I’ve had a lot of dealing with the folks at TACC in my day job, and their work is pretty amazing. Add in a Top10 supercomputer and you have something pretty impressive.
> Because of downvotes? That's probably just because you brought partisan politics into the discussion.
Wut? Mentioning a politician’s name isn’t partisan politics. He said nothing about the politics of Cruz, he compared the Senator shifting blame onto his kids with this CEO blaming an intern. Don’t be like that.
Seriously. Blaming the intern is a bad look, but here it reinforces the idea that they don’t even understand what was wrong. The fact that it leaked is only relevant is that it shows 1) how bad their password is and 2) how deficient their process is for dealing with (let’s face it, inevitable) leaks.
The headline doesn’t accurately capture the substance of the article. The article does say it doesn’t find evidence for “mass hysterectomies”, but it does say that a review of medical records indicated that several women had procedures performed on them without informed consent and without any justification. The most salacious of the allegations might not be true, but it’s clear that the behavior of the medical personnel here is ethically beyond the pale.
It has nothing to do with opinions, and it has nothing to do with ideology, except insofar as these two doctors were motivated by their ideology to profoundly misunderstand or misrepresent statistical sampling.
It’s not one side thinks this, the other side thinks that, it’s that their video is factually wrong, and in being wrong encourages dangerous behavior.
I’ll put in a vote for Wizard: the life and times of Nikola Tesla. I knew very little other than “Tesla == weird genius”, and the book gave me a much deeper view of his work, from trying to run power through the ground to building drone boats.
The article explicitly says that Improbable was told by Unity that the new TOS “specifically disallow[s] services like Improbable’s to function with their engine.”
Saying ‘I won’t stand for building a system explicitly designed to control and oppress people’ is “whining” and “screaming like privileged babies”?
Have you read the reporting on this? The Intercept described Beaumont, G’s head of ops in China, as intentionally excluding security and privacy teams from key meetings about the project, undermining privacy reviews, and taking whatever measures he could to make Dragonfly a fait accompli with no oversight. One googler says that “[Beaumont’s] ideal circumstance was that most people would find out about this project the day it launched.”
So I’m not sure what choice there would be other than to make these objections publicly. Google management doesn’t want people knowing about this because they understand how bad it looks, and they’re going to great lengths to circumvent the normal processes that would prevent this kind of product from seeing the light of day. My favorite bit was that Dragonfly would blacklist the term “Nobel Prize” from being searched. Is there really an argument that participation in this kind of oppression isn’t morally reprehensible? And if there isn’t, don’t employees who are able have a responsibility to try and prevent it?
Complaining about your company’s vacation policy might be whining, being incensed that the company’s stopping free lunch might be privileged, but speaking out against building the machinery of oppression definitely isn’t.