Cool, a printer and a free unlimited SIM card!

I appreciate both the study and sharing the results, but I'm questioning some of the questionnaire design choices.

-----

> On a scale of 1-5, how long do you plan to stay at your company?

There is literally no reason for this to be "on a scale of 1–5" when one could just ask about number of years directly. Asking people to translate years into "a scale of 1–5" introduces all sorts of errors: for some people, a four might correspond to 2–4 years, whereas others may think about a 10–20 years tenure when they see a four.

What's even weirder is they later translate this 1–5 scale into a binary yes/no answer. How was the threshold selected? Would respondents have replied differently if they knew where the threshold would go?

-----

> On a scale of 1-5, what’s your perception of the value of your stock grant relative to your other compensation?

This could ask about a percentage or a fraction instead, and prevent some of the same errors as above. You might argue that "sure but a four simply means 80 %" but I doubt that – note that the average answer for a subgroup in the study was nearly four, and I don't believe half of respondends of that group get less than 20 % of their perceived comp value in non-equity.

-----

> How likely are you to recommend your company to a friend or colleague?

This is a good question because there's a specific way to combine the data later that has known correlations with company success; there is some reasonable research linking higher eNPS values with better outcomes. But that requires combining the data using that method, which is not just taking the average – what the study authors did!

If they had used the established methods, they would have gotten some reliability and validity testing for free. They did not, so they would have to show that their combined data is valid too.

-----

The other two survey items (growth opportunities and equity comp fairness) could probably have been made more concrete, but I also see how it may be easier to ask on a 1–5 scale for those. However, there's nothing in the report about how they performed reliability and validity testing of these scales. Without testing the scales for these psychometric properties, the results could be meaningless.

-----

I get that this article never intended to reach for scientific rigour and that it is but an advertisement for a software platform. But still, I believe we (as a species) can get better at these things to the point where even advertisements can be informative. I'd like to see that, anyway.

Needs to be a law against the taking away of product functionality after the sale, even if it's contractual/EULA. A ban should never take the game away from the owner, and in cases where it does then they need to be refunded (treble damages on top of license, lawyer, and court fees if it takes a judgment to induce the refund). Getting banned on Steam, say, in the sense that all of one's purchases are invalidated should be impossible legally. In cases where an account is prevented from login, items and inventory must still be accessible for trade as those represent real time effort put in by a paying customer. Want to enforce your code of ethics in a multiplayer game? Can't charge for the game or users legally have rights against bans, and bans must follow a proportionality continuum and you must have a human-attended cost capped (at license cost, and only on loss) appeals tribunal system with record.

Seems to be from the early 2000s, although not dated. Can anyone with knowledge on PKI shine light on if it's still relevant? Has much changed in the last 20 years?

I always :q when I didn’t change anything.

If I changed something intentionally, :wq and :x are equivalent. If I changed something accidentally, :x won’t catch that, and :q complaining will require me to decide if :q! or :wq is correct.

So :x does not fit my workflow of avoiding accidental writes. Just like ZZ does not.

It would be nice if all these new quantum computer announcements came with a measure of power that many people are more interested in than raw qubit quantity:

How big a number can it factor reliably using Shor's algorithm?

According to [1], that record still stands at only 21. All larger numbers you've heard of being factored suffered from one or more of:

1) factoring numbers of a special form (n+i)*(n-i) for very small i

2) using an algorithm with prior knowledge of the predetermined factors

3) using adiabatic computing/quantum annealing rather than Shor's algorithm

Shor's algorithm (or its adaptation to elliptic curve discrete log) is the only one threatening widely used cryptographic primitives, once we have a few thousand logical qubits to work with, which due to the necessary quantum error correction translates to millions of raw qubits.

> An Eagle quantum computer can deal with system models in 2127 states simultaneously.

Obvious typo in there; they mean 2^{127} states.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization_records#...

This person was Tweeting internal e-mails from Apple, complete with the footnote explaining that they were confidential and not to be shared outside of the company. Example here: https://twitter.com/ashleygjovik/status/1435421599826518025/...

There were headlines and outrage about her being placed on administrative leave by Apple recently. Reading the finer details, it turns out she requested to be placed on leave (From the article: "She was placed on administrative leave in early August while Apple investigated some of these concerns — a placement she says she requested as a last resort.")

She has a dedicated form on her website for press to fill out to request an interview with her. ( https://www.ashleygjovik.com/press.html )

She maintains a website called iWhistleblower ( https://www.iwhistleblower.org/ ) with details about past cases involving Apple and links encouraging people to report Apple information to different regulatory bodies.

Her personal website leads with "Apple Labor Advocacy" as well as "Public Health Advocacy" where she describes how she thinks there might be a toxic waste container somewhere on the property of her old 3rd-floor apartment. She believes it was causing her blood pressure and heart rate to change, according to monitors that she wore. She published photos of herself wearing a blood pressure monitoring cuff and her story here: https://sfbayview.com/2021/03/i-thought-i-was-dying-my-apart...

While I fully agree that all allegations should be given due process and properly investigated, I get nervous when someone is visibly invested in building a personal brand on social media around being a victim. The story about the toxic waste apartment, the story about Apple's lawyers needing her work phone for an investigation, and the story about her alleged harassment at Apple all happened within the past 6 months. Her entire social media presence appears to be built around capitalizing on these stories.

Bank fraud (a better name for it) generally does need strong ID, but the vast majority of transactions in which people are demanded to show ID to transact have nothing to do with this.

You only do bank loans, mortgages, lines of credit and the like a few times per year.

Your ID is demanded so often in the USA there is even a hand signal for it that everyone knows (a C shape made with the right hand held up at eye level).

>The list includes writing and reading articles in the internal Wiki, creating and closing task tickets, as well as dashboard activity and participation in internal meetings.

>He claimed that if a person’s “digital footprint” is not visible, they shouldn’t work at Xsolla.

Sucks to be the sysadmin I guess.