While considering that sounds sensible, it seems the on-call was able to escalate to the team with very little delay.
As far as I can tell from the timeline, it only took 11 minutes from the moment the on-call first attempted the action until the ops team began responding.
Given that this issue was caused by someone unintentionally using a level of access that they had to do something they did not intend, and the minimal impact reduction, deciding not to grant higher levels of access to the on-call seems to me to be the right decision.
The goal of such regulation would be to reduce the amount of influence US tech billionaires can exert over the EU. Any regulation would be written with that in mind, so an opco which would still be controlled from the US is not in line with that goal. At the very least, regulation could enforce that any opcos (more joint ventures at that point) would be at least 51% owned and operated by EU entities.
This letter does not say severance. It is deferred resignation. During the 'notice period' of 8 months, as far as I can tell the only definite derogation is that there will be no return to office required during those 8 months.
While I'm sure some people will end up with gardening leave for those 8 months, it's not guaranteed by the letter (my emphasis):
> If you resign under this program, you [..] will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025
> I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date.
> I will assist my employing agency with completing reasonable and customary tasks
Seems AP are reporting on this exact same thing, I'm not sure why their read is that this is a 'buy out' or 'severance'. All it is is a waiver of Return To Office for 8 months provided you resign at the end of those 8 months.
"Employees who accept deferred resignation should promptly have their duties re-assigned or eliminated and be placed on paid administrative leave until the end of the deferred resignation period (generally, September 30, 2025, unless the employee has elected another earlier resignation date), unless the agency head determines that it is necessary for the employee to be actively engaged in transitioning job duties, in which case employees should be placed on administrative leave as soon as those duties are transitioned."
Yep, and the rules are absolutely mad. You can watch at home or on the go, provided you're on battery power. As soon as you plug your iPad or iPhone or whatever you're watching iPlayer on in somewhere else, the address the electricity is being supplied to needs a TV licence.
I get that these warts and things appear over time, and it's probably not intentionally the case that whether your iPad is plugged in or not can determine whether your licence covers you, but rather to avoid people creating fixed 'TV viewing installations' in other people's houses and claiming their licence should cover it, but still...
That's correct. Svelte has form for overloading JavaScript syntax with its own additions. This rune is not JavaScript. What it actually is is a flag for the compiler to abstract away the complexity of signals by saying "treat this value as reactive". When it's compiled, it generates all the signals needed to make the value reactive. But the ergonomics of using it are as mostly the same as if you were creating a value. It's not the same though, and so there are warnings in case you use it in a way that the compiler won't handle correctly.
One thing you’re missing is that there’s nothing that says the value must correct. There are at least two very good reasons it might not: Nvidia now has huge amounts of money to invest in developing new technologies, exploring other ideas, and the other is that very little of the stock market is about the actual value of the company itself, but speculation. If people think it will go up, they buy it, reducing supply, and driving up the price. If people think it will go down, they sell it, increasing supply and driving down the price. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy on a large scale, and completely secondary to the actual business.
> Nvidia now has huge amounts of money to invest in developing new technologies
This is not actually a reason for investors to invest in a company, because it's caused by investors investing in the company. If the market would invest in some other company instead then that company would have huge amounts of money to invest in developing new technologies. Meanwhile the ones that tend to succeed in that are more often new, nimble companies breaking into or creating a new market rather than large established ones with bureaucracy, internal politics and fear of cannibalizing existing sales.
Example: If there is a popular new application for consumer GPUs that requires a lot of VRAM, a competitor could make a lot of money by developing consumer GPUs with a lot of VRAM, but Nvidia would have to worry about that eroding sales of enterprise GPUs. Then investing in the competitor could have a better return, both because of potentially higher growth (people invest $5B in developing the GPU and then it becomes a $100B+ company, huge ROI; very little chance of Nvidia going from $3T to $60T), and because when it happens it comes at the expense of the incumbent, who loses not just the consumer GPU sales but the enterprise ones to the competitor selling for consumer prices. Which means the incumbent still has a very significant risk of losing value, but without as much potential upside.
People often try to make this argument by pointing to Microsoft or Apple, but those are major outliers who got there through anti-trust violations. Meanwhile Kodak, Xerox, Yahoo, AOL, Sears, IBM, GM, GE, etc.
> very little of the stock market is about the actual value of the company itself, but speculation
That's the hype cycle. We know which section of the graph we're on right now.
Eventually people will sell their stock to invest in some business that is actually growing or giving proportional dividends.
Of course, that "eventually" there is holding a way too much load. And it's very likely this won't happen in a time the US government is printing lots of money and distributing it to rich investors. But that second one has to stop eventually too.
It's a lot of people holding the stock, you are expecting everybody to just not do it.
Private companies are different, but on publicly traded ones it tends to happen.
(Oh, you may mean that printing money part. It's a lot of people holding that money, eventually somebody will want to buy something real with it and inflation explodes.)
Yeah the printing money bit. Generously one might even say that that’s the reason for printing more money: make sure that the value of peoples investments decays over time so there’s no need for the market to crash to “get the money back out”.
> This research was limited by its all-male, predominantly White sample and its reliance on self-reported data. Additionally, the quality of emotional support and its impacts on well-being were not assessed.
So: we don’t know if it’s just men, we don’t know if it’s true for all ethnicities or just white men, it’s a reduction from two to one, I don’t mean to be dismissive, but someone got funding for this?
More telling, "This study utilized a unique longitudinal dataset drawn from a sample of 235 men who were originally recruited as Harvard University students between 1939 and 1942."
So, the ones that commit suicide at the highest rate. But I agree, this is not a good study and little if any meaningful information comes from it. Perhaps its failure can bolster some actual research into the issue?
That's basically the critique that some weigh against huge swathes of psychology-adjacent research (among other domains), but is quite hard to overcome in practice, so money keeps flowing because its the established norm and because many people would rather have low-confidence pseudoscientific insights than no "scientific" insights at all.
As far as I can tell from the timeline, it only took 11 minutes from the moment the on-call first attempted the action until the ops team began responding.
Given that this issue was caused by someone unintentionally using a level of access that they had to do something they did not intend, and the minimal impact reduction, deciding not to grant higher levels of access to the on-call seems to me to be the right decision.
reply