Re: Psychographics
Psychobabble.
40413 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
There's a variety of manglement (usually most of them) who can't grasp the difference between a demo that only just works and a product that just works. Always build in a few crashes or at least gaps in the demo so you can say "That's because we can't implement it properly in $DemoVehicle. It'll be OK when we write it properly in $TargetVehicle".
a live DJ "hosted" the on-hold experience
There's always something somewhere out to make on-hold worse. Usually it's recorded messages telling you that you can use the web-site whose failings drove you to try to phone in. But a DJ person with verbal diarrhoea would take some beating.
Raspbian - Debian derivative for the Rapberry Pis. The Pi, the product of a UK company, yes?
Debian, keyboard set to UK, no problem with £ at command line, never has been as long as I can remember.
Raspbian, GUI application such as KWrite, LO etc. no problem with £.
Raspbian command line, keyboard set to UK - doesn't like £ at the command line or programs such as vi run from the command line at all. To be fair, it's some time since i had occasion to set one up so it might have been fixed in later versions.
Let's remember here that the users are (hopefully) using the stored emails to conduct the business the company exists to conduct. They should be enabled to store and find the documents they need effectively.
In the past big filing systems would have all sorts of weird codlings so that the discussion about production problems of the gimball-bracket spacers for Acme-co's MarkII version 2 widget, 1983 model was DDDLK/X23X/9782/3 so that if you knew that you could go straight to it and if you didn't know that you were in trouble.
Shouldn't it be possible to provide users with something better? Perhaps knowing a folder name, even a hierarchical folder name isn't the answer. Maybe it is the answer. But shouldn't it be IT's job to do something radical such as find out what the requirements are, what the constraints are and devise something that works?
"Did you know there's a maximum subfolder limit in a Microsoft Exchange mailbox?"
Once upon a time business communication was largely by bits of paper. Big companies received lots of bits of paper. They filed them in folders. They files the folders in filing cabinets.
If they needed more folders they bought more folders.
If they needed more filing cabinets they ... well, it depends: they might take the view that only really important stuff older than X years needed to be kept and the rest was dumped; they might take the view that it was important to keep old stuff but access time wasn't important so it could be bundled up and stored in some cheap, off-site location; they might just buy more filing cabinets. Whatever the choice extreme storage was a matter of company policy.
Now we have allegedly wonderful electronic systems replacing the paper. It takes less room. It should enable companies to manage mail more efficiently than it did in the days of paper and what happens? Storage is limited by vendor decisions and individual users are setting their own storage policies because companies (perhaps rightly, based on expectations of better faculties) don't.
"The last thing I want is to try to reach someone who then has to have an account with some service"
How do you envisage finding that someone if they don't have an account with some service? They, and, come to that, you, would need to have a unique ID. Who manages IDs in order to ensure uniqueness? You then need the system to be able to contact them. How do you manage that without using some form of service mapping the ID to some communications address?
Example: "I want it to be as easy as group chats or group calls on my phone"
The telecoms companies provide the ID, and map ID to the handset and locate the handset in the mobile network.
"Back in the day, so many replacement parts for various elements of CP/M were published that it was possible to build a complete OS without using any Digital Research code."
We had a system using cards from SC somputers (IIRC). They provided SDOS. What, if any, significant differences existed between that & CP/M I never discovered.
"After all, the entire Web2 ecosystem is built on advertising revenue that's tied to a particular user model -- if that turns out to be fallacious then the entire Web ecosystem could come crashing down (it only exists because people believe in it -- if we stop believing....)"
There's a whole lot more about the advertising lark that depends on people - to be specific, the advertisers who buy advertising services - believing in it. Remember, the advertising industry only sells one thing: advertising.
It would depend on what you mean by subscription. If you pay a one-off price to buy something which is then dependent on a server somewhere it's almost certainly a Ponzi scheme unless the price contains a sum which can actually be invested in something that pays returns to keep the service going - an unlikely situation.
If, however, the subscription is an ongoing payment by you for the service then it's a somewhat better chance if there are enough subscribers to make it worth someone's while to keep the service running.
"For those people who did buy the extended warranty, what happens when they phone up in a couple of years to say it has stopped working?"
A very good question. The answer's probably buried deep in the T&Cs of the extended "warranty" denying all responsibility for failure of the vendor to supply the service. If they missed that trick and have to make good on all these warranties there's going to be business available for lawyers.
"ignoring, for the time being, that a 2nd disk failed after the fact, during the array rebuild and is not pertinent to the initial server death"
Not one of the downvoters but AFAICS the above statement is the problem. As I read the whole story there was no initial server death. It was the failure of the 2nd disk that was labelled as the death of the server.
Make sure you have old steel for the reinforcing rods. The Belfast C14 dating lab had the counter in a pit with a few concrete paving slabs (no reinforcing rods at all) sitting on top of old steel plates. Back then we had a shipyard just down the road so sourcing that from breakers was quite feasible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
Who do you think "they" are?
The word "company" in business terms means the company of shareholders. Musk wasn't offering to buy them, he was offering to buy their shares. The reason they want him to go through with it is that they would then realise a good profit on their investment. Onve he's bought their shares they have no further interest in what he does.
"This is not an IT or tech issue, but a financial regulation issue."
But most of the points you then make are technical.
The point others have made that you ignore is that he waived due diligence so why is he making a fuss now other than to wriggle out of a bargain that he didn't just enter freely but insisted upon?
This isn't going to be like HP/Autonomy waived due diligence. In that case it was a US coumapny in US courts vs non-US and even then HP had to swallow their losses. This is one US company in US courts vs another.