I used to provide feedback but often got candidates who were argumentative about it rather that accepting that the decision was final. This turned me off on the whole concept.
All of their actions point at intentionally wanting that data to disappear, they even suggested turning it on and updating it, which everyone who's ever tried to protect important information on a computer knows is that exact opposite to what you should do.
Any competent engineer who puts more than 3 seconds of thought into the design of that system would conclude that crash data is critical evidence and as many steps as possible should be taken to ensure it's retained with additional fail safes.
I refuse to believe Tesla's engineers aren't at least competent, so this must have been done intentionally.
The requirements should have been clear that crash data isn't just "implement telemetry upload", a "collision snapshot" is quite clearly something that could be used as evidence in a potentially serious incident.
Unless your entire engineering process was geared towards collecting as much data that can help you, and as little data as can be used against you, you'd handle this like the crown jewels.
Also, to nit-pick, the article says the automated response "marked" for deletion, which means it's not automatically deleted as your reductive example which doesn't verify it was successfully uploaded (at least && the last rm).
One of my favorite experiences was that as an intern I shipped what I thought was a useful tool. When I came back full time a year later it had spread and was pretty popular among a subset of the company!
> Perhaps a more reasonable goal would be to hire proportionally within US at rates roughly aligning to CS degrees by demographic.
This doesn’t quite do it because of the systemic reasons that CS grads are not representative of the US population at large. So, the goal should really be to hire proportionally within US roughly aligning to the overall demographics of the US population.
Sure. In short I think in a simpler world we might expect all genders, races, and backgrounds to equally participate in all fields but in practice I don't think that needs to be our first goal (and maybe not ever depending on what the research shows).
For example, a lot of people think it's sexist to suggest some groups might prefer coding more, and I think they're coming from a good place with that. However scientists don't dispute that autism rates in boys are significantly higher than girls, for example, and though I haven't seen any formal research it's my impression that about half of professional software engineers fall somewhere on the spectrum (guy or girl).
So personally, I'd want to understand this huge correlation between autism and software engineering (and potentially between gender and autism) before I judged the problem primarily societal.
If we're being honest with ourselves I also think certain cultures have their own respective norms. This isn't really a hot take -- e.g. some cultures value machismo more than others. Different cultures can also value money and saving differently. I haven't looked deeply, but a cursory glance suggests some minorities are even overrepresented in software.
If differing cultures is a big player in differing interest in software careers then I see it as not-our-place to try to try to alter those values.
And I'd even go a step further and say that I've grown skeptical of both sides' motivations as simplistic and tribal. I haven't thought that deeply about this topic (e.g. never read an encyclopedia article), but I get the sense that many people who have much stronger opinions have thought about it even less than I have, and have put less effort into making a logically consistent views on the topic. Often I worry overzealous advocates give a bad image to the cause (as they do for pretty much any group).
She can just be a bad person, but my sense from scanning the comments is that a bad person artificially propped up by a social framework is worse because in theory it made it easier for the bad person to achieve a position of power where otherwise it’s less likely they would have achieved such a position. At least that’s my take on what people are arguing without diving in too deeply.
But what of her past indicates she's propped up by a social framework like DEI? She's related to NYT best-sellers, she lived in Saudi Arabia with a father that worked with the Army Corps of Engineers. She attended a private boarding school in New Hampshire, completed her undergrad at Princeton and Stanford, and earned her PHd at Harvard. If anything, she sounds like a privileged rich kid who's a legacy hire. Now some DEI-supported "token".
Are you consciously trying to create it as a new term, or is it in common use in some circles that I'm unfamiliar with? I don't think it's a good parallel with "legacy admission" unless it were to refer to hiring the child of an a previous employee, but this doesn't seem to be what you mean.
Granted, her legacy is that she received her PhD at Harvard, then worked as a Dean of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences, on top of many other positions with various organizations.
My main point is that people claim that she's terrible because she was just a DEI hire and is not qualified for a position as Harvard President. When her resume shows she's more than qualified for the role.
This isn't a DEI issue, this is an issue of Harvard not doing the proper research on her dissertation & research and attempting to act like it's not a big deal for a President to be caught plagiarising works.
The secondary term here, "legacies" and "legacy students", are probably where most people have heard it, it's used in movies that involve sororities, when the snobby characters are gossiping: "How did she get in?" "She must be a legacy." and such.
You need to be able to hear the sound from three or more recorders. And normally localization is better within the polygon of microphones but there’s an area of better localizability extending outside of a vertex.
Spend a significant amount of time in the state and get back to me about what's possible. I'll wait. Note you're talking about an area only slightly smaller than New Zealand with roughly identical population numbers to Santa Barbara County, 1 third of whom are either students at UWyo or migrating roughnecks with no dog in that fight. Ignoring the handful of millionaires clustered around Jackson Hole the rest of the population of the state are (taken in aggregate) heavily armed and utterly disinterested in the federal government's position on anything. You send a handful of well-intentioned game wardens from out of state into that mess and you're gonna have folks start disappearing.
Given the consequences of the reintroduction of wolves to the ecosystem, I think literally everyone will be living with the consequences to some extent. Unless by “the consequences” you’re specifically referring to wolves attacking the livestock of billionaire (in many cases) “ranchers,” then maybe not because I’m assuming those billionaires ranching on public land aren’t voting against their pecuniary interests (as billionaires do not seem to do) and thus are not in the 50.4%.
And many of these ranches are losing money for years (sometimes a decade) before they can get out of the red and see the benefits of regenerative farming systems...The more I look at this wolf situation the more depressed I get.
Your link is from Vermont, not Colorado. I don’t think anyone is advocating for the release of wolves into Vermont.
I did a search of regenerative agriculture in Colorado and can only find a single farm that has tried it. Given that it seems tenuous to suggest that wolves will destroy regenerative agriculture in Colorado?
Regenerative Ag seems to be focused on agriculture, as the name implies. The people upset about wolves are ranchers who stand to have their livestock attacked by wolves. I am not seeing the connection between wolves and the destruction of regenerative agriculture.
And regenerative Ag is ranching. They are some of the innovators in grass-fed beef (I've been a vegitarian since 2005) and use the natural animal waste to improve soil conditions (integrating animals into crop farming).
Regenerative farms are a joke that will do zero to slow or stop climate change. They are overwhelmed by factory farming that they have no chance of reversing. Looking out for the "little guy pretending to help" is just silly.
Doing this would sure tip the scales in favor of massive feed lots and industrial farming. Tens of thousands of people are buying products from these farms. it's a viable option. This odd artificial reintroduction of an animal that's known to decimate (I'd argue they could do even more than 10% damage) these sorts of operations is bizarre and the fact that it greatly harms your number one cause (climate change) is even stranger. I'm 100% against this nonsense as should any sane individual that's reading between the lines here.
