I mean.. for better or worse, this is how corporate America works. Hiring to solve a problem that's not costing them money (and solving it doesn't make money) is probably not going to happen, especially with the current state of the economy. They have more of an obligation to make money for their investors than they do anything else, that's just how it works.
> They have more of an obligation to make money for their investors than they do anything else, that's just how it works
Where does this myth come from, and how does it survive? It's either an excuse for parasitic corporatism, or an expression of learned helplessness. Nobody has been successfully sued for prioritizing the long-term health and reputation of a company over self-starving quarterly profit.
Is there a perverse incentive toward the latter anyway? Yes. But it mostly serves current leadership, who are evaluated and paid on short horizons, at the expense of the long-term investors who own most of the equity.
"Accepting funding from investors puts you in a fiduciary role in which you’re responsible for managing their money and putting their needs above your own"
The reality is "it's complicated". But the strongest form of this - that "companies must maximize profits over ALL over concerns NO MATTER WHAT" is basically a myth. See:
So yeah, "fiduciary duty" is a real thing, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that every single decision has to be focused on nothing but profit maximization.
So you think making bad business decisions is holding up to fiduciary duty? You can't throw money at every problem that you'd like to solve, calling that malice is silly was the point I was trying to make.
> So you think making bad business decisions is holding up to fiduciary duty?
I didn't say anything remotely like that, so I'm going to assume you're not trying to have a good faith discussion here, and decline to participate any further. Have a nice day.
Paying staff to avoid distributing literal malware on your platform is not a bad business decision. And even if it was - yes, bad business decisions are within the scope of fiduciary duty. Have you ever seen someone successfully sued under this clause for making a bad business decision, in your life? Fiduciary duty is more like, you can't take the money and run or pay your nephew a $10,000,000 salary to play ping pong in the office. As long as you're not doing something clearly, intentionally harmful to the business and investors, you're clear.
Neglecting all other ethical duties beside profits is so close to malice it takes ...an, ah, expert, to tell you the differences and how important they are.
And this neglecting all duties besides profits thing is real, it is institutionalized by decisions of investors, by managers hired by investors, by regulators "captured" by investors and so-forth. It is the norm. But that doesn't it's a legal or ethical that a given manager or employee has, at least not currently.
Nothing in that article says you're obligated to maximize profit, and you're not:
> To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”
Executives are free to pursue near-term profit at the expense of everything else if they choose, and the shareholders are free to replace them if they don't. That's a choice by those executives or shareholders though, not an obligation.
I said it's their biggest priority, not their only priority... solving a problem that doesn't cost money and the solution doesn't make money is bottom of the barrel. Come on guys, be real.
FWIW I totally agree with that. What I (and several others) disagree with is the idea that the concept of fiduciary duty confers an obligation to pursue profit at the expense of all else.
Is there an incentive to do that? Yes, or at least it's obviously quite possible. But is there an obligation? No.
Relative to the comment you were responding to, it sounded like you were defending the idea that an obligation exists.
The distinction matters because if such an obligation did exist it would effectively excuse a lot of bad behavior.
You used the word "obligation", not "priority". That's simply not correct, and it transfers responsibility from the people making these decisions to whatever nebulous system would enforce that "obligation".
If you look at the case law for fiduciary responsibility, then you'll find that executives have a strong obligation against self-dealing (decisions that clearly benefit them at the expense of the shareholder), but not much else. The "business judgment rule" makes it generally lawful for executives to make decisions that you, the shareholders, the judge, or anyone else might consider to be bad business judgment. It couldn't really be otherwise, since the difference between wasteful spending and a wise investment in the company's reputation might be unclear even decades later.
If shareholders disagree with an executive's business judgment, then their remedy is to fire that executive. That remedy has nothing specific to "making money"--the shareholders are just as free to fire a CEO for excessive attention to profit as insufficient.
Where on that page is there anything to indicate that hiring more QA or mods would be so bad as to be considered a breach of fiduciary duty? That seems like a pretty big exaggeration, at best.
This behavior is a matter of incentives, not obligations. No need to apologize for them.
"Fiduciary duty" does not mean "pursue profit to the exclusion of all other considerations".
many readers here have not experienced a standard of customer support that was common decades ago. Google in particular created a new standard for ignoring the customer on a large scale, in my own experiences. Secondly, the customer paid money to a company for service, while an emergent business form does not take money from the customer directly, blurring the definition of customer.
I strongly agree that failure to stand for consumer rights is both learned helplessness and an apologist cooperator psychology. CA Voter here.
If we have no way to strike back, they will simply suck every drop of blood out the way you use every part of the buffalo. There is no way to escape Microsoft when they just buy everything and turn it into part of their garbage moat.
I find this to be very telling about what kind of people they are. If you make a mistake this big you need to own up to it. BS all you want, maybe you think that works for you.. but people see through it.
Just a nit-pick, but some/repo/path/.gitignore isn't necessarily committed to the repo. For example, if your repo has no .gitignore file, you can totally add one in your clone without adding it to the tree. Of course then you can't do something like `git add .` without committing it.
Also `~/.gitignore` works as a global gitignore. I usually stick something like `katie*` in there so I can copy some `script.sh` to `katie_script.sh` and then I can make changes that I don't want to commit.
