261–270 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes me wonder if a confidentiality agreement should ever include sharing that information with the government? Maybe NDAs from publicly traded companies should always exempt sharing with elected officials?
Speech and debate clause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're changing instances of whitelist and blacklist to "allowlist" and "blocklist" similar to the conversion of master and slave to "primary" and "replica". Edit: it's interesting that I'm being downvoted. What a weird world this is.
It really isn't interesting at all. It's actually quite banal at this point. I suppose you're one of the types that thinks that the word "blackboard" is racist too. People like you make the internet experience and life in general an absolute ball-ache to be a part of. Seeing a racial issue in words like "blacklist" and "blackboard" is like seeing an issue of decency in a woman breastfeeding, the commonality being tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's plenty of similar cases in IT. Some people find Master/Slave offensive - though I personally believe this is a 'looking for problems'-kind of thing.
Yeah, we'd have to go through all sorts of books and documents on mechanics and electronics to whiteout (Doh! doing it again!!!) reference to those terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, we'd have to go through all sorts of books and documents on mechanics and electronics to whiteout (Doh! doing it again!!!) reference to those terms.
whiteout is an interesting one though, I personally would have written blackout
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can understand it's highly unusual. I don't have an absolute fear or no fear of doing business in the UK, it just ups my "riskometer" I mentioned. Surely it is clear that a vindictive government raiding a visitor and publishing confidential business documents should give one pause about the government's ideals? And I think we can make judgements about how decisions are reached instead of assuming that the exact ste…
> vindictive government raiding What? OP literally just described how skipping a request for info is comparable to skipping a court summons in the US. If you skip a court summons 4 times, the government comes after you. How is this situation different? > publishing This certainly does raise questions. > government's ideals Investigating companies who might be implicit in crimes? (Gov is investigatng fake news, most o…
They didn't come after Facebook to obtain the documents. They went after someone who was suing Facebook and who was visiting England, and threatened him with jail unless he stole Facebook documents for them (which he had restricted access to as part of the discovery processes of his lawsuit against Facebook).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you force a split when one part (Whatsapp) may not have enough revenue to sustain itself?
I can't answer your question but i think you should be more specific. Your phrasing obviously comes with the interpretation that if a split-up would bankrupt a part, it shouldn't be done. Why should this be taken into consideration? Secondly. It has value. A different party could invest and keep it going. Why is it important that it sustains itself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WRT doing business in the UK. You need to understand that this is a highly unusual situation. Part of the UK Parliamentary system is that there are "Select Committees"on MPs, whose job is to review and hold to account the performance of government bodies and departments. They may also review areas of national interest within their remit, and invite witnesses to give evidence to them. For example, there have been sign…
> an invitation from a select committee to give evidence has the same sort of weight as a court summons to give evidence It doesn't! As you say yourself, one is a summons, the other is nothing more than an invitation to attend.
"any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence"
The government itself was found in contempt of Parliament over Brexit just this week. As the linked article notes, applies just as much to refusing to appear before a Parliamentary committee.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/houses/commons/news/100...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really interesting stuff in there. > Facebook email 24 January 2013 > Justin Osofsky – ‘Twitter launched Vine today which lets you shoot multiple short video segments to make one single, 6-second video. As part of their NUX, you can find friends via FB. Unless anyone raises objections, we will shut down their friends API access today. We’ve prepared reactive PR, and I will let Jana know our decision. > MZ – ‘Yup, go…
Nothing says evil more than preparing reactive PR to bury your competitors. And the nonchalant way his response sends chills down my spine. These people will suffocate innovation just to win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I do work at Facebook. I'm not going to get into some protracted argument about whether that makes me a bad person, or already was, but I'd like to give you something to think about. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we can neatly divide tech workers into good and bad. Likewise for companies. All categories are non-empty, and certain to remain so. What's the optimal assignment of workers to companies? Is…
I think it's going to boil down to whether a good person going to work at a bad company is actively working to change it for the better. In my experience, people who do this don't tend to last long. If there are people who've found a good strategy for changing companies for the better without being exceptionally senior, i'd love to hear about it.