Poorly stated, maybe, but not "wrong" in terms of what I intended to say. (At least nobody presented any info contradicting what I intended to say. They debunked their head's own version.)
Sometimes being early to the market is better than being good. I remember early Amazon would foul up my orders left and right*. That's "better" business-wise, not necessarily for early consumers.
Early buyers are essentially unwitting beta testers. To be fair, most probably knew the risk with the folding concept. It's first-on-the-block syndrome for status. Flaw risk is secondary for such people.
* I intentionally didn't try with anything expensive.
He was functioning as a manager when the transgressions happened, no?
I'm not saying engineers are more moral, only that typically the pro/con risks of that kind of fiddling on one's own volition doesn't favor doing it when employed as an engineer.
If somebody's rank is "engineer", the benefits of that kind of cheating done without management requesting it are small or negative because the risk of getting caught (by co.) is fairly large and management will typically NOT give you bonuses/kudos for doing something they didn't ask for. Managers want you to do what they ask for and only what they ask for. Yes, I know there are exceptions, but I'm talking general.
If they treat it as a consumer product, there should be a minimum set of security guidelines and steps a company is required to take. None of this "license agreement" crap.
However, writing down the guidelines and steps in a clear-cut way into law is difficult. If the text is too specific, then companies find a way around them, and if they are too general, they are messy and expensive to enforce, for both sides. This includes abuse of law against the company. A fuzzy cannon shoots out of both ends.
What if the shareholders don't know what's going on, or at least there is no evidence they knew what was going on? Cluelessness is rarely a felony, for good or bad.
I have relatives who immigrated from China. Essentially there seems to be an unwritten contract between Chinese citizens and the Chinese gov't: "Keep our lives smooth and relatively prosperous, and we'll go ahead and let you run everything."
Part of this viewpoint is the "village's big eyeball" of Chinese culture. (The name varies.) The typical village kept a collective eye on everybody; there was no real privacy. The village elders ran the show and everybody accepted that as long as there were no big problems, such as starvation.
Contrast this to the USA where young couples generally left their original families to start their own farm: YOU ran the show, but had to do everything, including protect the land with your life on the line.
The Chinese gov't is essentially an extension or scale-up of the "village's big eyeball" concept.
That's essentially the slippery slope argument. I 100% agree that every big company putting ads in the sky would be a bad thing. But a doing it once won't interrupt my dinner nor my nap.
If it's not overdone it's not going to create significant nor long-term distractions. If done occasionally, most will find it "cool". We already have planes and satellites that inadvertently put on light shows, and ad blimps that do it on purpose.
"Don't do cool things because copy-cats might get carried away" is possibly being overly paranoid. I'm still on the fence.
I'm not sure how exactly you performed a 1.5 minimization
Brute force: shifting the line around incrementally and computationally until an approximate minimum was achieved. Yes, I know it's only an approximation, but it should have been good enough to detect any clear pattern if one existed.
I did assume rough boundaries/limits to avoid problems such as multiple candidates and division by zero. Thus, I wasn't testing every possible slope or line, just those "in the ballpark". (Perhaps "least squares" is handy for at least limiting one to a workable sub-set of alternatives when using similar techniques to avoid complex numbers etc.)
As mentioned, a clear pattern did not emerge. If there are benefits of a different exponent, they were not obvious in my simulation. That may be the main reason "2" is still the king of the hill: the alternatives are computationally more expensive/tricky with only minor benefits, if any. I was going to use more trials and finer grain increments to see if I could tease out minor patterns, but never finished the mass-computational version of the project.
So, StackOverflow reflects reality? Where stupidity gets punished? And you can't handle that?
Hey, every now and then I ask a dumb question, such as not noticing something obvious (obvious after the fact). Humans do that. If you are near perfect, slap a gold star on your forehead for being a rare specimen. Part of helping is filling in others' blind spots.
And again, if one doesn't want to see low-ranked messages, just set your filter level higher.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhh, baby universe molecules, they're so cuuute! bi bi bi gootchi gootchi goo...
Build a Fire Wall and make the spammers pay for it!
It's a joke, relax Satya.
such as installing Windows 10 on them.
So the prior burning ones "failed centrally"?
Middly? That sounds bigly wrong.
Poorly stated, maybe, but not "wrong" in terms of what I intended to say. (At least nobody presented any info contradicting what I intended to say. They debunked their head's own version.)
Sometimes being early to the market is better than being good. I remember early Amazon would foul up my orders left and right*. That's "better" business-wise, not necessarily for early consumers.
