Oh, I don't blame him at all. A commercial airliner is a decade long project to undertake. However its clear he was not the leader to lead a company through a crisis.
A quick look at their 10Q does not show that their Energy generation and storage business is extremely profitable. It eeks out a small profit before operating expenses. That may change in the future. It is also a small business relative to their car business.
If those kind of risks were imposed on banks they would only work with businesses they knew very well or not at all. As it is there were significant questions from the banks side on what they would be liable for if the loan was ultimately found to be invalid, or fraud.
It's not basically front running. Front running is specifically when a broker gets your order and sits on it until either they or another client can trade in front of it before the market moves. Market makers want to interact with retail orders since they typically don't have size and in aggregate are either non-directional or predictably directional. This reduces the market makers risk of adverse selection.
I agree with this, although I think it was a conscious and deliberate choice with TF 2.0. We have given up on TF for all future work which is sad since I really appreciate a number of the pieces that surround the core. I think they made a choice to emphasize the support of already developed models and make the experience great for novices will be a decision that they will come to regret. We found so many issues when we tried to port some of our existing models to TF 2.0. The sad part was that there were GitHub issues for all of them.
Personally I think Tensorflow has already lost and we just need to let it play out over the next few years. One interesting wrinkle is that since Trax, Jax and Flax utilize pieces of Tensorflow the TF team can probably claim good internal adoption numbers depending on how they count.
I agree it will probably be use case based, but maybe not. It could be that at least one state bans using software to recognize faces. I believe San Francisco had to amend its facial recognition ban to allow the use of iPhones.
I also think a lot of people calling for a ban have not really thought through what would be banned. Do we ban models trained with triplet loss over any biometric data? Is it just specific entities that are banned from using it? Is it ok for Apple to build me an album of pictures of my wife and I? How do we define face recognition?
This is an incredibly complex and nuanced topic and it seems like many people discussing it just wave their hands without considering what the ramifications of any overly broad definition might lead to.
The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was run by US Public Health Service which is currently part of the HHS. The FDA was founded in 1906, although it has earlier origins, which is well before the study was begun.
I mean that is a pretty strong statement. It's not like it was really possible to criminally charge Tony Hayward with being at fault for a faulty blow out preventer design, even though a number of people died. In some ways we were probably less safe with him fired, given that one of his objectives was to develop a much stronger engineering centric culture at BP.
In Brazil Vale and a number of its executives (along with the European dam inspector) are expected to be indicted. It will like be about falsifying documents related to dam safety.
Proving that the CEO is the one that should go to jail, while satisfying, is actually quite difficult. While I would probably agree with one piece of your sentiment, senior executives are often able to escape prosecution for things that are clearly illegal (looking at you HSBC), simply trying to lockup CEOs I don't think is the right way to go.
Dealing with the corrections is just another product. When I worked with IBES data, which collects all these estimates, you needed to buy a package called something like "As Was" to recreate any arbitrary point in time estimate.