That's very metaphysical.
That's very metaphysical.
No, the point (made many times already, try googling for once)
Oh go fuck yourself.
VW lied about how they achieved these numbers, and are claiming a couple of software engineers are the culprits.
So, yes, actual mechanical parts they never implemented and then lied about, and now they're looking for a scapegoat.
The people responsible for the engine design pretty much had to know this. Blaming it on software engineers is an outright lie.
They lied about how they did this, they lied about how they faked it, and they're lying about who is at fault. The only "clever design" was systematic fraud.
Which means there is no defensible way that you can say this was purely a software kludge designed to hide some information.
I'm pretty sure there were a lot of people who simply HAD to be actively involved in this decision.
This is a straight up lie, and the people making it know it is.
Aren't there actual mechanical parts of the engine which simply weren't even implemented and then this kludge was done in software?
You can't design this way of cheating without people who know the details of the engine signing off on it.
This is so much bullshit it isn't funny.
A software engineer could not have made the decision to leave off the components which were supposed to make clean diesel.
This is purely about finding a scapegoat.
He allegedly encouraged the hackers to use the credentials to âoego fuck some shit up.â
And, really, if that was his attitude, he gets no sympathy.
In terms of the definition of "computer fraud and abuse", that's pretty much it.
Of course, the problem is you could do a LOT of non-digital crimes and do a LOT less time, which makes me ask if these prison sentences are even sane.
Hell, you could probably intentionally run down someone with your car and do less prison time.
MOOC may be used a lot, but so are all other bullshit buzzwords
It may surprise you that a lot of us don't give a crap about these buzzwords, and don't keep track.
Now moove along.
Really? You mean I can tell the officer I was doing 80 in a 50 zone because I was passing someone?
I'm pretty sure I've never heard of passing as an exemption to speed limits. I'm pretty sure they don't write traffic laws which says "you can't go faster than X ever, unless you're passing, then it's OK".
Are you sure it's actually "legal"? Or just something you heard once?
Unfortunately, in the modern context "mentally infirm" is pretty much a design feature, and people feel they're entitled to believe any old irrational shit and that should be OK.
There's a tremendous amount of people who seem to wear their own self-created ignorance as some kind of badge of honor.
"Complete idiots" now probably covers a good portion of society these days
Sit in the back seat. Or don't buy one.
Honestly, until they get the issues of liability sorted out, the self driving car is a complete non-starter
But it will have to be made to mean something.
I've been saying for quite a while that self-driving cars can't just go into a failure mode which says "OK, meat sock, you do it I'm confused" and expect humans to be able to respond or take liability.
It's completely unrealistic to expect humans to transition from not actively driving to being required to take over in the event of an emergency.
Why would I pay insurance on a self-driving car? That would be idiotic, and basically means everyone else is footing the bill for the adoption of unfinished technology.
If the passengers aren't the source of the risk, they sure as hell shouldn't be the ones pay for the insurance.
I'm sorry, but who is pushing a new iPhone "through the throats of customers"??
You are completely free to not fucking buy one.
Did you know that car makers push out a new version, only slightly different, annually? Companies who make golf clubs, also push out new versions at least annually. And companies who make TVs, they also do this.
If customers buy a new expensive phone every year or two, don't blame the vendor. Free will doesn't stop just because you've bought a product.
I was at a company once, and they'd grown by acquisitions. I'm sure everybody has by now.
Invariably, the VP of R&D of the last major acquisition became the VP of R&D for the entire company. And, also invariably, that VP of R&D would develop a massive case of Not Invented Here, and attempt to kill off any products outside of his own core knowledge.
This usually led to idiotic decisions which were inconsistent with why that company was bought in the first place -- precisely because they stupidly wanted to kill off the products they'd been intended to augment and improve, not wipe out and destroy.
At the employee level, it just became a pathetic running joke
And then there's all the examples where the company being bought had cooked the books to the point that what they actually were worth had nothing to do with what got paid for them
Acquisition MIGHT be something which can be made to work. Far too often it just ends up destroying the thing which had enough value to have bought in the first place.
I know the scientific method is how you investigate stuff
Yes, economics affects our lives
But as far as being an objective science, it's sure as hell not that.
How you interpret what happened, and how you define what should happen is entirely driven by your ideology
And that aint science. That's sophistry.
You know, from what I've been able to see, the M+A culture in tech for the last 20+ years has consistently made the same stupid mistakes
And those large entities become worse and worse at even knowing what they have, and making use of them.
Often to the point that the reasons they spent huge sums of money on the acquisition in the first place get lost, and then they stop selling the product entirely.
I would argue that acquisitions is more destructive than constructive. All it really does is gut smaller companies, give those executives huge payouts while laying off their staff, and then leaving the new company to ignore/neglect/screw up the product offerings of the company which got bought.
I'm betting hundreds of companies with good products have essentially been destroyed in the process, largely so some half-wit of a CEO could add another buzzword or two to his portfolio of lies and bullshit.
I don't care what anybody says, economics isn't a science, and can't be a science
Economics in large part is bad math, with unfounded assumptions, making hand-waving conclusions about something which happened (or you believe should happen) to explain it according how you need it to be explained to match your world view.
Economics is not and never can be an objective science.
There can be no twisted thought without a twisted molecule. -- R. W. Gerard