- AT&T “unlimited” mobile plans
- Purdue Pharma's OxyContin push
- Juul marketing vaping products as a "safer alternative" to smoking
- Facebook's sale of user data to Cambridge Analytica
- Wells Fargo opening fake accounts for people
- ...
How many Sacklers are in jail for what they did to people? None. Purdue pleaded guilty, but no Sackler family member went to jail. The settlement totals about $7.4 billion, with roughly $6.5–$7 billion coming from the Sacklers and about $900 million from Purdue. Earlier estimates put the family's wealth around $11 billion, so they remain enormously wealthy. Hundreds of thousands have died in the opioid crisis, ruined families got no real justice, and no Sackler went to prison... great punishment.
Perhaps none of them personally engaged in conduct that merits a prison sentence? Which of the Sacklers do you believe should have been charged, and for what conduct?
> Earlier estimates put the family's wealth around $11 billion, so they remain enormously wealthy
Why wouldn't they? The company had been around for a hundred years
Now I understand your point. I narrowed my thinking process to the music industry. You're right that companies usually never "go to jail" just "kindly" pay the fee eventually. I remember there's movie "Corporation" which tries to prove that if company is a person (legal person), this person has a personality disorder
> rightfully convicted of what is indisputably criminal behaviour
Consider the opposite view: if pretending to be a human is "criminal behavior" there are about 8 billion criminals walking around on this planet.. and in this case our current legal system appears to be hijacked for the protection of utterly nonsensical, hopelessly broken, ancient business models from a rent-seeking, anti-consumer, creator-exploiting, trillion-dollar corporate mafia, which would like nothing better than to track, spy, and force-feed their audience at every turn.
That's basically what I heard ten years ago from individuals (and even universities) for why they switched to Mint.. but even now, if you ask Perplexity for a "debian-based distro thats not ubuntu" Mint is the second option.
I did a bunch of distro hopping in the 90's but locked onto Debian (mainly testing, now largely unstable) not long after. I'm still just not sure what compels people elsewhere. Especially now: the Debian installer was vicious if you were a newbie, but I hear it's pretty ok now.
This is largely a me problem! I don't understand what the value add is of other offerings. It's unclear what else would be good or why. Debian feels like it really has what's needed now. Things work. Hardware support is good. Especially in the systemd era, so much of what used to make distros unique is just no longer a factor; there's common means for most Linux 's operation. My gut tells me we are forking and flavoring for not much at all. Aside from learning some new commands, learning Arch has been such a recent non-event for me. It feels like we are having weird popularity contests over nothing. And that amplifies my sense of: why not just use Debian?
But I also have two and a half plus decades of Linux, and my inability to differentiate and assess from beginner's eyes is absolutely key to this all. I try to ask folks, but it's still all so unclear what real motivations, and more, what real differences there are.
The real differences are things that maintainers do. Like how... OBS I think? ...had a bunch of people come in with issues that only existed in the Debian version. Debian software has a bunch of patches, Arch software has far fewer and sticks closer to upstream, other distros will vary. Derivatives also made nonfree easier to set up, which was especially important when MP3 was still encumbered. Nowadays Debian still has the reputation of having old, outdated versions of software, which is going to be hard to shake, especially considering stability is meant to be their main draw.
> To get the remaining 15%, which they are contractually obligated to acquire, they must purchase from the founder. As they are in violation of their contract if they fail to acquire the remaining 15%, the founder now has complete control to dictate any price they want.
I can't imagine "any price they want" is quite right here. At the very least, shouldn't we expect underwriters and other stakeholders (in this case Nasdaq, Inc.) to negotiate option-contracts as part of the IPO deal to cover their future obligations?
Yes, it might be a "worse" deal than those initial 5% - though we don't even know that - but then institutional investors time horizons are typically much longer than 6 months. Unless you think SpaceX goes straight down to 0, it seems like a risky but calculated, long-term investment.
I agree they could be more transparent about it, but maybe they will send out a notice in the prospectus update?
Index funds and ETFs also have strict replication rules limiting the amount of non-physical replication in their legally binding prospectus...
The more physical a tracker is, the lower the tracking error, but also the more fees you have to pay. "Good" ETFs/IFs are often 98% physical. This makes for higher fees, but more safety for subscribers in case of large swings.
So it's not like they are _free_ to replicate however they see fit, the replication mechanism is part of the product.
It means holding the actual stocks in the underlying index, as opposed to synthetic replication, which aims to achieve returns matching the index via derivatives or other techniques.
It's physical in the sense that literal means not literal nowadays.
ETF and index arb traders use the term physical to describe securities that require full margin. Example: Sell stocks, buy index futures (and reverse) is the classic EFP equity trade. To be clear, futures are highly leveraged, thus do not require full margin.
Such a bold claim. Since we are talking about stock indices here... Can you provide a well known (liquid) non-leveraged example that does not directly trade the underlying stocks? It would probably make the create/redeem process more complex for market makers.
Hat tip! I was not aware that Europe has very particular laws (different from the US) about how ETFs need to treat dividends. As a result, using an underlying equity swap is more tax efficient than owning the shares directly. For US-listed ETFs, I believe that my original point still stands: Well-known (liquid) non-leveraged ETFs hold physical shares instead of replicating returns with derivatives (equity swaps).
The terminology is overloaded.. Tensors in QM are objects obeying transformation laws, in ML Tensors are just data arranged in multidimensional arrays. There are no constraints on how the data transforms.
Intended as analogy - but it is essentially a description of the DMRG algorithm (quantum chem). Only pair-wise operators there but the theory approaches exact when there are enough terms in your tensor product (iterations ~ depth) and a large enough embedding dimension.
