This is the worst change in my opinion. People assume the worst if you don't answer the phone. This also ruined instant messaging for me. Some people get angry or interpret something weird into it if you don't reply within 30 seconds.
It really depends on the crowd, some people don't mind and get on with their lives and don't answer until next week. I love these people.
> considering women playing video games only became socially acceptable a few years ago.
It should be mentioned that this was different from the usual exclusion of women. Women were mostly discriminated from outside the group of those playing games.
Victims are silent because there are consequences to speaking out, not only restricted to negative reactions which I believe are rare aside from the accused.
Not only can it destroy your career, there are also consequences when you confide in family and friends. They will treat you differently and maybe you don't even want
that and put everything behind you.
Legally there might even be low chances of recourse because you have no evidence. Especially when celebrities are involved, the requirements for that are high.
This might not be something you can change with culture and is intrinsic to the respective crimes.
> What is wrong with sexualized characters anyway?
The answer probably heavily depends if you ask an US American or a Frenchmen. Same with bro culture, that I don't see intrinsic in tech and much more a product of other influences.
At some point you have to give people incentives to actually want to work in an office culture. Stringent office professionalism is an ideal that is held up in conflicts, but no workplace looks that way.
Managers will quickly identify emotional needs and this adherence to neutrality is a telltale sign that something is bothering you. My task would be address that but also keep it from affecting other employees.
I think you are making a lot of assumptions here. Were it even the one responsible for hiring that misbehaved?
It is correct to be angry about this, but your answer seems to be vindictive. Next step is to wait for the verdict.
> So without intervention this toxicity will tend to spread.
Most businesses operate without sexual misdemeanor happening. On the contrary, I doubt the measures now announced by Kotick will ever be non-toxic. Because here you institute a group that will turn on random employees as they see fit. It is the wrong medicine in my opinion.
Useful would be to accuse the people responsible and use the law against them in a court of justice without arbitration.
Kotick voted for group punishment and I don't really understand how anyone would want to work at Activision to be honest because that isn't the way to get a non-toxic workplace. I doubt we will see much cooperation here.
I deliver software for enterprise and there is no such thing. I even develop software for medical appliances that have an extended software validation process.
It is about minimizing risk and it is a process that acknowledges that risk cannot be removed completely. It just forces you to work carefully and eliminates neglectful practices.
No serious developer will ever commit to ship software free of bugs. On the contrary, that would give people false security, which can in turn lead to further neglect.
This is a completely unrealistic demand of software and security. I am really surprised of Snowdens arguments here.
The law makers cannot make the internet safer by one bit. Technical experts can and lawyers would dream to have leverage against them. They should be denied.
I disagree with Snowden here. Liability is an extremely bad approach and would not solve the problem at all. It would also fortify companies that can pay for guarantees nobody could ever give.
That we have security flaws is always inevitable. Better languages might help but are no panacea.
I agree with Snowden on a lot, but this doesn't solve anything.
The result would be software certificates. By whom? Take a guess.
Nobody can guarantee absolute safety. This is a trap you don't want to fall into.
It would end open source and any independent development. Quite surprisingly short sighted by Snowden.
The problem with iMessage wouldn't be solved by liability. It is a security flaw that cannot be removed by law.
edit: To clarify: I agree with him in the Facebook example. They collected the data for their business and should be liable. "Bad" or "insecure" code is a different matter however.
I think you aren't necessarily wrong that internal committees like this are about PR. It is simple industry self-regulation. Expectations should be adjusted accordingly.
But that would also mean Google exploited her for that.
This it outrageous. Browsers are user-agents, not advertising accelerators. They should hide as much personal identifiable information as possible. This is exactly why using a browser from an advertising company is not a good idea. They use it to improve their service... The lie gets old...
This comment was sadly written in Chrome, since I need it for testing...
edit: pretty much exactly 10 years ago they already tried their shit with a unique id. We should have learned from that experience.
Very true. He also said that suppression of intolerant ideology is unwise as long as public opinion counters it. 8chan isn't really the center of public opinion.
There were third parties that pointed their fingers to those losers on these boards and now some people lashed out. I don't want to blame anyone besides the murder, but that is the game that is being played.
Being opposed to nazisim wasn't exactly rocket science some years ago, so I don't really can get behind comments pointing to the need for education and that the lack of the latter is reason enough to curb speech.