As I mentioned above, it's not fringe to ban Chinese hardware for security concerns. They've been surreptitiously planting undisclosed control equipment. [0] No company would knowingly add more costs and complexity for nothing in return. And if the Chinese maker didn't know about the trojan tech, then it's even more concerning.
Good luck. The renewables overbuild required to firm baseload demand for a datacenter is insane. You need something like 4x solar and 1.5x storage in a 10hr battery.
Respectfully, the laws of NPV and IRR hurdles don't matter in Chinese infrastructure.
Whatever you choose in the US, it's not cheap, and developers crawl over each other to sign up hyperscalers. Race to the bottom.
I agree directionally and appreciate your effort. I might just be misunderstanding and wrong, which forgive me if you feel like that's the case.
I just don't find the author's point consistent or nuanced about when to apply this (e.g., the size of the changes, the interface with your manager, the supervision/trust relationship).
Look at the closing sentence of the article.
"Offering a chance for feedback" when you're confident that "you don't need feedback" is weird. This is like some paradox. And doesn't match the phrasing of his initial example. This is bad advice that is way overdoing it.
> Again, pursue this approach [...] when you want to offer a chance for feedback, but you are confident enough in the course of action that you don’t need feedback.
Cheap gas is great, but 2.67GW of new build natural gas in this market will cost $6-8 billion in fixed costs. You need wholesale pricing of ~$50-60/MWh ... OVER 25 years! ... to recover just the fixed costs.
For West Texas, prices averaged mid-$30s over the last year.
Microsoft has all of the leverage here, and Chevron wants a big announcement in an area where they don't have a lot of experience.
I humbly submit you're still glossing over this. This framing is subtle. There's a difference between getting a peer review from your boss and asking your boss for permission when you think you might need it. Trust your gut.
Compare that to situations where you just want peer review/re-assurance. I agree with you on those situations to just pull the trigger.
I'm assuming you don't disagree that this "lighting a fuse" approach on something you're unsure about without manager approval (and you think you need their permission -- which is said in the article) is way riskier for your corporate career. You're just taking asymmetric risk.
> Hey, @waisbrot. You didn't mention anything in your note whether you got a response from the Sales team. I got a call from the VP Sales. He's pissed. You know they're at [big sales conference] and busy. The system outage impacted two Top 10 customer account demos. Why didn't you call me if you thought it was important or ask for an affirmative confirmation from the sales team before rolling out changes? Sorry, but I can't trust you. Bring all similar changes to me for approval from now on.
Of course there are routine things or items in your competency that allow for your boss to prioritize supervision elsewhere.
The prospect of going rogue, lighting a fuse, and then potentially setting off fireworks is the nuance being argued here by me and @slowcache.
> The only place you're in disagreement is that you don't see any room for nuance when something is your job but worth notifying the boss about in advance.
You read a different article.
FTA:
> ”Hey, boss, I am going to install action X, which should solve the XYZ problems we’ve been having. Will take care of this on Monday unless I hear differently from you.”
The parent's point is that lighting a fuse and saying you'll do something when the fuse runs out regardless of the boss' approval in a situation where you want to run something by them...is career suicide.
FTA:
> When you have something you want to do and that you feel is in scope for your position, but you want a bit of reassurance or to let the boss know what you are up to, it’s common to reach out and ask them for permission. Don’t. Don’t ask for a yes. Instead, offer a chance to say no, but with a deadline.
The qualifiers of "needing reassurance" and "asking for permission" combined with a notification on a fuse is way different framing than "notifying the boss about it in advance."
> Every single thing in the text you (inaccurately) quoted.
Your first sentence makes no sense. It's quoted directly from the Guardian article, not from me.
> it sounds like the point is to make sure each rally is allocated a separate area, and they don't deny permission outright.
FWIW, look at the next article I linked. You're really understating the restrictions for a public, outdoor venue. This is on brand with restrictive public use.
- No noise directed outwards
- no noise after 6PM
- confined to two lawns (that can't fit more than 3k people)
- no sound speakers
- no overnight rallies even if quiet
- leave no trash
- no food for others
- you're strongly advised to fill out a notification form if your group is larger than a dozen people
They apparently moved the location, but protesting at the new location is still heavily restricted [0] with a dystopian narrative.
> In order to achieve the balance between the rights of those holding a rally and the rights and freedoms of others to go about their business we have put together this guidance and simple application process.
I thought I'd heard of this but couldn't find enough examples of this, let alone an FBI induced landing.
It appears REALLY hard to step over jurisdictions.
I did find the PLO terrorist incident from 1985. The terrorists killed an American on a cruiseship, Achille Lauro. Reagan sent a fighter jet to intercept, escort, and force a landing in Italy for the commercial jet the terrorists were later flying on.
There are other examples like forcing downed flights in the hunt for Snowden, but it's super rare and ultimately unlikely.
Disregard this parent's bias.
As I mentioned above, it's not fringe to ban Chinese hardware for security concerns. They've been surreptitiously planting undisclosed control equipment. [0] No company would knowingly add more costs and complexity for nothing in return. And if the Chinese maker didn't know about the trojan tech, then it's even more concerning.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/ghost-...