Their version of events is much more believable than the others offers so far....
What really worries me here is that Kaspersky apparently deleted the NSA malware and source code once they realized what it was. They should have analyzed it, generated signatures and published details.
You sound like have some bias of some sort interfering with your analysis, as your conclusion contradicts the details.
It seems that parts of their story are more believable simply by being more specific, but it also includes some very not-believable but important details. To me they look less trustworthy from their story; they want me to believe they're incompetent, not malicious, and I'm just not convinced that I should believe them, or that the specific incompetence involved is even different than being malicious.
Their factories don't product for the local population.
Complete hogwash. Chinese consumers buy the same crap as is sold here, from the same factory, and at local prices. Supply outstrips demand, so it obviously would be that way.
No but I can hook you up with a White Monkey gig in Shenzhen for US$5k. I can even throw in a sleeping mat in a storage room for free, as long as you're available weekends too.
1) The inspector is an important government employee, not a low lever person who needs your pocket change 2) Accepting a bribe like that when the government is trying to do a special program of cleanup will result in the death penalty in China.
Bribes are more likely when the factory is running, because the inspector can just agree to say they inspected everything that was safe to inspect with the equipment running.
The funny thing about China is that when they want to solve the right problem they can do so effectively.
I've been reading elsewhere from people in China that the part that is really different now and shows their seriousness is turning off the gas and electricity. This prevents them hiding violations in places that are normally unsafe to inspect.
That would be basically impossible for western governments to achieve just for routine inspections.
So I looked it up, since I assumed you were too stupid to do it yourself before claiming it was relevant, and it turns out that not only does it not cover firings, even if it was a layoff it wouldn't be covered because it is in the "50-499" employees range, and it is way less than the additional threshold of 33% of employees at the site.
And it says right in the text of the statute:
...the term "employment loss" means (A) an employment termination, other than a discharge for cause...
If your argument about scale is regardless of size, and with a fixed number of firings, then I don't even need to weigh the details to know your idea doesn't add up.
Companies who pre-sell their whole output should not be presumed to have cash flow problems.;)
Also, firing low performing employees does not reduce production unless the remaining employees think the company is going to collapse. See above and pre-sales.
Firing low performing employees often improves the morale of higher producing employees, especially if you follow it up with production bonuses!
China is the biggest car market in the world, and Tesla is biggest electric car company in China with no close second; no other company sells significant numbers of electric cars in China! You can be pretty sure that the Shanghai factory is going to be producing cars for use in Asia and that it has nothing at all to do with any of the issues around factories in the US. Building a factory in China is what you have to do if you want to get past the red tape in China and maintain sales growth.
Your problem in understanding is that you drank some bad juice cocktail beverage and believed a bunch of hyperbole as fact, even though no misconduct happened and nobody gave you information that would suggest it did; all you heard were bare pejoratives, and you presumed there must be facts behind them.
Also, please shut the fuck up about what the history books are going to write, OK McFly? You can't claim to know that, and any such argument would be based on facts you don't have access to.
Maybe there is some place where that is true, but I'm going to guess it isn't even in the USA.;)
Certainly in my State you don't get unemployment if you were fired "for cause," and that means any cause. Poor performance is not only included, in the USA an employer has a right to fire you without penalty for poor performance. An employer even has a right to fire you for cause if they discover that you have a personal dislike for your employer ("contempt of boss") because the courts have found that the employer is the one who has the work to be done; it is all about the employer. The employee is there to benefit the employer, and if they dislike the employer then the employer can't trust them to act in their benefit.
Perhaps you live in Europe or someplace?
If your coworkers dislike you, it might mean you have poor performance (because your duties include working with others) and you can be fired for cause and no unemployment for you. It is generally better if you can get them to quit, though, because then they don't get unemployment but they also can't fight it.
Why do people who lack knowledge still obtain certitude in whatever random bullshit they heard in the bar and repeated?