Early buyers are essentially unwitting beta testers. To be fair, most probably knew the risk with the folding concept. It's first-on-the-block syndrome for status. Flaw risk is secondary for such people.
* I intentionally didn't try with anything expensive.
Apple: "You're holding it wrong..."
Samsung: "You're folding it wrong..."
Amazon: "You're scolding it wrong..." [Alexa]
IBM: "You're olding it wrong..." [ageism]
Boeing: "You're deactivating it wrong..." [autopilot]
Microsoft: "Just buy it, okay?" [gizmo flop]
...his ball team isn't.
And mammals rule now because somebody let dinosaurs play with fireworks despite all the warnings.
There seems to be a miscommunication somewhere. I tried to clarify and it still didn't work.
He was functioning as a manager when the transgressions happened, no?
I'm not saying engineers are more moral, only that typically the pro/con risks of that kind of fiddling on one's own volition doesn't favor doing it when employed as an engineer.
If somebody's rank is "engineer", the benefits of that kind of cheating done without management requesting it are small or negative because the risk of getting caught (by co.) is fairly large and management will typically NOT give you bonuses/kudos for doing something they didn't ask for. Managers want you to do what they ask for and only what they ask for. Yes, I know there are exceptions, but I'm talking general.
If they treat it as a consumer product, there should be a minimum set of security guidelines and steps a company is required to take. None of this "license agreement" crap.
However, writing down the guidelines and steps in a clear-cut way into law is difficult. If the text is too specific, then companies find a way around them, and if they are too general, they are messy and expensive to enforce, for both sides. This includes abuse of law against the company. A fuzzy cannon shoots out of both ends.
Occasionally sunlight reflects off of various flat panels and they briefly glint brightly in the sky. I've seen it a few times.
What if the shareholders don't know what's going on, or at least there is no evidence they knew what was going on? Cluelessness is rarely a felony, for good or bad.
At first they blamed it all on the engineers. Engineers rarely intentionally rig things that way without management pressure.
I've been pressured to rig IT stuff via management, so I see this from a very personal perspective.
I have relatives who immigrated from China. Essentially there seems to be an unwritten contract between Chinese citizens and the Chinese gov't: "Keep our lives smooth and relatively prosperous, and we'll go ahead and let you run everything."
Part of this viewpoint is the "village's big eyeball" of Chinese culture. (The name varies.) The typical village kept a collective eye on everybody; there was no real privacy. The village elders ran the show and everybody accepted that as long as there were no big problems, such as starvation.
Contrast this to the USA where young couples generally left their original families to start their own farm: YOU ran the show, but had to do everything, including protect the land with your life on the line.
The Chinese gov't is essentially an extension or scale-up of the "village's big eyeball" concept.
That's essentially the slippery slope argument. I 100% agree that every big company putting ads in the sky would be a bad thing. But a doing it once won't interrupt my dinner nor my nap.
The 7-year-old in me is hoping hackers re-shape the constellation into a giant you-know-what.
If it's not overdone it's not going to create significant nor long-term distractions. If done occasionally, most will find it "cool". We already have planes and satellites that inadvertently put on light shows, and ad blimps that do it on purpose.
"Don't do cool things because copy-cats might get carried away" is possibly being overly paranoid. I'm still on the fence.
Brute force: shifting the line around incrementally and computationally until an approximate minimum was achieved. Yes, I know it's only an approximation, but it should have been good enough to detect any clear pattern if one existed.
I did assume rough boundaries/limits to avoid problems such as multiple candidates and division by zero. Thus, I wasn't testing every possible slope or line, just those "in the ballpark". (Perhaps "least squares" is handy for at least limiting one to a workable sub-set of alternatives when using similar techniques to avoid complex numbers etc.)
As mentioned, a clear pattern did not emerge. If there are benefits of a different exponent, they were not obvious in my simulation. That may be the main reason "2" is still the king of the hill: the alternatives are computationally more expensive/tricky with only minor benefits, if any. I was going to use more trials and finer grain increments to see if I could tease out minor patterns, but never finished the mass-computational version of the project.
Half of me worries about a slippery slope of mass sky ads.
The other half says, "Fun colorful light show, cool!" I'm torn.
got a free hand-job. Bad AI, but feels good. 5 Stars!
Hey, every now and then I ask a dumb question, such as not noticing something obvious (obvious after the fact). Humans do that. If you are near perfect, slap a gold star on your forehead for being a rare specimen. Part of helping is filling in others' blind spots.
And again, if one doesn't want to see low-ranked messages, just set your filter level higher.
One man already went, but because he fell off, didn't live to tell about it.