> There are no constraints on how the data transforms.
Except those implicit in your learned representation. And that representation could be the MB WF.
Interesting.. I agree on the description but my experience was opposite. I enjoyed F1 much more, though I really enjoy all the technical stats and talks with the teams/engineers that develop the cars and find it to be an equal part of the whole thing as the actual racing itself.
The way I've experienced "Code Red" is mostly as a euphemism for "on-going company-wide lack of focus" and a band-aid for mid-level management having absolutely no clue how to meaningfully make progress, upper management panicking, and ultimately putting engineers and ICs on the spot to bear the brunt of that organizational mess.
Interestingly enough, apart from Google, I've never seen an organization take the actual proper steps (fire mid-management and PMs) to prevent the same thing from happening again. Will be interesting to see how OAI handles this.
> fire mid-management and PMs to prevent the same thing from happening again
Firing PMs and mid-management would not prevent any of code reds you may have read about from Google or OAI lately. This is a very naive perspective of how decision making is done at the scale of those two companies. I'm sorry you had bad experiences working with people in those positions and I wish you have the opportunity to collab with great ones in the future.
Yeah the reflexive anti-PM anti-management stance posted above is typical here and of devs in general.
In theory, some engineers think they are perfectly capable of doing all the PMs work and all their own.
If they’ve never worked with a truly good PM, that’s a shame, they’d likely get more work done in a more timely fashion. I’ve worked with around 10 different PMs, the best kept stuff on track and aided with collaboration, reqs management, soft skills, handling tough customers, etc. they free up devs to do more dev work and less other work.
>I've never seen an organization take the actual proper steps (fire mid-management and PMs) to prevent the same thing from happening again.
One time, in my entire career have I seen this done, and it is as successful as you imagine it to be. Lots of weird problems coming out from having done it, but those are being treated as "Wow we are so glad we know about this problem" rather than "I hope those idiots come back to keep pulling the wool over my eyes".
There should already be a single priority for a company...
Why is the bar so low for the billionaire magnate fuck ups? Might as well implement workplace democracy and be done with it, it can't be any worse for the company and at least the workers understand what needs to be done.
2. Some people have become very tied to the memory ChatGPT has of them.
3. Inertia is powerful. They just have to stay close enough to competitors to retain people, even if they aren’t “winning” at a given point in time.
4. The harness for their models is also incredibly important. A big reason I continue to use Claude Code is that the tooling is so much better than Codex. Similarly, nothing comes close to ChatGPT when it comes to search (maybe other deep research offerings might, but they’re much slower).
These are all pretty powerful ways that ChatGPT gets new users and retains them beyond just having the best models.
People sure are quick to say, "I hope you get to work with better management". Man, me too, but I find that dismissive of a legitimate concern: There is A LOT of incompetent management, especially in enterprise. The sad truth is that it is often the blind leading the sighted. When I was growing up I thought that the manager was someone with experience doing the job of those they managed, but across jobs I've had, this is the case about 20% of the time.
This code red also has the convenient benefit of giving an excuse to stop work on more monetization features... Which, when implemented, would have the downside of tethering OpenAI's valuation to reality.
They have some monetization, but as long as they don't expand into other sectors, they can plausibly claim that, say, their ad business will be bringing in 10 trillion/year in revenue, or whatever other imagined number.
The one successful example I can think of is Bill Gates writing a memo to re-orient Microsoft to put the Internet at the center of everything they were doing.
Your proper steps are also missing out on firing the higher level executives. But then new ones would be hired, a re-org will occur, and another Code Red will occur in a few months
The thing is shipping sloppy code is orders of magnitudes easier, because that's the default result. Any sufficiently determined hack-job can do it. On the other hand, steering a team of 5-10 engineers to deliver quality on (or before!) a deadline requires excessive amounts of coordination and skill. Now, is this trade-off "worth" the effort? I guess that's a matter of opinion, though I would argue in the long term quality wins out by a large margin.
Sometimes teams will do the sloppy thing because it's the quickest path to resolution of an issue deemed to be critical, which can make sense in the moment, but if you do this too many times without spending the effort to improve the solution after the immediate pressure is gone, issues like this will continue to get more common. I like to use an analogy of trying to put out a fire on the other side of a building by filling a cup in the sink and then running across to toss the water onto the fire; in the short term, it might be the best fix, but if you keep finding yourself having to do this, you're probably better off installing a fire hose even if it requires a lot more effort up front.
been using this for years.. it doesn't have the GCM crap and hence works on de-googlified custom ROMs as well. Surprised how many people don't seem to know about it.
> Surprised how many people don't seem to know about it.
There are a few reasons for that.
1. The link to APK cannot be found on the official site[0], so it needs to be looked up in a search engine.
2. Even when downloading from the site, they try to scare you away with a warning [1]. The reason for warning could be avoided by hosting their own F-droid repo, but they refused it, claiming you can download APK and not listening to reason[2].
Though for people using F-droid can still get Signal through the Guardian repository [3]
Thing about the signal APK and the Guardian one is that, it still have the so called "crap" in the final APK, it just runs a background service when required google services are not detected, causing battery drain for many[4].
The drain could also be avoided by supporting UnifiedPush (it can fall back to FCM when it's detected), but they don't want to do that either[5].
> Surprised how many people don't seem to know about it.
I'm pretty sure people just want to be angry. I mean look at how many people are arguing that updating is... bad. I cannot and will not take those people seriously. It's just such a laughable position.
reply