I worked at a company that wanted to fire me for illegal reasons; they offered to do it "no cause" but instead I called their bluff and put in a 2 week notice. My co-workers gave me light duties, and the management was petrified, the production manager ended up having to audit all my activities (while trying to be secret about it) for the whole two weeks to make sure I didn't sabotage anything. It was funny as hell, way more fun than hiring a lawyer. It was a food product company, so there was a lot of equipment that was all life-and-death important. I was a great employee, they were just paranoid because they were a bunch of dishonest assholes and they were worried, "what if he is as bad as us? What shitty stuff would we do?"
To prove "fraud" you would have to prove that they not only made false statements, but that they knew they were wrong. You'd have to be claiming to have knowledge of facts that would prove their intent just to get into the courtroom; that's not going to happen!
Also, it is a stupid idea. What would they need to know, in this case? They'd need to know that they actually thought your performance was good! That seems an unlikely thing to be able to prove. Keep in mind, everything that happens at work is part of your performance; even "getting along" with your co-workers is a performance issue!
When it is this many people involved, it is highly unlikely that any sort of situation like you propose is going on. Those types of situations are usually related either to personal animosity from a manager, or else a cover-up, and you can't cover things up through a mass firing; and how likely is it that a manager has personal grudges against that many people across different facilities?
Your fraud angle is so stupid, you might as well throw RICO in too; it's always RICO, isn't that the saying? It can't be any less stupid than an SEC angle. How do you think this hurts the stockholders? You're going to have to blather way outside the facts of the situation to even phrase the claims.
"Performance review" is a controversial management practice that most companies in the world do not do. It is not some sort of required step.
Most companies do not add things up and then review them later in that way; they evaluate your performance whenever it comes up. If your numbers are chronically low and your supervisor notices, that might result in a notation in your file, and a conversation with you about your work practices, and you'll probably be asked to reaffirm your commitment to the job. The employee has no right to access to their file; they don't know if HR has something recorded about them, or not. It isn't "their" file, it is their employer's file that merely talks about them.
If you have some other facts that are enough to get you into court, then you'd get access to some of those files as part of the discovery process; but you're not going to able to just file a suit with no facts in order to go on a fishing expedition through their employment records. Unless something actually happened to you at work that was improper, and you have witnesses willing to testify to that effect, you're not going to be able to do anything. Employers have a right to choose who to employ, and to set the performance standards. If you can't meet their expectations, it is your responsibility to quit if you don't like being fired "for cause."
Two weeks is customary for white collar workers working in offices in service industries, sure. Factory workers do not get that sort of thing, in most cases even if they're in a white collar job.
Firing somebody "no cause" is the same as a lay-off; they can get unemployment, and it is the company who pays unemployment insurance so their rates go up.
Obviously, you can fire people "for cause," as happened here, in every state and without any notice. Odd that the editors are so clueless that they would write "lay off" nearby to the words "for performance reasons." A layoff is a very very specific type of situation!
If you ever look into this thing called "automobile liability insurance" that we have in the USA, you might realize it made your argument moot decades ago.
No doubt all of their job postings require 5 more years experience in AI than it's actually been around.
That would 66 years of experience, then, right?
Well, that brings it into the same scale as the claim that the stock is worth $500k. I read "from $300,000 to $500,000 a year or more in salary and company stock" and I hear, "$32k and a box of scratch paper." But in my experience, most of these companies won't actually have $32k to pay out and will try to bid that down with more toilet paper.
Established companies whose stock has value are going to want to pay employees using cash, and they'll have no trouble finding experts for $200k because any competent software engineer can become an AI specialist in a few weeks. Most of these jobs are just standard software development using an API, after all, it isn't like all these people are building AI frameworks and need a lot of deep theory. Learning the APIs takes less time than learning the customers actual needs and the realities of their use case.
