Re: I thought AI could detect
I thought ducks waddled
Something that walks like a duck probably isn't
353 posts • joined 13 Sep 2011
A modern corporaton has no ethics - neither did non-modern corporations
The people who work there do (or should do).
This is complicated (not really)
An $evil outcome is very easily achieved by a chain of people just doing their jobs in a putatively non-$evil way
You are a major shareholder in $corp - aka a fund manager
You see your $corp shares have not done as well as $close_competitor
You looking in the accounts and see that the cost / income ratio is different
You like your well-paid job. Your fund is under-performing
You call the management of $corp and say 'make more money' - 'cut costs'
You run or work in $corp at a high level.
Your shareholders have called you and said 'make more money' - 'cut costs'
You see £close_competitor and one of your minions tells you they make more money because their staff cost less.
You do not want to lose your job - or get taken over - or look stupid in front of peers
You issue an order "cut staff costs"
You work in a corp at a middle level.
You get an order "cut staff costs"
You have a spreadsheet that says getting rid some higher-paid people will reduce costs more and have less disruption on BAU.
You talk to lawyers who develop redundancy plans and schemes for redeployment that 'should' (no guarantees) be within the law
You issue an order "cut staff costs - these people"
You work in a corp at a middle level.
You get an order "staff reduction - these people"
You work through the process
Colin / Cathy $older_person after a gender / race / etc independant process loses their job.
I would - inside a 'just joking' clause suggest a "Corporate Morality Officer" who should be spotting this and taking responsibility for it.
But I bet there is such a thing out there already - probably in the BBC.
I Think it is a bit more interesting than that.
Tesla's 'autopilot' is probably quite a reasonable driver. Possibly average.
The thing is that it is not perfect.
So, when it goes wrong and something bad happens, who is at fault?
The answer on the face of it is pretty clear - the _human_ driver.
Where it gets interesting is when the victims of the collision claim that the accident happened because the car is 'defective' and but for the defective Autopilot, that man would be alive.
Tesla's lawyers have a narrow path to follow. They need to show that
- the software did not fail to stop
- the _human_ driver was in control
Do not worry.
Due to amazon's relentless competitive skills, in a few years time you will either be working for amazon or a place just like it.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
But brought up to early 21st century standards where no one person is stamping, just a lot of people making up rules and following them, who all think they are doing the right thing.
(which, on reflection, was one of the points of the book)
Comment is relevant to the UK
I do not have access to insider information, but am forced to sit through the online course every year.
If the information is available to the public, it is not insider trading and IANAL.
So, if that carpark was visible to the public, and it was possible for the public to see the number plates, probably not insider trading in the uk.
The example we get is
(a)Factory on fire that you can see from the train - public information
(b)You pick up a document from the next seat that says P&C all over it and read it and it says 'oops our top secret factory has burnt down and no-one knows' - not public information.
Please remember: I am not a lawyer.
I worked with an analyst who worked on that project.
He was sort of sad to see it complete as he was working on a large base west of london and if the officers wanted to discuss something they would get up, and take their dog for a walk to the other person's office.
He said the dogs were sad and real productivity fell.
Being forced to work with MS teams (say the name three times holding an image of the person you hate in your mind and an outlook reminder will pop up on their screen and remove any useful thought from their mind) things have not improved.
Client grants us remote access to support our app via AWS.
No drive access of any sort outside the app sandbox (i.e. files cannot be copied local pc<>aws)
Print to local machines switched on, but will probably be gone soon.
The are looking into forcing fullscreen on all the time which makes it v. hard to get a screenshot.
That portable home drive is not a use case, that is a legal case against the employer.
Peter Holgate: - "my opinions are given on the basis of the facts I have been instructed to assume"
i.e. I was given facts that made Lynch look guilty, instructed to instructed to assume them and in my expert opinion, he looks guilty
Does HPE think anyone is fooled?
I so look forward to the judge's comments on this.
My dad told me a story:
Leo was used to do all the payslips for Lyons.
After much grief, just on the deadline it worked and printed a few thousand payslips.
Someone had loaded the wrong paper - non-perforated A(something or other) pages
This was where my dad was called in.
After a bit of thinking they clamped the paper in a block between 2 sheets of ply, sellotaped a blank perforated page on top and sawed down the dotted lines.
Puts debugging in it's place.
To be completely safe from fiduciary trust attacks HPE need to show not that Autonomy & KPMG were asked for relevant numbers and they didnt provide / said they couldnt in the timescale
but something rather stronger
They need to show $other_party lied to HPE.
I think this is the core driver for the case here. We thought this court case was expensive - wait for the US shareholder suits.
Not looking too good for HPE right now.
Something called ZANTAZ - an HP Autonomy offering - was inflicted on us a few years ago with $previous_employer
"ZANTAZ Enterprise Archive Solution (EAS) is a highly scalable and flexible archiving platform that enables your organization to capture and preserve email messages, attachments, and files in a way that both optimizes storage and allows immediate access for discovery and review by courts, regulators, administrators, and end-users. Powered by IDOL, EAS automates the processing of enormous volumes of information, dynamically exposing the patterns, linkages and meaning within."
The effect - typically speaking - was that when outlook was not frozen, it ran like a dog. It forcibly archived anything over a couple of months old and the attachments often got lost.
When you tried to restore, it seems the special references often went missing
When they stopped using it, _all_that_data_was_gone_
Fortunately I worked out how to switch it off v. quickly.
With the benefit of hindsight, why there was an exe on my laptop at all completely escapes me.
They say that you had buyer's remorse and Hewlett-Packard, in the light of that remorse, scratched around for reasons to justify its rather immediate writing-off of a large part of the purchase price. That's what they say. You say they're wrong about that and they say they're right about that.
To which I would add:- No-one forced HP to vastly over-pay for Autonomy, from an earlier post
Courtesy FT Alphaville 11/09/19:
We’ll leave you with this, a quote from Sun Microsystem’s founder Scott McNealy. Having watched the stock of his company appreciate nearly 14-fold during the dotcom bubble, and then collapse 95% during the bust, McNealy was bemused that investors ever considered paying what now looks like a rather diminutive 10 times sales for the computer hardware company’s stock at its peak in 2000.
Why? This is what he told Businessweek in 2002:
At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realise how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes. What were you thinking?
10 times sales…
… that made me think
Autonomy was sold for $12bn 18/8/11 and revenue to the end of the last FY – 31/12/10 was $870m
That is a ratio of *13.8* times revenue.
And I expect this lawsuit to be a massive waste of money too.
Two minicab firms.
One has a brand new fleet all of the same type - and they are maintained by the main dealer.
The other has a fleet fill of the sort of cars that should have been 'retired' 5 years ago, and yes, sometimes some cars break down and they are then fixed - not always perfectly, admittedly.
Fast forward 10 years
One of those minicab firms will know what to do should a key supplier fails.
Comparing phones to fashion brands is a valid thing to do.
Consider Lacoste or French connection or any number of brands that became popular through clever marketing, overexpanded - over diluting their (upmarket) identity, or just fell of the wave they rode.
Apple has the store that reduces the defection rate, but, that wont help.
However I do not see teenagers choosing Android because their parents have iphones.
So this might be just a blip.
Perhaps is is more proportional to the number of people visiting the other country.
Looking around, in 2018
3.8m visitors - tourists - from USA to UK
3.47m visitors - tourists - from UK to USA
so, all things being equal I would expect roughly equal numbers of extradition requests.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020