Re: And meanwhile
Which suggests that there wasn't much of a business case.
12166 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Apr 2007
You don't seem to have read my post clearly: if you can reassign good people to different projects, then you should. If, however, you brought people on board for specific projects, which you have deciced no longer to pursue and can't find something suitable for the people, then termination is the thing to do. This has nothing whatsoever to do with management by spreadsheet or headcount models, which I agree, are generally very damaging over the long term.
We've got a "connected" water softener. I can confirm that it works fine without internet, but the data thus made available is quite interesting. I totally agree, however, that there is no need for the data to beamed to the internet just so that I can see how much water and salt we're using: a USB connection or Bluetooth would be more than suffiicent. As for costs: factor in an additional 10% pa. for maintenance! This makes it far more expensive than costs incurred by not having one and relying on device softeners and water filter for making tea, but we do enjoy the water and fewer fights with lime scale in the bathrooms!
A bigger bugbear is that the stacks of these devices are shit: I've yet to come across a device that will automatically reconnect if the connection is dropped: DHCP lease renewal, router restart, or just because it's Monday and if they can't get that right, I shudder to think about security.
While the numbers are important, they don't give a very good idea of the productivity of any particular individual or group of individuals. But, if you start at the top, executives including Mr Hohn, are almost always paid more than the value they can ever have contributed to the company. So, why isn't he calling for the executives to take pay cuts? If this is all he can offer, he can be replaced by a ChaGPT bot that has read a couple of Jack Welch books.
There are regular case studies that demonstrate that a headcount approach to management almost only ever brings short term benefits and usually leads to declines in the medium to long term. You have to pay compensation that is sufficient to attract, and keep, the talent you need to continue to perform. This is particularly true in tech where markets change quickly. For examples of how quickly, and how badly things can go wrong, he could do worse than look at fellow investor 3i. Darling of investors for years and now it has all gone to shit.
Google has a pretty impressive track record in paying its staff reasonably well, trying out new markets, and also not being afraid to ditch stuff that isn't working (Boston Dynamics, a long list of web-based products). The Alphabet structure also allows it to invest heavily in new areas at a discount to capital markets, whilst keeping its main business on its toes by breaking out the numbers. Can't always says this of the competition that loves to roll underperforming pet projects in with cash cow departments.
It's not about the other advertisers which have essentially the same structure, but the customers who have effectively no choice of provider for whichever network they choose. Even if big tech hasn't explicit agreed on this kind of market carve up (definition of a cartel), the effects for customers are the same.
Vertically integrated companies are almost always anti-competitive: they integrate precisely to provide customers with less choice.
Whoever comes up with a real Orgamastron™ can expect to make a lot of money. Otherwise markets are limited: consumers want to be able to plan their fashion, interior design, etc. and can already do this with existing software. Industry can use AR for remote work in dangerous or difficult to access places: inside power stations; remote installations. Proper remote consultations (phone ones are a joke) and even operations will become possible as sensors improve. But none of this is ever going to be big enough for the kind of network effects and monopolies that big tech love. Instead, the opportunities are there for those with the specialised knowledge of the various sectors and Google may have an advantage here because this is how it's built its AI business: call centers, drug research, etc. But, as this is also what IBM was hoping to do with Watson, it's possible that Google too will run out of road.
No, I don't sign cards for people who I can say something to personally.
I love sending birthday, greetings and post cards to people I don't see regularly but otherwise restrict them to very special occasions. Make it personal or special or don't bother.
Add to this the sense of camerarderie that is fostered by sharing and communal dining (yes, this is measurable) and that includes people who don't particularly like cake like me. That's less cortisoid and other inflammatory hormones for the price of some calories, which can easily be burnt off by an extra few minutes walking,
But this shouldn't be about cake but about general eating habits: the sheer volume of ready meals in supermarkets is proof of this. Making simple and reasonably healthy meals isn't that hard but too many people have either never learnt or have forgotten.
OS/2's excellent support for subsystems was eventually part of its problem: companies didn't need to bother writing native code and thus becoming invested in its success. The APIs were better, hardware support was fantastic (including driver virtualisation) but it was hobbled for many by the WPS locking up so easily. This felt like the OS had crashed and, unless you knew that it hadn't and how to close and restart the WPS, it was to all intents. But for decades airports and banks ran on OS/2 because it never crashed and provided fantastic support for all their mainframe systems.
In the meantime Microsoft continued to make Windows more acceptable and eventually even better. Though, even today, there are things that OS/2 could do that Windows still can't without running virtual machines.
And any good IT student could do worse than take a peek at OS/2, especially the internals to understand that there are ways of making better mousetraps.
While this was promotional, it didn't come with such provisos and disclaimers. Any student of US tort law will know that the "man on the Clapham omnibus" defence is no use whatsoever. And, because damages can be unlimited (depends on the state), lawyers are normally all over such releases before they happen.
Tesla's image will be tarnished forever. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Regulation is fine, but until customers start voting with their wallets there's unlikely to be much change in the market. Autonomous data centres should be at an advantage because their insulated from price swings in the electricity market. They also free up capacity from power networks under increasing strain due to charging electric vehicles.
