I’ve sat through a few Netflix talks and they’re all the same flavor of “look what you can achieve with millions of dollars and hundreds of engineers.” They’re somewhat interesting from an architectural perspective, but even scaled down versions aren’t feasible in most environments and it leaves a taste in your mouth that you just sat through a recruiting pitch.
Until a few years ago most projects at Netflix were done with a handful of engineers ( <= 6 ). A dozen people working on something would have been considered very large. Four dozen would have been considered a company wide effort.
Netflix is still pretty cash-heavy on average, though with a lot more compensation going towards stock options in recent years. They let the employee choose the ratio. They pay extremely well, but this comes along with very high hiring standards and a very difficult culture.
The culture was and still is as you have described, with massively high pressure, "radical candor" taken to arguably very unhealthy levels, and with no hesitation in firing you. This is a major reason why, despite the fact that I am a video engineer with a film background who lives walking distance to 2 of their campuses and has a great amount of respect for their technical achievements, I never apply there.
These are not similar situations. In your example, they were merely charged and arrested. At that point, nothing has been proven. The case in question has already resulted in a conviction.
It’s a pretty clear cut case of someone misusing governmental funds to further their political aspirations. Another way of phrasing that is corruption. Is a role of the courts not to prevent this? Is allowing proven corrupt individuals to hold office positive for a democratic institution?
Anyone serious about democracy should think hard before they prevent people from standing for elections.
The courts might think they are doing their job, but disqualifying a major political figure from standing for elections based on charges related to 10-20 year old cases gives a very specific message, whether you like it or not.
The last instances of impropriety took place seven years before charges were brought. I think that’s in a reasonable time period considering it’s was a conspiracy and had to be investigated.
Government officials should be held to a higher standard, let alone a minimum standard of “don’t steal from the people.” A few years of house arrest and a suspension from politics is a light sentence when one violates that bare minimum standard.
Several anti-aircraft systems can and do use fragmentation warheads. The BUK that shot down MH17 used one and the impact patterns are strikingly similar. Take a look at the “Reconstruction” section in this: https://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/miscell...
Notice how all of your examples started with evidence. The participants did not start with a political goal and then work their way backwards to justify or prove it.
> Notice how all of your examples started with evidence.
An insider observing a simple way for a bad actor to gain access to voting machine hardware is evidence. I don’t agree with her methods of exposing that vulnerability just like I don’t agree with Wikileaks exposing unfiltered diplomatic cables that had nothing to do with criminality. However this community and the left in general has fostered blatant double standards in this area depending on the politics of the subject.
> An insider observing a simple way for a bad actor to gain access to voting machine hardware is evidence.
Is evidence of what? She abused her elected position to pursue a conspiracy theory and no evidence of that conspiracy was discovered. She, a week after having the cameras monitoring the election office turned off, knowingly allowed an unauthorized person to view election machine credentials. She, a person who was supposed to protect the integrity of the election as part of being a clerk and recorder in her county, betrayed her public office and the people who elected her.
There is no ‘blatant double standard’ here. Instead, you’ve drawn a false analogy to other situations to make this seem like something it wasn’t. Even if we were charitable and said the ends justify the means, there were no justifying ends that came about.
> She, a week after having the cameras monitoring the election office turned off, knowingly allowed an unauthorized person to view election machine credentials.
A single insider shouldn't be able to potentially undermine the voting in an entire jurisdiction and, depending on the vulnerability, multiple jurisdictions. That is a massive vulnerability revealed by the fact that she was able to do it. No single person should be able to undermine our voting system and she knew they could and then demonstrated it. It is illegal and she should answer for the way she revealed the vulnerability but then I think Julian Assange and Edward Snowden should have been tried and jailed long ago for their unethical and irresponsible disclosures too, so I'm not a hypocrite.
I'm going to miss the computer hardware sell/trade subreddits, they're one of the most active I've found and saves 20-40% over eBay or similar. All require a minimum account age and karma to reduce the risk of scammers.
I'd give Rolling Stone a little bit of slack on this one.
The last time they rushed to paint suspects as rapists ahead of any sort of actual trial, they got sued to hell for defamation when the allegations turned out to be fraudulent altogether.
I could excuse them for being a little slower on the draw this time around. "Being investigated by the FBI" does not mean the subject is automatically guilty.
My wife's ex was "being investigated by CPS" at one point. He didn't do anything, but it is/was humiliating for him nonetheless.
"Now, Meek appears to be on the wrong side of the national-security apparatus. And no one can say for certain if law-enforcement officers actually removed him from the building. And thus, a riddle was born. Documents pertaining to the case remain sealed."
So, according to Siegel, Rolling Stone had information that the raid was not related to Meek's journalism. That first sentence is a lie.
And yet, the editor was willing to run that classified material had been found on his computer from those same sources and lead the reader to the conclusion he was targeted for national security reasons. Leaving out what has been reported to you as part of an effort to twist the narrative doesn't deserve slack.
I would argue that the general public does not give a single shit about the latest individual being accused of vague national security drama on any given day. A reporter possessed classified material on his personal laptop? Someone wake the President!
...oh, wait. The President's kid possessed classified material on his personal laptop too.
There's nothing really defamatory about it; if anything it might help his career. Nobody gives a shit about victimless white-collar crimes.
But child porn? You're radioactive once painted. That accusation causes actual damages.
I don’t believe the reason for an FBI raid is a notable fact at all, that’s just politics. A notable fact would be evidence discovered, and even that needs to be verified
It's common for car mechanics and construction workers, especially in specializations like electrical or HVAC, to own and use their own tools. Obviously, better employers provide stipends or some form of compensation.