You're conflating a "heat pump," which only have utility here if used as an engineering jargon term, with the common English words used above in "pumping heat inwards from the outdoors." A heat pump such as an air conditioner is not going to pump heat inwards from the outdoors when it is 0C outside. That isn't how they work. They generate net heat through resistive elements, and use it to move a smaller amount of heat. The cooling you'd generate outside would be the result of heat pump action, but most of the heating generated inside would be from the resistive elements within the machine. It is never going to be more efficient than just running the same electricity through a resistor with the whole device inside the dwelling.
Stop talking about burning natural gas, you didn't do any of the analysis to compare it to electricity. Talking about those oranges is just stupid unless you're going to talk the time to actually compare it. An electric heater 100% of the heat stays inside. Burning natural gas you have to vent the exhaust. You can't capture and use very much of the heat generated, because of fumes. Get a clue. Your application efficiency is crap, and you're only talking about natural gas because of your politics.
If you could extract as much of the heat from an IC engine as you can from a furnace, then you could improve your application efficiency. But it isn't going to be at all like a computer, where you can get near 100% application efficiency; when you burn natural gas you can't capture all the heat. You could if you burned it in the middle of the room, but then you'd have nasty fumes and stuff. So you use some sort of furnace, that burns a lot of gas and extracts a little bit of the heat. The efficiency is lower, because exhaust. If you had to vent the computer power supply exhaust to outside, then it would be closer to the same.
The existence of oranges does not bring into question the existence of apples.
I find that most stuff works fine, crappy stuff rarely works.
And if the site is a tool that actually needs JS, and I turn it on in noscript, then I still have umatrix to limit them to first-party. Quality sites will work with just first-party JS; some moderate quality sites will require turning on common third party services like google apis, depending on the nature of the content being requested. If it requires a bunch of weird shit just to function it is because it is clickbait bullshit trying to install malware or get your CC number, or whatever they think will earn them $0.25 from your misfortune this week.
Slashdot Mirror
Their version of events is much more believable than the others offers so far. ...
What really worries me here is that Kaspersky apparently deleted the NSA malware and source code once they realized what it was. They should have analyzed it, generated signatures and published details.
You sound like have some bias of some sort interfering with your analysis, as your conclusion contradicts the details.
It seems that parts of their story are more believable simply by being more specific, but it also includes some very not-believable but important details. To me they look less trustworthy from their story; they want me to believe they're incompetent, not malicious, and I'm just not convinced that I should believe them, or that the specific incompetence involved is even different than being malicious.
Their factories don't product for the local population.
Complete hogwash. Chinese consumers buy the same crap as is sold here, from the same factory, and at local prices. Supply outstrips demand, so it obviously would be that way.
No but I can hook you up with a White Monkey gig in Shenzhen for US$5k. I can even throw in a sleeping mat in a storage room for free, as long as you're available weekends too.
1) The inspector is an important government employee, not a low lever person who needs your pocket change
2) Accepting a bribe like that when the government is trying to do a special program of cleanup will result in the death penalty in China.
Bribes are more likely when the factory is running, because the inspector can just agree to say they inspected everything that was safe to inspect with the equipment running.
The funny thing about China is that when they want to solve the right problem they can do so effectively.
I've been reading elsewhere from people in China that the part that is really different now and shows their seriousness is turning off the gas and electricity. This prevents them hiding violations in places that are normally unsafe to inspect.
That would be basically impossible for western governments to achieve just for routine inspections.
So I looked it up, since I assumed you were too stupid to do it yourself before claiming it was relevant, and it turns out that not only does it not cover firings, even if it was a layoff it wouldn't be covered because it is in the "50-499" employees range, and it is way less than the additional threshold of 33% of employees at the site.
And it says right in the text of the statute:
Luckily it wasn't a plant closure or layoff!
Naw, lets just fire him for low performance and let him do the weeping. Oh, wait, he's a volunteer. Darn.
regardless of company size.
If your argument about scale is regardless of size, and with a fixed number of firings, then I don't even need to weigh the details to know your idea doesn't add up.
Unfortunately, it is probably good news to investors, so yeah, limit your orders carefully.
Layoffs would be a very bad sign for a company that pre-sells their entire output, but luckily these were firings related to performance.
