That being said, this isn't the first time in the last few years there's been a suit against Tesla. Either this isn't been a focus for management, or their remediation has been deficient in preventing this sort of toxicity from flaring up out in the open.
At Google there is a peer bonus benefit. You can peer bonus someone for doing something awesome. Each peer bonus is $150 before tax. You can list your peer bonuses on your promo packet. You can give as many of these out as you want ... within reason. Sometimes at Google they do something called a peer bomb, where many people will peer bonus a single person.
> "I'm sure that Waymo has done some shady stuff too."
TLDR so what? it's completely unrelated to this case. However, because you asked:
Google (in the Alphabet family) is being/has been sued/investigated for:
- gender pay bias (unrelated to this case)
- antitrust by the EU (unrelated to this case)
- James Damore is preparing a lawsuit (LOLLLLLL and he has no case, also unrelated to this case)
- antitrust by Missouri attorney general (unrelated to this case)
- salary fixing with Apple (unrelated to this case)
So top level's comment that Waymo/Google has done shady shit is true but ... what is your point? There's plenty of stuff we have evidence for, but there's no evidence they've done anything shady against Uber. Hell, geo division launched an Uber integration, the ventures arm even invested in Uber ...
This podcast was pretty good. ISIS were using a Turkish Dropbox like service to move files ... except the service was actually based in France, something a whois on the domain could have easily detected. Fighters have also geotagged tweets/instagram/Facebook posts, which led to a drone strike:
I've been using this on Android for weeks. It's super fast, blocks a lot of annoying ads (think jumpy mobile overlays). No bookmarks or tabs, so if you're looking at a recipe for a dish you're making, there's always a chance it gets wiped. Just use Chrome for that. Highly recommend.
What's up with reductionist posts like this every time a company announces layoffs? Scaling out a global business takes a lot more work than it does to run a no-SLA side project. And you hire people to build out businesses that don't yet exist. When you've overreached, or targets are consistently not being met, you re-org, or, if that isn't possible, you scale back.
> It reminds me of Thomas Edison sabotaging Tesla, and yet, here we are, on A/C.
Dangerous position to take. This is pretty much saying that the ends justify the means, given enough time. That because winners write history, that in the moment, doing whatever it takes to win is more important than operating ethically.
This is incorrect. Ask anyone who has had an insider peek of any on-demand company's finances. The largest cost to all of these companies is employee acquisition, which continues to rise.
Take your own advice and do the unscientific thing of talking to the drivers. How many of them are new? How many are old? Surprising how many of those fall into the first category.
I chose to read this author as someone who very much believes in the black-and-white lines of the letter of the law. He's an interesting guy, for better or for worse. On the one hand, he's the guy who is willing to put his own name on the line to take on Facebook and Google (while consulting for Microsoft) on privacy as well as search result neutrality:
But he's also the same person who used his knowledge and position to bully small business owners. If he's done it once, he's probably done it more than once:
> The deal will mean the Pebble stock held by employees is worthless, two of the people said. The money will instead go to debt holders, vendors, some of its main equity investors, and Kickstarter refunds for the Time 2 and Pebble Core orders, the people said.
I made the mistakes of backing a number of smartwatches on Kickstarter and IndieGoGo. The Pebble, for its faults, was still the most stable, polished item out of all the crowdfunded items I've ever back.
Separate note: I don't crowdfund anything anymore. Learned my lesson.
There's a lot of disinformation about martial arts in any online discussion, especially because people are obsessed with determining which martial arts is "the best". That's a sort of reductionist argument that never takes into context the history of each martial art and why/where it is effective or ineffective.
Let's start with some history: Judo was never heavily practiced historically, because you had a sword. Judo techniques were used as a last resort in case you lost your weapon. In a society where the peacekeepers carry weapons, you are at a serious disadvantage with any kind of unarmed combat, be it BJJ (which I practice, for sport), Muay Thai (which I practiced briefly and is effective in 1:1 situations in a stand-up and clinch), even Krav Maga (I tried this), or Chinese martial arts.
So here's an argument for why certain martial arts are "better" than others, depending on the situation and the era you live in:
Kendo/sword martial arts - you are likely going to war. The Chinese martial arts fall under this category, where you can quickly use certain forms to train thousands of troops at once to be "more ready" in general warfare than your enemy. Your troops will have slightly more conditioning, and practicing forms lets you have a 1:many trainer to student ratio. Even if the martial arts are not the best for close quarter 1:1 combat, or ground fighting, it makes no sense to spend time training your troops for these situations if the odds are VERY stacked against them in a wartime situation.
Krav Maga is a great martial art to teach for modern, urban self defense because the movements are basic. If you might end up in a bar fight, for instance, Krav Maga teaches something called stacking, where your goal when you have to maximize your chances of getting away from multiple attackers is to quickly subdue one attacker, then using head control, using that attacker's body to defend your own while you create space so you can escape. There are more advanced techniques that teach knife or gun defense if you are caught off guard, but it should be noted that you are probably at a disadvantage unless you are highly skilled if someone with a weapon attacks you! Training Krav Maga takes a bad probability of survival and turns it into a less bad probability.
Back to Judo: judo and karate took off as effective when peacekeepers could not carry weapons, and had to learn to effectively do their jobs without weapons. The key here is that society had to chance so that weapons were only carried by the warrior caste.
Filipino martial arts - unarmed, sticks, knives. No swords or spears, because this isn't what they went to war with. Surprisingly effective now, because you are likely to have a cane or umbrella, and you will have a slightly better chance defending yourself against a knife attack, which a modern attacker is more likely to have than a sword or a spear.
Now where does Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, which many people talk about, fit in? Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is an extremely effective martial art for one-on-one, unarmed confrontations. For children, if a bully throws you to the ground and gets on top of you and starts to hit you, you can escape and get away. If ONE PERSON attacks you in public without a weapon and you both go to the ground, you can probably subdue or escape if you have practiced BJJ. If two people attack you, or if it's one group on another group, BJJ is probably not so effective. I saw a version of MMA on TV that was effectively a 5v5 team fight, and it quickly turned into who could tap or KO a another member first, then it became a 5v4, and 5v3, and so on. The effectiveness of BJJ in group fights is greatly diminished - now we are back to martial arts like Krav Maga where you might have learned to group fight or even the Chinese martial arts.
BJJ and Muay Thai have really taken off because of MMA/UFC. The rules used to heavily favor BJJ practitioners, who in that particular environment, thrive. Karate practitioners were not traditionally used to ground fighting, and the Jiu Jitsu fighters would stick to their strategy of taking someone to the ground and quickly submitting them. UFC is a 1:1, no-hitting-eyes-or-neck-or-groin fight. No stomping. In the early era of UFC, there weren't any rounds. This GREATLY favors BJJ practitioners, who can simply hold someone indefinitely on the ground and tire them out. If you've never grappled before, even if you are in great shape - HOLY MOLY prepare to get wiped out in minutes.
Many of you may disagree with some of the details of my interpretations, but the general spirit of my argument is this: different martial arts thrive in different eras because society changes. Claiming one martial art is better than another without adding context is disingenuous.
Ford: https://www.hometownstations.com/news/ford-employees-say-rac...
GM: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/us/gm-toledo-racism-lawsuit/i...
Toyota: https://auto.hindustantimes.com/auto/news/toyota-says-it-no-...
Honda: https://www.courthousenews.com/honda-plant-accused-of-tolera...
That being said, this isn't the first time in the last few years there's been a suit against Tesla. Either this isn't been a focus for management, or their remediation has been deficient in preventing this sort of toxicity from flaring up out in the open.