snowden *has* the password to his encrypted files. The best way for him to have done it, near as I can figure it, for him to take the encrypted files but not the keys, and leave the keys with an trusted friend or two. So no matter what the Chinese or Russians might do to him, they wouldn't be able to get the files unlocked.
That's fine, but there are plenty of non technical ways to get him to give up the keys. The states he went to have a large apparatus that they can bring to bear to solve such a problem. If, as others pointed out, he was afraid to be sent back to America that alone would be a serious threat if he refused to cooperate with them.
You can't be an Ellsberg any more. That's absurd. You'd get the Bradley Manning treatment.
The only sane thing to do is dump then leave the US for the rest of your life. For someone with talent there is zero reason to want to come back.
Kim Philby was of another, distant, almost (as it was pre-internet) pre-communication age and considering his background of course he was alien to the Eastern Bloc. OTOH Snowden can make new friends in his new world because he has peers there.
Ultimately, it becomes an issue of trust. The Russian intelligence apparatus aren't going to trust Snowden because they've already seen what he will do if he decides he doesn't like what you are doing so there is a big incentive to keep him away from anyone beyond those who can extract information from him. In addition, the have an incentive to keep him under tight control because once they've gotten information they do not necessarily want others to know what they have. Giving him free reign would risk him telling someone what he has given up. The question is not, could he make friends but whom will he be allowed to befriend.
Snowden could have been an Ellsberg; instead he chose to take his information to China and Russia. One would have to assume is the first things those country's intelligence agencies would do is get their hands on his files. He could refuse; but then again they could simply bundle him up and ship him back to the US and core political points. In addition, if what Kaplan says is correct and he did this in a premeditated manner then his whole story starts to unravel. At this pony, he has to start wondering what happens when he is a bigger liability to Russia than an asset? Putin certainly, as a former intelligence officer, will have no qualms over cutting him lose once he is no longer useful. finally, there is no upside for any President granting clemency. Cutting a deal, maybe, where Snowden gets a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperation.His biggest problem, in many ways, will be his ego. As his value fades and the world loses interest in him, if Russia doesn't cut him loose he'll probably wind up like Kim Philby, cutoff from friends and family, largely forgotten and ignored. That will take a harsh psychological toll.
This is interesting in light of the recent story stating that the FEC Will Not Allow Bitcoin Campaign Contributions. Maybe the candidate doesn't read Slashdot. I look forward to hearing the FEC respond, and how much of a fuss this guy is ready to make.
The publicity value of the stunt aside; my guess is ultimately he is "accepting Bitcoin" the same way the car dealer "accepted Bitcoin for a Tesla." In other words, convert Bitcoin to dollars via an exchange and give me the dollars. Saying that is accepting bit coins is a bit disingenuous; it's like saying "I paid for my house with Google stock" because you sold enough to pay for your house.
Master Foo Discourses on the Unix-Nature "What, then, is the Unix-nature?" asked the student. Master Foo replied:
RTFM
Yes, because you just can't trust crooks.
You misunderstood my antecedent, I'm talking about evaluating character by proxy, how people evaluate others is itself a dimension for how they themselves can and should be judged.
Certainly, but I would put far much more stock in whom they chose as business partners than their s/o. There is a far broader emotional component to an s//o than a business partner and a business partner impacts your reputation and dealings in a more direct manner. In short, people do crazy things for love which does not by any means make them crazy. In this specific case, his s/o was making a point about politician's promises in a very unorthodox manner; and not intending to be taken literally. Or, in politico speak, I know what you thought you heard me say but what I said was not what I meant.
And joke or not, it's a pattern (i.e. done more than once) of very irresponsible and tasteless behavior to pretend to offer bulk sexual favors in exchange for political action.
I believe it's called satire in her case.
supplies cut in and out unpredictably makes that very difficult The supplies are not cut in and out unpredictably ... the actual output is constantly measured and the future yield is forecasted with localized weather reports and "plant operator experience".
Nowhere in the world where people use renewable energy a plant or grid operator does not now hours before how the yield of a certain plant will be.
Except we are not talking about a plant that uses renewable energy but individual homeowners. Sure, a plant has a dispatch order and baring unforeseen circumstances the load dispatcher knows exactly what they will have when and then use leakers or other means to match generation with demand. If things get boring on a mid shift you can always drop 50 MW in the blink of an eye and watch your phone light up with an angry LD. Individuals, however, are not as reliable. They can decide to crank up a/c or charge a car or simply go out and turn off the a/c and lights. As more and more supplier alike that come on the grid yo need to plan for a spinning reserve to make up for unexpected shortfalls and will need to ramp others down when production is unexpectedly high. Power plants don't generally like to maneuver; and even expensively fueled diesels like to run at full load. So in the end, as individual solar installations become a greater percentage of the supply there need sot be a way to predictably control their output and demand.
Somebody who is a bad judge of character where it is most important is most likely either a) deficient of character themselves or b) dangerously/irresponsibly naive/gullible. Neither is a quality I want in somebody acting as an intermediary for millions of dollars. Quite frankly it's only the responsibility factor that makes it even important to me. If I was just casually interacting with somebody who had a crazy s/o, I wouldn't even give it a second thought. However I wouldn't want them to be, for instance, my business partner for the reason outlined above.
While I understand your POV I think a s/o is different from a business partner. I know a lot of people with a s/o whom I consider crazy or unstable, but whom I still think are decent and trustworthy. I wouldn't chose their s/o as a business partner but that is a separate issue form working with them. Again, if the org is making their financials available and audited by an independent party than the s/o antics are a non-issue to me. YMMV.
In this specific case it appears the s/o's offer was made in satire and part of an effort to draw attention to Parliament rather than a serious offer; as evidenced by the nature of the campaign and how it came to closure.
What I say is not bullshit. The guy's s/o is Tania Derveaux and her 'antics' are well recorded. I have a hard time trusting somebody who gets into a serious relationship with a person on record as trying to buy votes with blowjobs. (Even if that's potentially more honest and ethical than most political behavior.)
I'm do think it's fair to judge someone by the s/o. As long as he is transparent with the organization's financials what they do elsewhere is generally irrelevant. Who know, maybe Tania's ability to "get out the vote" is what he found attractive.