Can’t this be circumvented by not doing the same thing for the new employer? I imagine in some cases companies are willing to hire someone just to stop them from doing what they’re doing.
It could be a win-win for everyone and they inform him they will not enforce any non-competes.
“After spending (…) then a little less than two years at Intel Foundry, O'Buckley will now supervise how Qualcomm turns its designs into finished silicon.
Whether or not Intel Foundry will produce any of Qualcomm's future designs is something that remains to be seen.”
In terms of R&D - as ARM - or Qualcomm indexes, which exit as capitol accumulates prior to leveraging microprocessors in "X" as contract appropriation.
What do you mean? IANAL, but Claude doesn't just "wake up" (whatever that means) and decide to reverse engineering/hack stuff, so if this is a CFAA violation the person who prompted Claude is indeed responsible. At best, one could argue that the company producing Claude is partially responsible because it didn't prevent people from using it to reverse engineer stuff, but there's no way Claude is "responsible for all of the hacking", regardless of how many times the blog posts says "Claude did X".
These are interesting graphs, but at least in some of them the focus around 2012 seems arbitrary. "Time spent partying" started decreasing since 2006 at a rate (-2 mins/day in a year) that you only see from 2014 to 2015. "Total Consumer Credit Outstanding" is almost linear from 2009 to 2014, why is 2011-2013 so special? Ditto for "Number of satellites in orbit" which looks essentially linear from 2000 to 2014.
Some graphs are correlated and probably share trends, like "Time spent Partying/socializing" is negatively correlated with "Young Adults Reporting No Sex in Past Year".
Aliens (which are not UFOs, much like people are not planes) can mean a lot of stuff.
We're used to the classic depiction of a humanoid, maybe with a different color or height or a different number of fingers (ET), with higher-than-average intelligence.
What if they're just skilled at driving their "vehicles" and can't really reason or think or talk?
What if they're more like rabbits or sharks or pigeons or mushrooms or rocks?
What if they're invisible to the human eye? Maybe they are mostly transparent like jellyfish, who knows.
For all we know, maybe UFOs are the alien equivalent of drones. Unmanned (should I say unaliened?).
Maybe government(s) just know aliens are real, but they are fundamentally different from us and cannot be seen at all without some specialized equipment, or maybe they can be seen but they look like average living beings on Earth. Or maybe they just know someone is remotely driving those UFOs but we've never actually come close to seeing them.
My favorite theory lately is thinking about a holographic universe and if our reality is emergent from another, and unknown entities could be coming over from that. We might not be able to 'see' a being from the non-emergent universe even if they could see/interact with us.
I think there's an additional, more fundamental reason.
The thing about software, unlike many other kinds of engineering, is that it often feels disconnected from hardware and actual, you know, physics.
Of course there are physical limits to software (speed of light, the size of a CPU, ...), but they are usually abstracted away or they are managed in some other ways (like scaling).
Also, consider that the fundamental tools of software engineering, programming languages, are built to be able to support essentially everything you can think of and define precisely (functional Turing completeness).
Finally, there has been a lot of push towards the idea that to be a good SWE you need to code as a hobby, too, "dream code", and essentially live your own life thinking about technology.
When you are a successful tech person (you're good at what you're doing), and the approach to your job (define things accurately enough and you can do essentially everything, abstract way the "real" stuff, ...) becomes the approach to your hobbies and your entire life, and your social circles are exclusively made of tech people, the temptation to treat everything as a SWE challenge can drive you to the extremes.
Tech (especially software wise) is something you can drive to your own goals with little obstacles, so why not treat old age as a "bug" to be removed? Why waste "life cycles" to prepare and taste actual food, when you get nutrients in a more time-efficient way? And so on.
The less extreme step to this is working in tech domains which are "cool" regardless of the actual impacts on people's lives and society. This is of course not specific to SWE, but I feel like SWE somehow amplifies this because of the immaterial nature of code.
The DSA list includes Chinese companies like Alibaba and TikTok Technology Limited
(Bytedance's European subsidiary). Proceedings have been opened against both US and Chinese companies.
If the ads content depends on a social media company seeing your posts and analyzing them, it’s probably fair to say it’s targeted advertising.
Browsers typically send Accept-Language headers so you could easily return ads in languages matching that header, without having to analyze your posts.
It’s like switching on to a Spanish TV channel and getting Spanish speaking ads. It’s not targeted because you are signalling you probably understand Spanish.
Scenario A: Booking.com wants to increase their profits so they analyze their results and prioritize the best ones to reach their target. Regardless, Booking takes a cut of everything.
Scenario B: if you pay Booking $10k you can get to the first page even if you are a random 1-star hotel. Booking takes a cut of everything and also profits by getting money in exchange for more visibility of certain results.
reply