Not surprising at all. What are "action levels" supposed to do? It's basically a helpful suggestion to take action, but you don't have to. FDA obviously doesn't care about the well-being of anyone.
This is actually really neat. I appreciate the fact that all the meetings are scheduled up front, there is no live coding where candidates can be nervous or anxious. I think it's also rare to see organizations being respectful of a candidate's time (as you mentioned, they have current jobs, families, etc.).
It does make me wonder of the actual time commitment expected from the candidate, however. Are you expecting the candidate to spend upwards of 8 hours on a coding project? In some ways, one could argue that you might be asking them to do "free" labor. Who owns the work that the candidate provided?
I understand the need to find the best candidate, but I also think being respectful of a candidate's time means not having them to go through extensive interviews (technical or not) that total more than a few hours. Sure, some folks don't work out - but that's a risk I think organizations have to be willing to take.
What precedence is this going to set? Don't want to be on the current government's bad side? Just give them ownership stake and they'll look the other way?
Typical of any new product/service these days. The first few weeks/months are "free" (or included) and then they start locking up things behind a paywall (i.e.,. subscription).
I get that recurring revenue is needed for hardware development. It'd be easier to stomach if they flat out had that subscription pricing locked in early on instead of rolling it out after hundreds/thousands of unit sales. Yes, I know it's "smart business". I say it's anti-consumer practice.
It's not as bad as cigarettes, so totally safer! /s
The FDA (like many other US government organizations) are now just doing the bidding of the highest bidder (i.e. donor) and/or the president. With the Supreme Court's newest ruling, many of these organizations will now simply cater to the whims of the leader instead of following the science, the facts, and being independent.
Fair point. I'd add on that the company should explicitly spell out strong privacy as a feature then and charge more. Saying that "we won't use your data for training", but then not really meaning it is a bit disingenuous. How I interpret that statement may not necessarily align with the company (i.e., what kind of training?).
This bait-and-switch with privacy is what annoys me. I get that if the software was completely free, you are the product. But if I'm paying, why can I not have a privacy policy that actually benefits me - the user?
I share the same sentiment. I honestly thought that the price increases would occur as new products rolled out. Seems like with the "back-to-school" promotion right around the corner, Apple expects to sell more machines and find it harder to absorb the higher component price tags. I'm guessing that by changing the prices now, they'll still maintain their profit margins per unit at the expense of total unit sales.
I think they removed the "cheaper" configurations. In essence, the barrier to entry to mac mini was increased without actually changing the original price tag. I suspect the new mac mini (if one is coming) will sport a higher price tag.
The price increases are unsurprising considering Tim Cook said it was "unsustainable" for Apple to keep absorbing the increases. Glad I ordered a new machine a couple days ago.
I suspect that these price increases will stick around permanently (or at least for a long while).