Companies who pre-sell their whole output should not be presumed to have cash flow problems. ;)
Also, firing low performing employees does not reduce production unless the remaining employees think the company is going to collapse. See above and pre-sales.
Firing low performing employees often improves the morale of higher producing employees, especially if you follow it up with production bonuses!
China is the biggest car market in the world, and Tesla is biggest electric car company in China with no close second; no other company sells significant numbers of electric cars in China! You can be pretty sure that the Shanghai factory is going to be producing cars for use in Asia and that it has nothing at all to do with any of the issues around factories in the US. Building a factory in China is what you have to do if you want to get past the red tape in China and maintain sales growth.
Your problem in understanding is that you drank some bad juice cocktail beverage and believed a bunch of hyperbole as fact, even though no misconduct happened and nobody gave you information that would suggest it did; all you heard were bare pejoratives, and you presumed there must be facts behind them.
Also, please shut the fuck up about what the history books are going to write, OK McFly? You can't claim to know that, and any such argument would be based on facts you don't have access to.
lol how are people this dumb in the age of information
Information glut combined with a lack of filtering methodology.
Maybe there is some place where that is true, but I'm going to guess it isn't even in the USA. ;)
Certainly in my State you don't get unemployment if you were fired "for cause," and that means any cause. Poor performance is not only included, in the USA an employer has a right to fire you without penalty for poor performance. An employer even has a right to fire you for cause if they discover that you have a personal dislike for your employer ("contempt of boss") because the courts have found that the employer is the one who has the work to be done; it is all about the employer. The employee is there to benefit the employer, and if they dislike the employer then the employer can't trust them to act in their benefit.
Perhaps you live in Europe or someplace?
If your coworkers dislike you, it might mean you have poor performance (because your duties include working with others) and you can be fired for cause and no unemployment for you. It is generally better if you can get them to quit, though, because then they don't get unemployment but they also can't fight it.
Why do people who lack knowledge still obtain certitude in whatever random bullshit they heard in the bar and repeated?
I worked at a company that wanted to fire me for illegal reasons; they offered to do it "no cause" but instead I called their bluff and put in a 2 week notice. My co-workers gave me light duties, and the management was petrified, the production manager ended up having to audit all my activities (while trying to be secret about it) for the whole two weeks to make sure I didn't sabotage anything. It was funny as hell, way more fun than hiring a lawyer. It was a food product company, so there was a lot of equipment that was all life-and-death important. I was a great employee, they were just paranoid because they were a bunch of dishonest assholes and they were worried, "what if he is as bad as us? What shitty stuff would we do?"
We believe you it was a cosplay party, we just think there are other important details.
See also: The Rule of Goats.
To prove "fraud" you would have to prove that they not only made false statements, but that they knew they were wrong. You'd have to be claiming to have knowledge of facts that would prove their intent just to get into the courtroom; that's not going to happen!
Also, it is a stupid idea. What would they need to know, in this case? They'd need to know that they actually thought your performance was good! That seems an unlikely thing to be able to prove. Keep in mind, everything that happens at work is part of your performance; even "getting along" with your co-workers is a performance issue!
When it is this many people involved, it is highly unlikely that any sort of situation like you propose is going on. Those types of situations are usually related either to personal animosity from a manager, or else a cover-up, and you can't cover things up through a mass firing; and how likely is it that a manager has personal grudges against that many people across different facilities?
Your fraud angle is so stupid, you might as well throw RICO in too; it's always RICO, isn't that the saying? It can't be any less stupid than an SEC angle. How do you think this hurts the stockholders? You're going to have to blather way outside the facts of the situation to even phrase the claims.
"Performance review" is a controversial management practice that most companies in the world do not do. It is not some sort of required step.
Most companies do not add things up and then review them later in that way; they evaluate your performance whenever it comes up. If your numbers are chronically low and your supervisor notices, that might result in a notation in your file, and a conversation with you about your work practices, and you'll probably be asked to reaffirm your commitment to the job. The employee has no right to access to their file; they don't know if HR has something recorded about them, or not. It isn't "their" file, it is their employer's file that merely talks about them.
