The term I have used for decades is "evidence they can do the job".

The best evidence is having actually done the job successfully. If a candidate has years of work experience they've proven they can do it. If they can show hobby projects it provides evidence, but generally not as strong.

If they don't have years of work experience as evidence, then degrees and certifications provide some amount of evidence. The candidate may not be skilled at the job, but they have enough of a background to get the certificate. 3-year and 4-year degree programs mean there is a basic breadth and depth of knowledge, it may be shallow but they've been exposed to it at least.

That's also the point of interview questions, the quizzes and tests many companies use, all of them are to provide evidence that the person can do the job.

The big remaining issue is the drop.

The problem it solves, which the reporter clearly missed, is called the last mile problem.

Instead of a delivery driver stopping at every home or business on the route, the delivery driver follows a route with some slow moving areas. At each stop or slow moving area, the truck serves as a platform for drones to launch or land. Instead of a truck driver making 30 deliveries to a subdivision in an hour, they spend 5 minutes, and hit 10x the number of neighborhoods. Different areas will have different effectiveness, but most regions could have some variations that work, even if it means drones dropping off a secure cluster box.

To the accountants and shareholders it means a huge cost savings, so more profits to the logistics business. Fuel and delivery drivers are expensive.

Interesting read. I am not sure it is valid to combine them based on the question from the survey developer.

I will listen to the headhunters and recruiters because I might learn of an amazing opportunity. I tell them to send me info if they want, it doesn't hurt me to read. So for the questions I am willing.

However, I like my job and I am not considering leaving, nor am I looking for a new one. So I am not actively considering it.

given the range of questions they list, this seems a little surprising. Keeping your ears open is a survival skill, even if you aren't hunting you should be aware of the job environment.

Yeah, it was expected.

It seems every time self driving cars have been in the news for problems, it was a Cruise car. Read about traffic jams, cars piling up, intersections blocked, and Cruise was the cause.

The other companies seem to have solved the issues, and based on videos that occasionally make the rounds, are far better than human drivers not just during an unexpected swerve but at detecting and avoiding them before they take swift responses.

The word "initially" there scares me.

Proxies and relays used voluntarily are wonderful and can do many amazing things. They can also be used to hide and obscure many terrible things. Relaying information through a third party comes with quite a long list of benefits and drawbacks, and for some situations they can be amazing.

Proxies and relays used involuntarily are unacceptable. The potential for abuse and misuse is too great. They create a MITM vulnerability, and anything other than a specific, intentional, revocable opt in is not okay. Creating a MITM vulnerability should not be opt out.

Although true, unfortunately we're talking about Microsoft.

Smaller businesses and publishers are great at this because they're hungry. Big businesses are looking for numbers on the balance sheet, and when they've got over 200 billion dollars a year, those need to be big numbers.

Games that aren't bringing in profits in the high six figure range are just noise, and realistically, even bringing in single-million-dollar profits is noise at Microsoft. That means gross revenues of 50M, 80M, or more just to show up on the listing, rather than being rounding errors. Even if people think they'd like the game, they're not going to revive Space Quest with Roger Wilco, or once-off 1980's hits like Pitfall, Kaboom, or H.E.R.O. because these aren't multimillion dollar franchises.

Microsoft Games is looking for billion dollar breakthroughs and 100-million-per-year cornerstone projects. They might throw one or two small ones out, but they will be statistical noise driven by marketing at keeping small sectors happy, or an executive's pet project allocating a few million dollars that they shaved off a 'real' project like Halo.

Yes, but in the opposite way to what you meant.

The character Dick The Butcher, a mass murderer, was part of a gang wanting to overthrow the government and enable mob rule. He was planning to extend his string of mayhem by killing the lawyers, so nobody can be prosecuted for crimes under the new regime.

I am less convinced about it being a great idea. Convenient for the company and users certainly, but good?

Anybody with the device can flash the device with a new firmware remotely, yes centimeters but still a distance, without the knowledge nor consent nor password of the device owner.

While it certainly can be used positively, there are plenty of bad actors, including government actors, that triggers alarm bells.

This is yet another attack vector to turn any Apple device into an eavesdropping device by anyone with sufficient resources.

I would prefer devices require additional physical interaction for this type of operation.

Yes, he pushed a lot of the worst of it.

In the article, "John has led Unity through incredible growth over the last nearly 10 years, helping us transition from a perpetual license to a subscription model, enabling developers to monetize, building other game services to serve our creator community, leading us through an IPO..." while they are all great for the board and shareholders, each has harmed the product.

JR certainly gave the company profits with so far what people tolerated. People tolerated a shift to renting the software, to costlier licenses, to paying for nickel-and-dime fees for extras, so in that regard he was what they were looking for. This one was a step too far, but realistically, just another along the long list of extracting money.

No, it is trickier than that.

United States v. Causby is probably the last major ruling. At some point close to the ground it is trespassing and he is defending his property. If police didn't have a warrant or exigency, they would have no right to be there. There is no specific limit set by the court or congress, but he owns "at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land."

Right now there are a mix of laws around 400 feet, 500 feet, within line of sight, and other variations. Purpose and intent matters under some laws, not others. What is considered trespassing, harassing, or allowed use of airspace is badly defined.

It will someday be a fascinating case, the trespassing case absolutely will happen eventually, and likely to be appealed to the SCOTUS, but this case would be a terrible vehicle for it.

For the most part, yes.

As society, we promote within specific subgroups all the time in addition to opening them up generally. You can't advertise everwhere so you advertise where you believe it to be most effective. If you're rich you can advertise everywhere, but for most groups it is limited; pick two or three radio stations, pick a few billboard locations, pick a few television stations.

The other tricky aspect is choice versus exclusion or discrimination.

Saying "more women in tech" is a tricky issue. There is a difference between "a group wants the jobs but are excluded" versus "a group doesn't choose the job". Governments put out frequent statistics on gender in industries. Early childhood education is dominated by women, in the US currently 98%, to the extent that women prefer it, that's going to be fine. But to the extent that men are excluded, that's a problem. Childcare workers, 94% women currently, same story. Construction worker, automotive mechanics, electric power line workers, all are 99% men at present. To the extent that this is choice, that's fine, but to the extent that women are excluded, that's a problem.

The current US statistic for programmers is 28.7% women, 71.3% men. Just like above, to the extent that this is a choice and women choose the field, that's fine, but to the extent that women are excluded, that's a problem.

Going back down from the field broadly to job marketing specifically, if the marketing group decides that because women are only 28% of the market they choose to market more toward women as an opportunity, that's fine to increase invitations, increase exposure, increase visibility, increase funding, offer more if they want. But the moment they shift from invitation and inclusion to exclusion, that's when it becomes a big problem.

Not necessarily excluded from the trial, just kept out of the public record.

There are many legal protections in place, as others are now discussing, for this very reason. It would be easy to abuse lawsuits, use a lawsuit to force competitors to discover trade secrets, use a lawsuit to force confidential records to be publicly exposed, etc. We have a legal system that allows for documents to be redacted, for documents to be filed under seal, for information to be kept eyes-only, and for some things to only be evaluated by outside experts who in turn give testimony rather than the thing itself being considered as evidence. There is a huge range of reasons the various protections apply. Those protections are important both to the businesses and the individual, and to maintain trust in government.

When the protections are warranted --- and they very often are for information normally treated as confidential or trade secrets --- there are plenty of ways they can be incorporated to the trial without public disclosure.