> We determined that the rollout of a fix for an older bug report pertaining to Slackbot responses not working in org-wide or multi-workspace channels, was the root cause.
I'm not trying to be paranoid here but I work for a very large company. We got slackbot responses that looked a lot like phishing URLs. We got slackbot responses with broken english, and emojis we never use. I find it very hard to believe that this wasn't a security incident.
You did the correct thing. The PIP is to cover their butt that you really were a bad employee and you were not wrongfully terminated. The laws vary wildly state-to-state but generally if you're PIP'ed out you can't claim unemployment or wrongful termination.
> Good employees? It's literally gaslighting people. One day they're pulled aside and told they're not performing well enough and given a PIP. The PIP usually isn't designed to help them get performance up - it's creating a paper trail to manage them out.
Exactly this. The PIP process also protects the company from wrongful termination suits and oftentimes serves as evidence against paying out unemployment claims. Rightly or wrongly applied, telling employees that they're underperforming solely serves as creating a papertrail to push someone out.
> So the employer has a financial inventive program to encourage people to stay in the organization long term
That's not correct. The financial incentive program of vesting is designed to keep the cost of actually paying people down, plain and simple. If you're interviewing, I would encourage you to pretend the stock compensation doesn't exist. I've had offers of $60k actual cash with $300k stock with a five year cliff and my next question is always "what's the average tenure here?" If they look uncomfortable, I know they know it's a golden poison pill.
Consider the fact that Amazon, for instance, won't let you pay for EC2 instances in stock options at your company. They darn well know what they're doing.
Do you mean a five year vesting schedule or a five year cliff before you start vesting. The former is...bad, but I don't think I've seen the latter. That's just...no, absolutely not.
The mechanism I'm trying to describe is when employers pay a base in X dollars and stock in Y dollars which takes Z years to mature. AWS sounds like they're being somewhat reasonable about it by giving an employee cash before their options mature, but I have interviewed at places (Envestnet in New York City) where I was offered a base comp which was meh and then options which were gonzo. The offer, if I remember correctly, was $105k/y base and then $100k/y in stock which took three years to vest. I passed on the offer because $105k/y in NYC was cutting it too close for me. They did not have a "cash float" mechanism.
Everyone seems to be fixated on the idea that the API should be free and no-one seems to be mentioning that there's some very successful business models built around charging people access to content which the parent company didn't generate. LexisNexis, for legal searches, Elsevier for scientific papers, Facebook, for random graph searches (and occasional political data scraping), Twitter, etc.
It feels scummy to me too to take something free and charge people for it, but it's also not this unique thing people seem to be screaming about. Just go somewhere else if the API is that important to you. (Like hackernews). :)
LexisNexis does not just "charge people access to content which the parent company didn't generate". I could access most legislation through the government legislation website that shows the current version of every piece of legislation. I could piece together legislative history by looking through all the various amendments over the years compared to the originally enacted Acts. OR, I could look at LexisNexis, who have done all that work already and also have notes for pretty much every provision linking all that data together with academic and judicial commentary, major cases on those provisions, etc.
Similarly, I can look up unreported senior courts cases on the 'Judicial Decisions Online' section of the courts of New Zealand website, for free. But what about the notes written by experienced barristers in the law reports? What about the database cataloguing every judgment that has referred to every other judgment, giving an indication of whether the judgment is still good law?
It seems very popular these days to crap on businesses like LexisNexis and it does sometimes feel like they're taking the mickey given their prices and the terrible web interface to their databases. The fact you can't even 'open in new tab' properly is infuriating. But they're not just selling access to something that ought to be free, as many people seem to like to claim. They provide a lot more than just the raw judgments and statutes.
I don't really understand this myself. Language is either comprised of loan-words, which are words which follow another language's rules, or it has its own rules for composing words. I tried a bunch of reloads and got plausible words, mostly following latin and greek word roots with some extra decorators. Lots of un- and -ers. Simply because the word isn't popular enough to be in a dictionary doesn't mean the word doesn't exist - if the word follows generally accepted rules of composition then the word surely does exist and it's easily grasped by someone who understands that language. This is why, for instance, John Dee, Shakespeare, etc "made up" words which were well understood.
I had fun, but I doubt the claim that "this word does not exist". :)
And since we are now discussing it... okay? Sounds like a self-fulfilling condition to me, so how useful, or effectful, is it to make that kind of statement?
I'm with the OP, "the word does not exist" is rather meaningless. The dictionary follows the people, not the other way around, and as soon as we are discussing some word... yeah. This comes down to discussing definitions, and I have a good summary for that: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-... -- like "When can it be said that a certain word exists?" One person says as soon as they speak or write or read it, another one insist at least x% of the speakers of the language need to be aware of it and its meaning, etc. etc.
The problem is our arbitrary concepts, not rooted in physics for example, are especially useless near their edges, where they are not commonly used. That's where you end up with discussions about definitions, and you find out people actually only agree on some core of some concepts, the one actually in use, and when they reach new less visited meanings it becomes a free-for-all. That's also why religion is better off vague, as soon as they want to be as specific as possible the (unsolvable) arguments start flying and the unity provided earlier by what was a common idea is now gone.
On the other hand, such kinds of diffuse questions are sure to attract discussions. You don't need to know anything, everybody with an opinion can participate, and nobody can be proven wrong.
US law does not apply to foreign nationals residing in a foreign country. Russia is ruthlessly murdering their neighbors and has indicated that they are at war with the collective west. Russia has a long history of cyber espionage against the US and is actively engaged in Internet warfare. This is an entirely reasonable precaution by Microsoft. It's a sad moment.
> US law does not apply to foreign nationals residing in a foreign country.
I don't think parent meant it in the context of US Law, but more as a general statement, is it a reasonable precaution by MS to ban X solely on the actions of their government?
Although the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental principle of US law and an essential part of our ideology, it is not a universal moral truth. In my opinion, it is justifiable and suitable to prohibit X from having access to sensitive infrastructure based solely on the actions of their government, especially when X is subject to the decisions of that government.
> is it a reasonable precaution by MS to ban X solely on the actions of their government?
One could argue it's discriminatory; they banned him because he's Russian.
...which is the problem with this rhetoric.
Russia and China are known to entice or coerce otherwise-innocuous civilians into acts of espionage. Their foreign policies explicitly exploit our presumptions of innocence, inclusivity and trust. Pre-emptive banning to avoid another SolarWinds is more than reasonable precaution; it's something that should have been done years ago.
But in the meantime, by our own policies we're obligated to allow foxes into the henhouse. We're shamed for discriminating against foxes if we turn them away, and shamed again for asking questions about how the Great Chicken Massacre of 2023 was allowed to happen. Chaos engineering at its finest.
Entertaining analogy! I agree with your point, but we are not obligated by policy to allow foxes into the henhouse, rather we are obligated by our social norms.
Maybe not. Microsoft stands to gain by crippling the most popular FOSS BMC tool. They would rather everyone have to use Windows-centric proprietary alternatives.
yes, clearly they've crippled it... they're still hosting it and allowing people to fork and clone the repo.
US export and import restrictions must be followed by companies who operate in the US. GitHub is one of those companies, and the developer in question is associated with a newly restricted company, so GitHub must cease allowing that company to operate on its infrastructure.
