I found this paper to be less than objective in its introduction and commentary. Statements were made that had nothing to do with the research itself, and therefore did not relate to supporting data and were superfluous. I really don’t like reading papers like this because my initial reaction is always “why do they say this, and who reviewed the paper that allowed them to pass?”
As technologists we have always had a responsibility beyond just doing the job. We don’t all see it that way I know, but for example we choose to use encryption for reasons that should not even be up for discussion. We have platforms and services that can be used to provide some direction to society, when we as fellow human beings see it going awry. Sure there are those who will overstep the mark, but you cannot hide anymore and this is the reality that any would be fascist has to face.
"Can a free market naturally produce a safety net?"
When Margaret Thatcher was asked before she succumbed to dementia if she would do anything differently, she replied that she had believed, that making people rich would mean that they would help the poor, but now she realised that they don't.
Thanks for the downvote. The inverted commas mean that I don't actually agree with this, just as the original poster probably does not count themselves in the "we".
I guess any customer using US Equipment in any part of the world is also accessible, even without a local law supporting it?
Interestingly I managed to discover a Huawei trojan that installed itself without me granting permission via a hotel router. It wasn't particularly well built back in the day which made it easy-ish to identify.
Makes me wonder where China is going with all the deals Huawei is making with Govts across the world too.
This is so true you cannot believe how hard I laughed.
I have a particular coding style (own-prettifying), and so I can tell if I authored the code or if someone else has. I can also tell if mine's been edited by someone else too.
Tread carefully. You are in a relationship with someone who really is the new parent, and whilst you may act like a father figure, and have ambitions, don't get that confused with who's child it is. I only say this, because the last thing you need is resentment to build up because you might be able to do something that the real parent was not able to do.
I'm sure you have talked this all over with the parent, and like you say there were mitigating circumstances, but it is the other person who has the right to the decision-making. Just keep that in mind that's all.
Of course it depends rather a lot on how deep your pockets are and what sort of return you were getting on your Fb and Google ads, but these are not the only sources for advertisers. There are plenty of other types of advertising, affiliate companies, remarketing and the like.
You obviously cannot prove a negative to start with, but in the interests of being non-confrontational, you should just come out and ask what they are looking for in this proof.
I was once asked to prove that future litigation had already been dealt with (my reaction: WTF???) before somebody bought something from me. It turns out they were looking for a specific certification, which was easy enough to obtain.
The point being, they had asked the question in such an odd way, that it just confused rather than communicated.
Just ask them what they expect to receive from you in the way of proof, or that would be acceptable proof, and then go about getting it.
If you are asking about how to get over the fear of cold calling from someone who is naturally shy, take it from me, the first few calls will be awkward and you'll trip over your (probably prepared) speech. Don't worry about that, make sure that the first few calls are the least important ones. Use them as practice runs.
Try also to go via a switchboard, or a reception desk. This way you can 1) practice on the receptionist 2) get a feel on how responsive the company is to this approach 3) get some names to contact directly
As someone mentioned here it is a numbers game, and believe me the more you do the easier it gets. You build up resilience to the responses, and after a while you find an approach that works for you.
Another one I tried was pretending to be someone else, for example a student doing research, (ahem social engineering student haha) and as I got into the role, it became dead easy to speak freely....
I suspect you are right about the desperation thing, on the ground the client is under some pressure.
But look at it this way, if the client was asking for a small reduction in the rate the agent would be on the phone right away asking me to take a cut. They would also be getting a cut as their %age is based on my rate.
To be fair and honest, if the client is offering more to get you - for whatever reason - then that must filter down.
That just didn't happen here. The client therefore has also been mislead because they think that I am being paid appropriately. Instead the agent is profiteering.
This is not like the sports industry is today. It is however like the sports industry used to be.
In the past sports agents worked both for the team and the player. This lead to exactly this situation, players and clubs getting shafted by the agents.
It changed when some smart person decided that the clubs and the players should have their own agents, and that if a club wanted a player because of their talent - which is the main reason - they had to engage their own agent 1) to attract the player 2) negotiate a price with the play's agent. The pplayer paid their agent 10%, and it was their job to defend the interests of the players against the interest of the club.
Hence today we have players paid huge amounts based on their talent.
Firstly, I know my true market value, and have done for years - I always find a way to find out ;) and I haven't just got off the boat.
I also know what I can get away with making in this market, so what I'm making is not the issue per se, although this is below my normal rate, and I agreed to this on the grounds that were presented to me - which turned out to be completely false.
I work with many recruiters, not just this one. This one happened to have a job available at the time I was available...
Lastly, they point blank refused to negotiate, at all. Hence the need to fire them.