In the U.S. at least, many schools already do this, and there are both independent proctoring facilities as well as agreements among universities to let you visit the testing center at a nearby school even if you're enrolled at a far away school.

> was that it just seemed... pointless

My exact reaction, too. About midway through I just realize that I'm having trouble caring about any of it, and that it's a giant, convoluted mess of things all thrown together.

Plus, the go-to plot device seems to always be "BTW there's something yet bigger and more powerful that we've never mentioned before and you need to do a quest to get to it. Also, your nemesis is simultaneously becoming aware of it right now, so you better hurry!"

The streamers want to dunk on people to make themselves look good for their Twitch viewers, and more viewers means more money. I have no problem with that, as long as the people getting dunked on opt in and get a cut of the streaming revenue.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Can't fault a guy for wanting to get back home! Beep boop beep.

LOL, there is absolutely no way this cannot end badly.

What on earth? I mean, I know there's always a lot of overhead positions and supporting roles and all that but... 7000 employees?? Wow.

Maybe the real reason why many employees are unhappy about the purchase is that they know Twitter could be the same hot mess with only a couple hundred people.

The same study found that left-handed people were -0.5% less unlikely to not be unhappy with not going back to the office, while Capricorns see that reluctance as a chance to get ahead of others.

Seriously though, the obsession with race is so bizarre... to always see the world through a racial lens *seems* like the very thing that would encourage racism, no? The fact that the author felt it important to call out black people's feelings specifically is either assuming or demanding that one's skin color be relevant to the question. What a way to live.

Your comment would have been better if you had just tried to make a point without trying to make it into a "dig" on me, especially since in doing so you've made some incorrect assumptions about me.

Hehe, this is sometimes true but often not true at all.

Also, "fair" is such an interesting choice of words and kinda reinforces my point. While I do assume in the specific case of Amazon, it could afford to give many of its workers some sort of a raise, even then it's not entirely clear cut what a "fairer share of the profits" would even look like. Are we talking gross profits or net profits? Both can provide a distorted picture of what is "fair" and neither tells the full story.

And either way, if you don't have any long term strategy, don't care about future growth, don't care about investors (especially those who were still willing to bet on your company when it was losing millions every quarter), don't have to worry about competition, don't care about more innovation, don't have to worry about weathering economic downturns, etc., etc. then it's easy to look at the balance sheet and say, "that should go to the workers". But even if you get that far, should every worker get the same increase? Should it be proportional to their current pay? Should it be related at all to the value they actually provide? (and if so, who determines that and how?)

FWIW I like companies that are generous to even the lowest-rung employees, and I guess for some people it's satisfying to imagine all companies being run by Scrooge McDuck swimming in gold, but the reality is far more complicated.

Real wages have not kept pace with inflation, so this may be an effective way to correct some of that.

At the same time, it seems a lot of workers don't understand the first thing about how businesses work and/or they wildly overestimate the value they provide, and as such think unionization is going to lead to piles more money.

It's right there in plain sight! "Executive Order 12333" -> "Order 12333" -> "Order 1+2+3 3+3" -> "Order 66".

It's hard to say since it's still sorta vaporware, but that price point might actually be fine, depending on the market they are targeting. If it's commercial/enterprise and not consumer, then they could be going after MSFT's HoloLens niche initially, and then over time work their way down to "prosumer" and then consumer markets.

I hadn't seen that, thank you!

Yeah, in current Python you can't really get more computing capacity via threads unless the thread ends up releasing the GIL (e.g. worker threads compressing images by calling out to a C library). Threads are also handy for other GIL-releasing scenarios like disk or network I/O, waiting on user input, monitoring for hardware events, etc.

This change could provide real benefits, but it's not a automatic silver bullet as many multithreaded Python programs rely on the inherent thread safety of data structures.

For example, consider a dictionary object that is read from in the main thread, while one or more worker threads are computing results and writing them to that same dictionary. In a typical implementation in Python, you wouldn't explicitly lock access to the dictionary because it's completely unnecessary (due to the GIL): it's impossible for any of the threads to corrupt the Python interpreter because nobody is /really/ accessing the dictionary concurrently. With the proposed change, however, such programs would likely blow up.

That said, I'd love to see this thing be added to Python as some sort of runtime option that can be enabled or via a separate python executable that you can drop in, so that by default you'd still get the automatic thread safety but then have the option of much better performance if you explicitly agree to take on the burden of thread safety yourself.

The answer to the question can be found in the book "Bad Blood", by John Carreyrou. It's a fascinating/disturbing read.

Holmes is getting prosecuted because she (a) bilked a lot high profile people out of a lot of money, (b) did so in a very public way, (c) while ignoring a long set of warnings from her underlings, and (d) in doing so mislead / hurt people in their medical decisions and treatment.

Doing 'a' through 'c' might seem common enough (although she really excelled in how well she did them, even by Silicon Valley standards) but it's the addition of 'd' that is really causing problems for her - knowingly distributing faulty tech that e.g. tells people they are dying when they are not is not in the same realm as overpromising company growth rates.