When I was directly admining systems, I didn't have time to argue with people over a couple dollars worth of storage.

I also didn't want people wasting time worrying about quotas or other artificial limits unless they were abusive. (The dude who wrote something that was authing against LDAP 10s of millions of times a day got a talking-to.)

A lot of people confuse "I can't imagine doing or needing X" with "there is a good reason to deny the ability to do X." Honestly, I think most people are Doing It Wrong, most of the time. So? If they're getting shit done, none of my business until they are making unreasonable demands that impact operations. And 100G of mail is peanuts.

My current complaint is the opposite - I can't keep mail longer than a year now, lest it be discoverable in some potential future lawsuit. I've gotten better at predicting what I'll need to know later, but still miss things I should have saved somewhere, and that absolutely damages my productivity.

Actually, I think it was Fred Schwed Jr. 86 years ago, but still just as relevant. In case it's not obvious from the fee, this is totally not about making YOU financially better off.

I'm guessing the tank has enough positive pressure left internally that it can withstand the pressure exerted upon it by the upper stage's engine exhaust without collapsing until the upper stage is clear. If it deforms, then presumably it would not be able to be reused, but if it can withstand the pressure long enough just fine then that removes the need for some additional shielding, and the mass that entails.

Only if you say it's OK elsewhere.

To train an LLM during flight.

What I'm hearing is "But, I'm a highly-compensated professional! Not like all the plebes we spy on constantly to compensate me."

I do agree that they should stand up for themselves, and they have my support, once I'm done supporting causes I consider more important, like toe lint eradication.

Facebook headhunters used to bug me constantly. I put up an autoresponder telling them what I thought of their business model, leadership and general behavior, and that I would wash dishes for a living before working for a degrading, anti-human shithole like FB. Eventually they got the message.

I ended up in a fairly heated argument with some FB employees several years back when I mentioned that. It was obvious they felt stung by someone rejecting the choices they made and kept leaning in to, "but I make more money than you". Which was I was happy to concede, it was true. Suggesting that my self-esteem costs more than theirs didn't seem to be what they wanted to hear..

I wonder if those folks are still there, protesting about their workplace privacy.

The headline may as well be "Rose maintains transactional relationships with tech media after all these years".

At this point I think if a good idea walked up and smacked him on the head, the name alone might doom it. It has been an also-ran in a confusing number of categories, so depending on your age you may remember it as a very different kind of failure than I do. Sort of the converse of trademark dilution - it is clear what the name is and who owns it, what's muddy is what the service is supposed to be.

You're assuming the companies with these fleets of (currently largely non-existant) robots are still going to solvent if the bubble pops. That seems highly unlikely in many cases given the business model for AI is apparently "borrow massive amounts of money to fund it using the promise future orders as collateral". Asset strippers have no interest in salvaging a business; their business model is to buy the physical assets cheap, dump the debt on to bagholders (the shareholders), and sell the assets off to whoever wants it, hopefully for more than the cents on the dollar paid they probably for it. I buy stuff from these auctions from time to time; it's a great way to get nearly new, and often still on the market, kit at a fraction of the retail price.

Also, Facebook might not be the best counter example there. Remember what happened to many of the hires, business units, servers, and services, Meta setup when Zuck went all-in on the Metaverse? What do you think he'll do if going all-in on AI doesn't pan out for him?

Yeah, but these are Humanities students. That, by its very definition, is an area where AI should have very limited use, where it is applied should be done really, really, carefully, and job losses are far less likely than in many other fields. Sure, there's analysis of datasets, especially of geographical and historical data, but that is one of the areas where a specifically trained model can really be of use, but an AI is never going to painstakingly brush away dirt from some ancient historical site, and I shudder to think what would happen if AI hallucinations get let loose on philosophy or religion. That said, it would probably be very amusing watching those who buy into the output; and doubly so if the model was trained on the Butlerian.Jihad from Dune, less so for actual crusades, jihads, and "holy" wars.

Still, if these presumably tech savvy Gen Z students are not fans of the tech, regardless of whether that's because the recognise how its being used by corporates or some other reasons, then I think the people that need to be more worried about this are those that have built the massive pyramid trillions of dollars of debt to build something that few seem to want or trust. Like the .com boom, the bubble must pop sooner or later and sort out who is a "pets.com" and who is a "google.com", and there are growing indication that, unlike .com, the demand that will be required to pay for it all just isn't there, and we're already way beyond the scale of any previous government bailouts. That kind of crash only has one outcome; a lot of shareholders (which includes pension funds) are going to lose their shirts.

Since when did product longevity matter?

According to TFS, the layoffs are due on 20th May. No one is going to voluntarily quit if they can just phone it in for another 8 working days and get at least some additional severence pay to tide them over while they look for a new job. If they don't get cut and are still hacked off enough on the 21st, that's probably when people are going to start to quit.

Of course, one thing Meta is very good at is profiling people. And another, as TFS points out, is being callous sociopaths. Chances are they've factored all that in and I wouldn't be at all surprised if their actual target is a 15% RIF and they've worked out that if they fire *this* 10% on the 20th, then *this* further 5% that have definitely had enough and were hoping to be laid off will be so fed up with the loss of their former colleagues and even more hostile workplace will quit of their own accord over the next few weeks. If Meta was aware you were looking for another job before they announced the 10% RIF, it's pretty good bet you're in the additional 5% they are hoping for.

Since when did employees matter?

I'm amused at how petty that billionaire's make-money-fa$t schemes are. Selling steaks? Tennis shoes? Bibles?

What other billionaire does this to get richer?

Ah, binary.

It's not a lake under the city, it's an aquifer, so it takes quite a bit of time for the water to disperse, rather than flow, through it. Replenishing a little bit of the water in one area through a leak might stave off some of the sinking in that area, but the areas where water is being extracted from will continue to sink much faster, with the additional complication that the density of the aquifter likely varies as well. The net result is the same though; different parts of the city sink at different rates, with those near leaks or denser parts of the aquifer slower than those near extraction points or the more porous areas, hence all the tilting buildings.