When you have a display that can handle the frame rate necessary to alternate the picture anyway... what's the cost?
By all means, stop packing 3D glasses in. Make them a separate purchase for those who want them.
But why not offer the feature for those who want it when the hardware already does everything you need and it costs essentially nothing more?
If anything, the moment for glasses is finally here. Yeah, they still suck to wear. But the next major complaint was that they darkened the picture. Yet Samsung's doubled picture brightness this year. You can have each eye blacked out half of the time and still have as bright a picture as last year's glassesless version.
So, sure, most people don't use it much. But when it's essentially free, why not check that box for the 1% who do want it?
The question lists What they're doing but barely speculates as to Why, beyond "to look good."
Most people I've seen treated this way get it because they've either badly or repeatedly screwed over colleagues.
From the description, it's an environment where people don't have much trust in management/HR helping. In such a situation, where the gaslighter may well have a legitimate issue with the victim but, in the absence of legitimate channels, taking away their ability to succeed until they go away remains an apparent only choice.
So first step is to consider if you've screwed then over. Not by your definition but by theirs. If so, start by mending bridges.
Maybe it is nothing to do with the victim. Still ask why.
Maybe they're a very insecure person, despite the rockstar talents the victim perceives.
Maybe they're scared of someone less talented but younger and hotter.
Or maybe they're hurting from other bad workplace drama, a bad manager, another bullying colleague, and lashing out where they can.
Get to know them, understand them, empathize, build their trust, make yourself an ally they want to build up not tear down.
Is that fair? Should you have to work with an unfair bully?
No. Back when mommy could talk to the teacher, it wasn't fair.
But this is the real world. In a good company, management and HR will help but this apparently isn't one. That leaves leaving (hurts you), fighting (often hurts you more) or being the bigger person to ensure you succeed.
You're going to hit lots of unfair in your career. Working out how to win anyway is at least as important a skill as any technical one.
A CEO's job is...
A) Run the company in the most successful way that returns the greatest value over the long run.
B) Run the company in the way that most benefits society and the employees.
C) Create the greatest short term growth in stock prices so the current investors, who control their hiring, can sell and realize a profit.
Given it's the involved, activist shareholders that determine most CEO's hiring and firing - and they're looking for a dramatic change in company value over the short term...
Any CEO who chases A or B is an idiot who's going to ultimately get replaced by shareholders who want a sudden bump in value and then to get the hell out. They don't give a damn about whether the company will be worth more money in ten years because they intend to have sold, bought again when value tanks, sold after a short term solve, bought again when the value tanks... and repeated many times.
How a company does over ten years as a metric of CEO efficiency is just a demonstration of completely missing what CEOs are rewarded for.
The CEO who created a massive short term growth, then left and left the company to tank for a while, is worth that large bill to the shareholders who are trying to get just that.
Also, we don't get ponies just because we really, really want one and it's only fair!
If I'm doing my job properly as a manager, no one should ever be indispensable.
Highly valued? Sure. I want to build a team where everyone is exceptionally valued.
But if anyone ever becomes indispensable, I've failed in my job as a manager.
Why? The hit by a bus factor. That wonderful employee who loves me, who I love... can still get hit by a bus. Can still get sick. Can still have a loved one die. Can still have a relative offer to pay all expenses for a once in a lifetime six week world trip.
If I have any employee that I can't keep my team running without, even at zero notice, I'm not running my team well.
It may suck. It may be sad. It may require some juggling I'd much rather not do. But any indispensability means I've done my job badly.
This means, if someone quits with zero notice, I can handle it.
At that point, it's actually a good thing anyway. If they're so pissed off that they'd statement quit, I don't need them in the office, poisoning others, dragging their heels through their short timer's disease. Let's get them somewhere where they're happy and get my team of great people back doing great things. We'll live.
Strange thing? When you have a well run team that you can already be confident in, people rarely statement quit anyway. For some reason, they don't seem to feel the need. Imagine that. And when they do? You've got it handled anyway.
Does the company give at least two weeks paid notice to everyone it terminates?
Then my minimum will also be two weeks notice.
Does the company usually just tell people to gather their things and pay out the minimum it's legally required to?
Then my minimum will be the same.
Does the company generally give a couple of weeks severance unless for cause?
Then my minimum is also two weeks unless I'm quitting due to their cause.
Does the company have a good standard severance package?
Then I will also give them the option to have my work out longer.
Note: I say minimums. I'm also aware that, as poor as their behavior may be, I've also got my own reputation to watch out for. They may be a bunch of asshats. But my next employer is likely looking for reassurance that they'll get a respectful notice period and my quitting without notice, unless it's really easy to justify, just makes me look bad to future employers who background check.
To top that off, many modern security-oriented chips implement HMAC and AES in hardware, which uses even less power and is orders of magnitude faster still. Doing one complete round of AES3 takes thousands of cycles on a CPU but can be collapsed into a single step process in hardware using a fraction of the silicon of a 32bits CPU.
The RFID protocol has provisions to detect and mitigate collisions between multiple cards. If multiple cards try to respond at the same time, there is a random per-card delay before each card attempts to respond again and the reader can use that to enumerate cards that are within range until it finds the one it wants. Having multiple cards in range will merely slow down the enumeration process.
In my wallet, I simply put a stainless steel eraser stencil in the card pocket between my bank and credit cards.
Being contact-less does not systematically mean that the card relinquishes all data. NFC/RFID is able to wirelessly supply power to support a secure microcontroller and two-way secure authentication/encryption to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks. Companies simply chose not to implement it this way for some stupid reason.
Plain wireless ((EE)P)ROM is fine for anti-theft tags and basic identification but not wireless payments or other applications that require intrinsic trust.
"As if this isn't abusive enough, the candidates are not allowed to see nor challenge their report"
The data protection act, 1988, says they are.
You can naively write whatever you feel like into a ToS. But it won't hold us to the first even cursory legal challenge.
The ToS can say, "You grant the landlord the right to enter your apartment and invoke droit de signeur whenever you are passed out drunk." It doesn't make it true or remotely enforceable.
% APL is a natural extension of assembler language programming; ...and is best for educational purposes. -- A. Perlis