Posts by Doctor Syntax 42414 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
A few days ago I mentioned installing S/W in a factory. I was told before flying out that I would need a white coat - no problem, I had an old lab coat somewhere - & metal toe-capped shoes. A pair of suitable Doc Martens were obtained for the latter. They did sterling service as gardening shoes until comparatively recently but were invariable referred to as the ice-cream factory shoes.
"extraction from this particular mire is non-trivial"
1. Boeing prepare, at their own cost, a second capsule to standards in which two senior Boeing bigwigs, say chairman & head of space division are prepared to travel.
2. Second capsule is sent up crewed by the bigwigs "as a safety demonstration".
3. On arrival bigwigs are told it's the original crew members who get to go back on the second capsule. They can either go in the original or have Boeing prepare and launch a third at their own cost to get them back. Or just hang on for a free trip to the South Pacific.
4. Boeing treat it as a learning opportunity about the true savings of cutting corners versus getting it right first time.
I had a contract to write some custom reporting S/W for the vendor of a process control system to be installed on-site. My client as in Crawley but the site was near Naples. The S/W was completed ahead of time and the installation was quick as well. However, running the reports kept resulting in system crashes and files containing what appeared to be segments of memory appearing in /lost+found. I couldn't get away until they had a clear run. Not only was I running short of Lira, on the Thursday I got a call from an agency to visit a prospective client on Monday with a view to starting a new contract on Tuesday. Fortunately we had a clear run on the Friday and I got out PDQ except that storms at Gatwick, where my car was, meant an unscheduled stop to hang about in Paris CDG and a diversion to LHR.
I heard afterwards that it was a faulty memory module; presumably the extra code tipped the system into using enough extra memory to reach that module - either that or they'd had previous problems they were keeping quiet about.
If they're solely relying on the T&Cs Disney would appear to be accepting that they're in the loop.
It may, of course, be that the report is incomplete and the lawyers are arguing that (a) it's the site tenant who's solely responsible and (b) if we, Disney, are then he agreed to our T&Cs.
If there isn't one it would be up to the court to decide. It would very likely be presented with evidence on the matter by expert witnesses. Possibly the judge might make a ruling or at least offer guidance to the jury. Alternatively the jury would be asked to decide if, by allergen-free, a reasonable person might assume that they would not suffer a potentially lethal allergic reaction on eating the comestible in question.
That's the way criminal law establishes such things. It enables the law to keep up with developments which may not have been known or taken as worthy of consideration when the relevant statutes were drawn up, at least in English law and in those jurisdictions that are derived from it.
I wouldn't be surprised if, after the amount this is going to cost them, they will shortly be "accepting her resignation" too.
I wouldn't rule out the latter part of your statement, given rule by Musk, but not for that reason. The entire hardcore idea was Musk's. All she's done is give evidence following based on Musk's diktat.
"It has bolstered the software and securities operations via acquisition."
I wonder if manglement realise that the major part of the assets they're gaining like that are people and their knowledge. By the time they've hollowed out those companies staffs they'll be back to square one with innovation taking place elsewhere.
It will probably manage with just the abstract and possibly the discussion. Nature will (or used to, it's a long time since I worked in an organisation that took it) provide a puff-piece of its own for whatever might seem important in the current issue so there's allso be that to digest. So the annoying thing is that the AI will probably have sufficient material to provide its own pastiche.
As I keep saying, make the calls chargeable against the telco who would be entitled to pass it on to the caller plus a handling charge. Policing it all, including the phoenix company stuff, then becomes a credit control issue for the telcos - and an incentive for them to clean up their customer base. The prospect of having to do that would almost certainly enable them to suddenly discover that can deal with the problem without requiring any such legislation.
"shed thousands of staff, deals with the fallout of faulty Raptor Lake products, and works to deliver a new wave of manufacturing processes and products"
The first of those is going to make the rest of them more difficult because they all need people. So maybe it's raising money to buy another business with the products it needs.
Just as likely is an impersonation of some senior member of staff telling some junior member to transfer money because of some big deal. There was a report somewhere (not, I think, here) of Ferrari dodging an extremely good fake at very high level (boss to one step down) because he said he'd have to verify, what was the book they'd been discussing the other day? I think that was improvised but it does need to be laid down that very firmly and from the very top that any instruction to transfer large amounts of money outside of standard business procedures need to be verified by some back channel if the instruction is not given face to face, no matter how senior the "instructor" is and how junior the instructee. And that "because I say so" should never be accepted as verification.
