I would love to learn why some people can self-motivate to exercise while others would need coercive interventions. Such as to build cities in a way that some exercise is inevitable.
Or put differently: is there really nothing that can be done to shift people into being self-motivated?
To rule out Alzheimers when you wonder whether your recent episodes of forgetfulness have an underlying medical cause.
That aside, some moderately effective drugs have recently been approved that can slow down the disease in its early stages. And even if you are no candidate for these: you can start organising the life around you while you still can. Like moving to an assisted living facility.
I completely agree. The WebAssembly multi-threading programming model with its reliance on the web worker API is a pain to deal with. Google’s Native Client had native threading support, why can this not be replicated in WebAssembly?
We just did the opposite and ripped up our solar hot water system. We have a metal roof and a salt water pool. Problem is that these systems can and do leak. Salt water on a metal roof makes creates rust.
With photovoltaic panels being dirt cheap, we decided to rather heat our pool with a heat pump that is powered by our own electricity.
Why has basic product management gone out of the window in this new era of AI enablement? Like on the most basic level: who ever asked for this, where is product-market fit for this kind of browser automation?
I have been wondering how culturally conservative societies would use future medical interventions that could shape people’s sexuality. Not necessarily the government requiring expecting mothers to subject the unborn child to some sort of “cure” for gayness. But parents doing this voluntarily and on their own. Even western couples might then be tempted to travel to countries permitting these treatments.
At the same time, it seems unlikely in the near future. It so happens that western societies will not fund this kind of research. And that culturally conservative countries do not have the scientific prowess to conduct research in this regard. Also, their scientists are busy developing nuclear bombs.
No. Down Syndrome leads to an objectively worse outcome for the affected individuals. And their parents, I might add.
We should not let compassion for these people obstruct some basic facts. My only consideration would be the potential risks and side effects that are to be expected for any medical intervention. But if we were expecting a child that was diagnosed with Down Syndrome, I would not hesitate for a second to give this child the chance for a normal life. And us parents the chance for normal parenthood.
To be fair, even outside of this sexual misconduct the CTO of SAP has not actually earned a high salary. Do you hear anyone talking about SAP when it comes to technological innovation? They are followers, not leaders. Not in AI, not in cloud computing, not in mobile or any other technical domain really. Their ERP software stack sits on a technological foundation of ABAP (a COBOL derivative) and a home-built database system that relies on large main memory caches to process complex queries at a halfway acceptable performance.
You would not want to. After a high-profile scandal like that, there are too many people in the know. Not all of whom may be sympathetic to you for taking down a top executive. Your career is effectively finished.
Negotiate a decent severance payout in exchange for keeping quiet about the details. The bonus payout for the misbehaving former CTO may perversely help you here. Start with that figure in how much you want and let the company explain why the victim deserves less.
No, it is supply and demand. And a good deal of culture sprinkled on top. Americans are much more prepared to accept obscenely high salaries for exceptional talent. In Germany by contrast, even the greatest software engineering genius will not make that much more than some middling developer.
SAP has had its fair share of bad executives. Mostly incompetent people, but occasionally also flawed characters. Their problem is that Europe has no IT industry that is equally mature as the one in the US. Among other things, this leads to dysfunctional talent development where people end up in managerial roles (or outright make it to executive level) without the necessary character traits or personal development to support their responsibilities.
Bad leaver clauses are difficult to enforce. What this person has done may not be an undisputed breach of company policy. More like what observers would consider subjectively unethical conduct that is potentially damaging to the company’s reputation. But which a court may not see as something that voids early termination bonus payouts.
On the bottom line, the €7m cash payout is a rounding error on the company’s balance sheet. And now it is off the books and will not trouble them and create negative headlines for a protracted period of litigation in court.
At the end of the day, legislators need to weigh the consequences of regulation like the GDPR. Has it really helped people retain control over their personal data? I doubt it. Sure, companies like Meta and Google are compliant, have added the necessary features to their products. But to what degree do people actually make use of these? And what harm (if any) is averted in this way.
On the flip side, consider the economic cost that was caused by the GDPR. There are compliance and reporting obligations that require time and personell. There are additional development and monitoring costs. There is an impact on business models that have made it more difficult to monetise a user base. And lastly, there is a huge legal risk. Courts are scrambling to interpret the GDPR and the EU commission is happy to dish out fines (albeit mostly against American Big Tech companies).
On the bottom line, even well-intended legislation like the GDPR may have huge economic costs with little tangible benefits. And that’s not to speak about later legislation like the DSA (censorship) law, the DMA, the AI Act. And worst of all, the supply chain law (even though that’s unlikely to be as much of an issue for the software industry).
They should — like scrapping bureaucracy and regulation that is hostile to innovation and costly for businesses. The AI Act, the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, the EU Supply Chain Law, the GDPR etc. are all well intended. Albeit born out of anxiety and a false sense to be able to shield Europe from the bad consequences of modern technology. In effect, these regulations create a culture that is toxic for innovation. Resulting in venture capital avoiding Europe and founders leaving for better shores (ie. the US) to create the next billion dollar company.
By contrast, what the EU should absolutely, categorically NOT do is to create projects like this one. With an absurd number of participating organisations, dysfunctional project goals (like “compliance”) and the ballooning bureaucracy that ensues. What talent are they hoping to attract to this project? Any AI researcher with half a brain would avoid OpenEuroLLM, lest he (or she) drag down his (or her) career and waste precious lifetime for what is guaranteed to turn into another tombstone on Europe’s graveyard of ridiculous publicly funded technology projects.
Or put differently: is there really nothing that can be done to shift people into being self-motivated?