Or they live in fancy houses because they're doing a great job at ensuring their union members get better wages and working conditions?
Harold Daggett has been the main labor leader getting criticized recently for a large salary. He's the leader of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA), and makes somewhere in the ballpark of ~$1M a year. The ILA is striking right now in the hopes of getting a ~70% wage increase over the next 6 years, better healthcare benefits, and better retirement contribution.
If I were a longshoremen making $130k, and I stood to get a ~70% wage increase + benefits, I'd absolutely be okay with the person who could make that happen making a low 7 figure salary.
Generally, I think the discussion around labor leader salaries to be very insidious. The truth is that they're fighting for chump change against an industry that's pulling in hundreds of billions in profit. And the same goes for the Teamsters. I'll let the respective unions determine leadership profits, but I'll 1000% support whatever they agree upon, so long as the union leaders are making sure that workers get treated well.
Harold Daggett has also been credibly accused of having ties to the Mafia, which is especially consistent with the idea that the union is involved in drug trafficking.
> The ILA is striking right now in the hopes of getting a ~70% wage increase over the next 6 years, better healthcare benefits, and better retirement contribution.
And a permanent ban on automation, you forgot to mention that part. Also, the strike is on pause until January 15th.
> The truth is that they're fighting for chump change against an industry that's pulling in hundreds of billions in profit.
Ports aren’t private industry. They’re public infrastructure, owned by the public, and the ones that do turn a profit are a source of funding for public services.
And he just secured a massive salary increase for his constituents, in short time. As a member of the labor class of society, I can’t help but cheer him and the union on.
On some level I think everyone admires a mobster, but he and his union are parasites enriching themselves at literal public expense. This “labor class” nonsense is just an identity racket that helps them get away with it. You might as well have said “I’m a mark and I’m proud of it!”
Not that anyone is disagreeing, but it bears repeating: This is a lack of any real pressure from regulators, not a technical challenge. Or rather, there may be technical challenges but they absolutely can be overcome, and aren’t being tackled right now very simply because the business doesn’t care. As is so often the case, the business must be made to care.
> This is a lack of any real pressure from regulators, not a technical challenge.
Also, I think it's easy to misstep if we start thinking of it as a problem of "better regulators", since some of the blame lies on deeper legal-aspects around (data-)ownership, contracts, and what what happens in bankruptcies.
Even a company with great intentions may have difficulty ensuring the promises they made are kept long-term, especially if a bankruptcy court voids those promises in the name of repaying creditors.
My impression from all that I've heard is that you should have a backup retention policy, but otherwise there's no set upper bound on how long that may be. Not that the text of the GDPR breathes a word of it, though, everything's just a rat's nest of exemptions suggested by various authorities and other parties that haven't been tested in court.
In general I don't particularly care what other people say on this topic and rely on the legal guidance I received during my work from UK ICO and Slovenian office, but even some of your links don't collaborate you. The second one linking to Verasafe's page on which it clearly says that yes, you should delete it.
There's a lot of complainig around how difficult that can be and the fact that EU legislation in general often does not like to precisely prescribe its requirements like what reasonable means, which can indeed be annoying.
You still need to remove it either directly or your retention policy for backups needs to be short enough that keeping it in backups for a while is judged as reasonable.
> In general I don't particularly care what other people say on this topic
Nor do I see why I should particularly listen to what you say on this topic, given that others have similarly claimed authority from their lawyers or from their local jurisdictions.
> The second one linking to Verasafe's page on which it clearly says that yes, you should delete it.
Right before the "But don’t panic! Enforcement authorities know how difficult it is to fulfil this obligation in practice." section, where it elaborates on your ability to claim that stripping data from backups is technically infeasible, in which case you must promise to delete the data on restoration. Just like I've heard from everyone else.
It's always seemed paradoxical to me that the GDPR is branded as this unyielding hammer against companies improperly storing your data, only for it to be riddled with amorphous holes on every axis. "Data is data, period, unless it's not on a live production system, in which case the written vague rules it abides by are swapped out for a new set of totally undefined rules!"
> You still need to remove it either directly or your retention policy for backups needs to be short enough that keeping it in backups for a while is judged as reasonable.
And how might I know a priori what's the longest 'reasonable' retention term that a business might be permitted by its jurisdiction? The whole nature of backups is that they're useless right up until they aren't, so the marginal value of each additional week is difficult to measure in the first place. And when most concrete talk of 'reasonableness' is seemingly done behind closed doors if at all, I have no idea just how far other jurisdictions' ideas of a reasonable term might differ from mine.
From the picture it looked to me like it was more aligned with the DAC, although I double checked and I don't think that any DACs of that size would be in the order of 20-30 grams. Could a discharge be angled like that within the confines of the can?
Just walk down a hill to accelerate the rotation of the Earth a tiny bit. But when you need to walk up the hill again you decelerate it by the same amount. -- So building a dam preserves the rotational speed of the Earth with respect to the extent of the mass (or more exactly the angular momentum) of the retained water.
Stories like these are my catnip. The 500 mile email is another great one.
How did you end up debugging/reproducing? I conjured a picture in my head of an engineer comically exasperated and squeezing the controller followed by an “Aha!”
There was bare PCB prototype running on my desk that was in the way. I started cleaning my desk to work on something less frustrating and it got knocked off by accident. The logger went haywire immediately. That was the hint I needed.
Would you be willing to share your must-sees? I’m planning two trips to Italy this year and while I tend to make my own closer to the date of the trip (avoid pre-mature heartbreak if plans change) I think curated lists off the beaten path and with personality behind them are far more interesting.
This irked me recently. I think it’s very reasonable for networkd to delegate everything after the interface meets an “online criteria” to later services. However I was disappointed that you couldn’t then tell networkd an interface was “active” (vs. online) later down the line.
Would be interested to hear how you & others approach this. Perhaps I’m not thinking systemd-y enough hah.
Can you describe your use case in a bit more detail? (Also to make sure it’s not really a XY problem)
systemd-networkd sure keeps some state tracking. There are systems where it’s the only thing managing the network, so it doesn’t have anything to delegate to. You can see it by running networkctl before and after yanking the Ethernet cable.
Is there a way to walk it all back? It’s an issue that worries me to almost no end. Idealistically, I might say education could solve it, except that I see this huge lapse of empathy on the subject of surveillance that makes the education impractical past a point.
No, I don't see a way without legislation, and I don't see that happening without a significant event.
Having said that, ring doorbells are useful in finding people who try to break into homes and commit other crimes. Aiden Fucci was convicted with help of a Ring camera. I'm sure his victim's parents are grateful.
Harold Daggett has been the main labor leader getting criticized recently for a large salary. He's the leader of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA), and makes somewhere in the ballpark of ~$1M a year. The ILA is striking right now in the hopes of getting a ~70% wage increase over the next 6 years, better healthcare benefits, and better retirement contribution.
If I were a longshoremen making $130k, and I stood to get a ~70% wage increase + benefits, I'd absolutely be okay with the person who could make that happen making a low 7 figure salary.
Generally, I think the discussion around labor leader salaries to be very insidious. The truth is that they're fighting for chump change against an industry that's pulling in hundreds of billions in profit. And the same goes for the Teamsters. I'll let the respective unions determine leadership profits, but I'll 1000% support whatever they agree upon, so long as the union leaders are making sure that workers get treated well.