If you have some other facts that are enough to get you into court, then you'd get access to some of those files as part of the discovery process; but you're not going to able to just file a suit with no facts in order to go on a fishing expedition through their employment records. Unless something actually happened to you at work that was improper, and you have witnesses willing to testify to that effect, you're not going to be able to do anything. Employers have a right to choose who to employ, and to set the performance standards. If you can't meet their expectations, it is your responsibility to quit if you don't like being fired "for cause."
although 2 weeks is customary.
Two weeks is customary for white collar workers working in offices in service industries, sure. Factory workers do not get that sort of thing, in most cases even if they're in a white collar job.
Firing somebody "no cause" is the same as a lay-off; they can get unemployment, and it is the company who pays unemployment insurance so their rates go up.
Obviously, you can fire people "for cause," as happened here, in every state and without any notice. Odd that the editors are so clueless that they would write "lay off" nearby to the words "for performance reasons." A layoff is a very very specific type of situation!
If you ever look into this thing called "automobile liability insurance" that we have in the USA, you might realize it made your argument moot decades ago.
No doubt all of their job postings require 5 more years experience in AI than it's actually been around.
That would 66 years of experience, then, right?
Well, that brings it into the same scale as the claim that the stock is worth $500k. I read "from $300,000 to $500,000 a year or more in salary and company stock" and I hear, "$32k and a box of scratch paper." But in my experience, most of these companies won't actually have $32k to pay out and will try to bid that down with more toilet paper.
Established companies whose stock has value are going to want to pay employees using cash, and they'll have no trouble finding experts for $200k because any competent software engineer can become an AI specialist in a few weeks. Most of these jobs are just standard software development using an API, after all, it isn't like all these people are building AI frameworks and need a lot of deep theory. Learning the APIs takes less time than learning the customers actual needs and the realities of their use case.
You're conflating a "heat pump," which only have utility here if used as an engineering jargon term, with the common English words used above in "pumping heat inwards from the outdoors." A heat pump such as an air conditioner is not going to pump heat inwards from the outdoors when it is 0C outside. That isn't how they work. They generate net heat through resistive elements, and use it to move a smaller amount of heat. The cooling you'd generate outside would be the result of heat pump action, but most of the heating generated inside would be from the resistive elements within the machine. It is never going to be more efficient than just running the same electricity through a resistor with the whole device inside the dwelling.
Stop talking about burning natural gas, you didn't do any of the analysis to compare it to electricity. Talking about those oranges is just stupid unless you're going to talk the time to actually compare it. An electric heater 100% of the heat stays inside. Burning natural gas you have to vent the exhaust. You can't capture and use very much of the heat generated, because of fumes. Get a clue. Your application efficiency is crap, and you're only talking about natural gas because of your politics.
If you could extract as much of the heat from an IC engine as you can from a furnace, then you could improve your application efficiency. But it isn't going to be at all like a computer, where you can get near 100% application efficiency; when you burn natural gas you can't capture all the heat. You could if you burned it in the middle of the room, but then you'd have nasty fumes and stuff. So you use some sort of furnace, that burns a lot of gas and extracts a little bit of the heat. The efficiency is lower, because exhaust. If you had to vent the computer power supply exhaust to outside, then it would be closer to the same.
The existence of oranges does not bring into question the existence of apples.
You weren't responding to the title bar of your browser... were you? Oh.
My advice, find better websites.
I find that most stuff works fine, crappy stuff rarely works.
And if the site is a tool that actually needs JS, and I turn it on in noscript, then I still have umatrix to limit them to first-party. Quality sites will work with just first-party JS; some moderate quality sites will require turning on common third party services like google apis, depending on the nature of the content being requested. If it requires a bunch of weird shit just to function it is because it is clickbait bullshit trying to install malware or get your CC number, or whatever they think will earn them $0.25 from your misfortune this week.