You can see how this is going to favour the big players even more as they have the capital to build large, off-grid data centres in remote locations. But this is only going to increase the demand for high density units.
I'd argue that the health and safety of somebody working from home is the employee's responsibility.
You can argue that, but it many cases it's most definitely the employer's legal responsibility. This is why, in many countries, any "mandates" to work from home we couched as "offers to employees where possible" to avoid transferring liability to the state. Any company that processes data for other companies will also be contractually obliged to ensure that data accessed remotely is secure. Such contracts usually include the right for onsight inspections…
For tax purposes, a worker may need to be treated as an employee, but for H&S they might need to be treated as an independent contractor providing their own work area.
I'm sure a lot of companies would love to be able to do this but I can't see the courts agreeing as recent verdicts over Uber, et al. suggest.
I suspect his employment contract gives the normal level of complete control to the employer: WfH is at their discretion unless (in this case state or federal law stipulate otherwise). American employment contracts frequently include clauses (non-compete, attire, ban on smoking, etc.) that would be considerous onerous in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, recent Supreme Court decisions have strengthened the hand of religious employers over things like paying for contraception.
Companies who let employees work remotely must ensure that the necessary data security and personal safety regulations can be complied with in their chosen location. That might not be relevant here but shouldn't be dismissed as employers have a duty of care towards their employers.
But Uinx™ was always open source: it was essentially unusable otherwise. This, together with generous ARPA grants, effectively kickstarted both the internet and the whole idea of software, ie. code that could be distributed independent of hardware. Who knows, historians may at some point come to view proprietary software as an anomaly.
All thermostats have a frost-free mode that should mean the pipes never freeze.
I do have programmable thermostats, though these are not "connected". In most rooms, most of the time you either want the same kind of programme or have them at a minimal temperature. When we go on holiday the heating goes to night mode.
The risks of anything kind of home device that is connected to the internet generally far outweigh their benefits.
I hope it's a cold day in hell before that ever happens! Presumbaly, the BOFH and PFY no longer go to the pub for their offsite brainstorming sessions but to a "sports bar".
Fair enough if you think it's necessary to normalise the spelling to EN_US but the BOFH is clearly located in the UK copy editors would do well to respect this.
Tariffs based on bandwidth rather than volume are standard because they better reflect the costs incurred for the services provided: the max volume for specified bandwidth for a period of time is also easily calculated.
But the main reason that the internet remains open is that interconnect agreements generally forbid preferential charging: a packet is a packet, whether it's carrying video or e-mail. The interconnects are also where any adjustments should be made. This can and should be done without any kind of political interference. It would be a big mistake to threaten this just to make it easier for the telcos to provide similar services: vertical integration never favours the customer.
As others have noted: the servers require electricity to run; electricity is generally considered to be the most expensive way to generate heat. Furthermore, boilers are on the way out as a way of heating buildings with heat pumps acting as inverse air conditioners to extract warmth from the environment. I suppose you could do that here but it would be the equivalent of driving one with a hair dryer.
But, as a business proposition, there is also a glaring risk over the data security and server reliability. Can't imagine any corporate lawyer or security team signing off on this.
No, far better to connect data centres to district heating (and perhaps cooling) systems and take advantage of scale.
But, given all the problems, does it surprise us that this gets UK government funding?
Actually, as this is the monopolies commission intervening concerned about the use of personal data to gain an unfair advantage in the market. Some of the DMA is pure protectionism but this is a very reasonable approach: in some situations (eg. holiday booking) the data slurpers may be considered to have the kind of advantage that some market makers have on the stockmarket.
We're currently suffering with Teams, some Surface Hubs and on-premise Exchange: Microsoft really does not want to do this and is using Teams to force incompatabilities. Expect more Azure / Office 365 lock-in "goodies" down the road. :-/
It's not popular to say so but Google's work on WebRTC has, at least in theory, made conferencing apps interoperable. Or at the very least things that can be purely browser-based.
The Chinese don't seem to have got the hang of capitalism yet
What a fatuous remark! They understand capitalism probably better than most Americans, which should be obvious from the growth of the economy over the last 40 years.
This is why, having realised they've been sold a turkey, they're so annoyed. They were promised that they were getting a scarce, luxury product but it turns out the warehouses are full of unsold vehicles. They have form here as with some of their actions in the housing and investment market illustrate. Almost invariably companies, not least due to pressure, offer to make good.
Yes, I know the history of MCA. Fact remains that, in the early eighties, it was a significant improvement over the ISA.
I guess one of the lessons of the battles back then has been the rise of industry bodies that work on these standards, with perhaps surprisingly, GSMA leading the way in demonstrating that cooperation in standards with even the fiercest of competitors make sense over the long term.
The VESA-LB vs PCI fight was one of the many "standard" fights that, while they encouraged competition, also held things back. VESA-LB was a horrible kludge but it forced Intel to work on PCI but really the problem was the industry sticking with ISA when it was known to be no longer suitable. If only IBM had been prepared to license MCA at a reasonable price in the early 1980s…