Comment Re:Skeptical that this always presents itself quic (Score 1) 64
"Wear-out failures aren't always different from infant mortality failures, though."
That are completely different issues, always different.
Only in the most utterly pedantic sense of the word "different" wherein you mean that by definition, infant mortality occurs early and wear occurs later. But they can both stem from the same root cause, which is a component not built with adequate tolerances. In other words, they can be the same fundamental issue, just expressing themselves at different times.
That would be reflected in a low MTBF rather than the example "MTBF of 600000 hours".
Most products don't have an MTBF. And things that do have MTBF are based on accelerated wear testing on a small number of units, and can have almost zero basis in reality. There was one model of major brand hard drive about twenty years back where a couple of RAIDs where I used to work got lost because the drives all died after such a predictable number of powered-on hours that by the time you could re-stripe the RAID, the next drive would die. They ended up making sure the drives had a high variance in powered-on hours before using them in RAIDs after that.
Do you really understand what that means? Because it seems clear you don't.
It's an example that proves or demonstrates a point. And the point it was proving was that the same root cause can be responsible for both catastrophic early product failures and premature deterioration-related failures.
Comment This is not about crypto (Score 2) 21
Rather, this is effectively about recording stock transactions on a blockchain. Nothing more and nothing less than swapping a distributed transaction log for a traditional ledger.
The implication is clear, the SEC is at least considering the idea of creating shares as a token cryptocurrency. In this case, the tokens are backed by real shares. That's not a technical requirement, though, and a future company might someday skip the major exchanges entirely to list only as a token. To be clear, there's nothing sacred about the exchanges and their "house rules"; there's nothing inherently wrong with using a blockchain vs a ledger; and to reiterate, this has nothing to do with "buying stocks with Bitcoin".
On that last point, I consider OKXICE's decision to accept payment in some nondescript "stablecoins" as extremely unfortunate. Not because I'm a cryptophobe, but because it muddies the waters as to the viability of the core concept of tokenized equity itself - Though that's a bit of a tautology, given stocks are already "tokenized equity". Whether we denominate them in USD or BTC or cowrie shells is an entirely separate issue.
Comment Re:Skeptical that this always presents itself quic (Score 2) 64
I'm skeptical of this.
People who don't understand that wear out failures are a different statistical mechanism to infant mortality failures I'm sure are very sceptical. I guess you also don't believe any HDD can fail within the first month of operation because they have an MTBF of 600000 hours?
Devices get shipped with manufacturing defects and bad batches all the time. That has zero to do with wear out failure rate.
Wear-out failures aren't always different from infant mortality failures, though. If the defect is caused by a design flaw in a component resulting in a structural weak point, that same weak point could fail after one use or a thousand, and it could just be a ticking time bomb. Someone could get very unlucky and find one that is slightly weaker, and it could break much sooner.
Case in point, I recall a machine where some people would have to have their laptops replaced every couple of months for motherboard failures, while others lasted for years, and it turned out to be dependent on how people closed their laptops at the end of the day and whether they pressed on the bottom of the case in a particular spot that wiggled the GPU. But if you handed one that had been working for five years to someone who used their left hand under the laptop while closing it, it would be dead in two or three months. If you replaced it with a brand new one, the brand new one would be dead in two or three months. And so on.
Comment Re:ha (Score 2, Insightful) 67
Of course employers are welcome to set the terms under which they'll give us money. And similarly, we're free to set the terms under which we'll accept their money. That's how it works.
Personally, I love companies announcing draconian new RTO policies - There aren't many better indicators their stock price is going to spike short-term then tank a few quarters later. But that has nothing to do with working for those companies. On that front, it's just a hard "no", to the point I'm seriously considering becoming a professional "interview troll" once I retire!
Comment Re: I would take them seriously but... (Score 1) 123
That said, if these are everywhere and the very fact I'm using FF with uBlock Origin is the exact reason I haven't seen these... That is the sort of viral advertising most companies dream of.
Comment Re:It never ceases to amaze me... (Score 1) 41
LPT: You can also turn your phone to watch the content. I know, mind blown, right? Pass it along!
Comment Re:Fire me (Score 1) 136
That said, I see the GP's argument come up quite often in any online discussion of layoffs, and it took me years to finally figure out, this topic basically comes down to a simple class issue: If someone is a moderately well-paid salaried employee, a severance offer is almost always going to beat UI by miles (and as you also pointed out, that's not a mutually exclusive choice, UI just picks up after severance ends). If someone is a low-paid nonexempt worker, by contrast, severance is usually nonexistent and employers playing games around UI claim appeals are a lot more common.
There's also other benefits to consider, most importantly health insurance. Severance offers usually allow employees to keep their group health insurance during the severance period, while COBRA is eye-wateringly expensive even for someone formerly paid well.
Comment Re:Fire me (Score 4, Informative) 136
Weekly, that's $4.7k vs $1.2k. Total, that's $184k vs 31k.
I can guarantee nobody smart enough to be an engineer at Microsoft (as much as we might make fun of their culture and products) is dumb enough to fail that one-question math exam.
Comment Re:Well, that's a nonstarter (Score 2) 42
Who's going to be able to scrounge up an extra 12KB of RAM in today's market?
That was just one single test program of only 20 KB. Extrapolate that out and it's significant.
Comment Slightly larger (Score 1) 42
32KB compared to 20kb
That's more than 50% larger for that one test program. I don't consider a 50% increase "slight". Maybe a 10% increase can be considered slight, but that much difference is significant. Especially talking about embedded systems and the like.
Comment Re: Deal with it? (Score 1) 95
Comment Re:Does not make me like the IT guys (Score 2) 82
Yeah, great, you're an Exchange admin and can send email "from" any random VP you want. And you have access to their recent document history so can "spice it up" by referencing actual projects we might really be assigned to. When your phishing tests are literally indistinguishable from legitimate emails, you're not "testing" anything, you're daring people to ignore legitimate work at risk of their continued employment.
If "my boss" sends me an email, which the headers show really came from his account, and asks me to take a look at a spreadsheet we worked on three days ago - You're not being clever, you're an asshole.
Comment Re:Deal with it? (Score 4, Insightful) 95
2) Comcast has received 2.6B in subsidies since 1987.
3) Remind us again, how long as Biden been out of office now?
Comment Re:uh no (Score 4, Insightful) 171
Go home to the family farm and enjoy a peaceful life. There's no glory for you in Ukraine.