Quick edit: I'm not sure `~/.gitignore` works out of the box.. looks like I stuck that in my `~/.gitconfig` for excludesfile
I've been using $REPO/.scratch/ and .scratch/.gitignore with just `*` in it as a place for coding agents to use as temp storage (scripts, exports, plans, etc) that won't get committed. It's much easier to access these files under the repo path instead of wading through /tmp.
True! But a gotcha there is that if your repo does have a .gitignore in the tree then this trick won't work. I had a coworker try to do just that and we were all pretty confused when his changes kept getting committed. `git add ./` will stage changes to any file in the commit tree, even if that file matches a line in gitignore.
Nah, I generate dependency trees from gradle because of the crappy way current $job has aggressive transient dependency scanning and I can't stand just updating someone else's transient dependency without validating that there isn't at least a new version of whatever pulled it in.
I have dependency_tree globally excluded because it is my unique naming convention. Actually it might just be my unique approach because other people don't seem to mind having 1000 overrides for libraries they don't use.
Fair, and sorry, my tone was a bit off, I didn't think much when commenting.
My preference of not having much in my global gitignore is only sensible for my particular daily work, if you need to partially track build folders in projects and can't control the ignore files automatically, a global ignore might make sense.
There's a couple eyebrow raising things about this post.. like the fact that there's nothing but vague details in text and one photo with an AI prompt like alt-text. I think they're just trying to get clicks for that banner ad.
Sadly, the site does seem AI-flavoured to a rather off-putting extent.
And, as you say, the details are so vague - it's exactly what you might expect if an LLM wrote them based on reading a spec sheet rather than any practical experience.
In particular, connecting that DEQNA to a modern network must have been a huge challenge all in itself and I'd have expected there to be a series of blog posts about just that. Maybe it's legit (and I'd love more detail if it is), but right now the presentation screams "thinly disguised ad".
I think he has actually posted videos of the restoration before (they've popped up in my youtube feed in the past), but I've never watched them, so dunno. The LLM site design and advertisement front-and-center are certainly a... choice....
It has some pretty broken behavior regarding multicast/broadcast traffic IIRC, but nothing putting it behind a vlan or separate LAN altogether wouldn't solve. I've got a little lsi-11 system under my bed I'm hoping to, one day, get the Fuzzball [0] distribution running on. The 22-bit address extension wirewrap the previous owner did needs to be redone entirely, so it's been a "later" project for years now, but I am hoping my little DEQNA will be able to ping the Internet still.
I was assuming that something of that vintage would only have been able to handle a 10BASE5 transceiver, but a wee bit of googling suggests that an UTP transceiver works well enough.
You and several other people here are making unsubstantiated claims about how you're super sure this is real in a way that makes it seem less real. You guys seem to know this Dave character and are doing him a solid, right?
Dave Plummer's a well known YouTuber. He pops up in a couple of DEC groups that I'm in on Facebook. However I'm not a fan. He seems to take a lot and contribute only self-promotional videos.
The photo on this page looks very AI heavy. I'm not an expert but I really don't think those light panels are real (if they're real they're not contemporary to the machines they're in).
(Edit: I should qualify that I don't mean the panel with the octet switches, that looks roughly right - I mean the one under the 8" disks and the one on the vaguely Vax-pedestal looking thing)
While probably it's legit because I've seen Dave discussing the process on the YT channel (which I no longer watch) he unfortunately does have form https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39813625
Having TMOG on a .org when it sells commercial licences doesn't sit well with me given the history.
Well be real, you could do a lot more to make this convincing. Couple the lack of details with some other posts you've made that seem to be an attempt at advertising your software (the one with a big banner on this page), sprinkle in the AI generated website and the fact that the domain name says a different model than the page does.. this is going to raise some eyebrows.
You put all this work into a project like this, all you would need to do to prove it's real is post a selfie with the hardware.. but "interesting theory" is all you're going to say?
I'm a little confused by your comment.. especially considering the fact that you edited it and changed the link from and old comment thread from 2024 to whatever this dead post is from 2012. What does having form mean? Who is Dave?
Unfortunately there's so much dishonesty and manipulation happening on the internet as of late, I feel like we've all become a bit distrustful of anything at first glance. I wouldn't take it personally. Best of luck with your project.
That's also the biggest plot-hole in the first Star Wars movie. Princess Leia is supposed to be this righteous noble of the moral resistance and yet she STEALS the Death Star plans!
Then why bother using that language? The camera doesn't need rescuing, why not just "we took".
Also, is it really justified? Did we learn anything useful here that we didn't already know? There's more effective ways to push back against Flock, townships (like my own) are having plenty of success stories without stealing anything.
You don't think maybe it's just a little bit tongue-in-cheek? Maybe a reference to how the US Military sometimes goes into foreign countries saying we'll be greeted as liberators?
“I kept trying to explain in between haymakers that we were better than this and on top of that it wasn’t likely to be ruled on favorably as far as the courts.”
- Luke O’Neil https://flaminghydra.com/the-end-and-after-2/
Worst thing that's ever happened to me is having processes randomly killed by the OOM killer. Could be unpleasant if you're writing an email or document that suddenly disappears because your app got killed.
The OOM killer usually kills the process that's using the most memory, which is the reason the system is OOM. Sometimes this can be adjusted. When I'm OOM it's almost always because some runaway loop used 50GB and it makes no sense to kill any other process.
If it's killing your email editor then your email editor is bloated or you just need more RAM - or swap.
reply