That's a bit of a false dichotomy - just because they follow Sam Altman doesn't mean they can be incompetent. OpenAI was successful because of the rare mix of leadership with a vision and competent workers to back it up. Sam leaves, the vision dies. Workers leave, the product dies.
Ah yes, the true day-to-day life we all experience launching multi-million dollar satellites by a multi-billion dollar company, endangering the safe launch and operation of other satellites not just domestic but globally.
If they couldn't be bothered to put enough fuel in the cannister to deorbit, they get fined. I don't see why that requires a full trial.
I just find it strange that in this and the other story, everyone is saying that the initial fine should have been larger.
Is the theory that the company is going to ignore this? That seems implausible; I'm guessing that they're scrambling to avoid further problems and make sure the relationship with their regulator is good. From the regulator's perspetive, what benefit would it do to actually put them out of business, or to seriously wound them, or scare them more? Or, are we trying to establish a precedent that "you may be seriously damaged even upon first infraction"? Is that the behavior we want companies to anticipate - that the government will attack super hard upon first infraction? If that's what we want, okay. But to me that seems too strong, since there are tons of laws and rules with arbitrary enforcement; given that it makes sense that when agencies get involved, they initially fire warning shots like this so companies know someone is paying attention. Then in a month, if the company hasn't taken serious steps to solve this, the regulators can start nuking companies who don't comply. I'm definitely pro regulation, but there's a trade-off because companies need to know the rules so they can plan, budget, consult, etc. so having this initial trigger that working to figure out what is allowed/forbidden/etc is good. Companies pre-emptively being extremely scared will have huge costs (money/environmental/speed), too, especially when it's for things which don't matter or which agencies don't actually care about.
From everything I've seen the tech nerd world basically sees fines as existing on one of two extremes, either they're a cost of doing business or they're company destroying. The idea that there can be fines or penalty schemes of any other effect is largely ignored. Since 150k is pretty small, everyone is of course advocating for a 150 million fine because that's the only other kind of fine that exists in their minds.
Yes. As pointed out to me above, this was actually the result of a consultation; so they've already met and worked together to come to this conclusion - possibly the fine is a symbol of "we're serious and have the right to fine", but just puts a stamp on the relationship they have now on how to go forward. It's also a message to the industry about what expectations will be in the future.
Companies do have a choice in many cases, so being super aggro against them isn't really beneficial. If they can be reined in by threats+negotiation, while still doing business here (within our oversight) it seems ideal.
I think its a combination of pitiful fines aganst large tech companies in the past which actually have been ignored, and the concern over having so much debris in orbit that space travel becomes difficult or impossible. We could literally ground ourselves - its important to remember that things up there won't come down.
While I agree at you that this isnt the adtech buisness staffed by ghouls that see fines as a cost of doing buisness, the idea of adding to space debris is rightfully met with horror, so any amount of money short of compoany-ending will be seen as people getting off lightly
Apple could just unpair parts when the phone itself is reset/deactivated. And new genuine Apple parts could at least have a one-time automatic pairing when signing in with your Apple ID.
Stolen phone? The phone is still activated, part can't pair with new phone. Not perfect, but at least somewhat less anti-consumer.
But if that were the case, there would be plenty of people willing to sell you a refurbished screen for your 2 year old iphone for $100.
By restricting the reuse of parts, when you crack the screen of your old phone, you are faced with a $500 repair bill, and decide to just pay your phone company $50/month for a new contract that comes with a new phone.
I worked at a place for six months where I worked on an impossible number of projects that were hosted on Windows particularly including the really strange such as hosted on MS Access. (Something that could work pretty well or pretty poorly depending on how it was configured.)
I had almost an identical experience, except I was local to Ottawa at the time. Literally a full day of back-to-back interviews. They asked which languages and technologies I was comfortable with, and then gave me a pair programming session with someone who didn't even speak to me, in a programming language I wasn't comfortable in, leading me to have to look up a lot of syntax. Radio silence for a week, then I called the original recruiter and they just basically said "no."
I would so love to name names of companies who told me that I was going to do a "pair programming" exercise and the interviewer didn't even speak to me. Of course I won't, but clearly people don't know what pairing means.
One of them was a zoom call THAT I WAS ON BY MYSELF AND BEING RECORDED. I was told it was going to be a three hour pairing exercise and _after the interview started_ dude told me he would be available for questions but ultimately wouldn't be involved. I'm still angry at myself for agreeing to go through with that.
Maybe I'm missing something, but since all GitHub events can be watched through the API, I don't think it particularly matters how long it was public. Anecdotal but I once accidentally pushed an AWS key (thankfully heavily locked down and not a root account) for all of 30 seconds and it was compromised anyways.
I agree. Even if its only public for one sec it should be considered compromised. However, everything is a risk management question, so knowing the amount of time it was exposed is helpful for other orgs to determine their response to this incident. Same if there was an accesslog.
Target was a bit more complex, a combination of issues with logistics and blindly taking over basically all of the locations of Zellers regardless of analysis meant they expanded quickly with not enough product making it to shelves, and not enough customer traffic.
They carried fewer of the products you'd come to expect in an American Target store. Also due to this cost, the prices weren't more attractive than established incumbents like Wal-Mart.
