gburt

To the extent that is true, I agree, they should see the positive impact of what they do as well. Your blind faith in the regulatory regime, however, is deeply undeserved. Many approved drugs prove to be dangerous and we can reasonably expect that many effective drugs never make it to market because of bureaucracy.

I understand some people are checking boxes, with no space to consider their impact. Please generously reinterpret my point to extend to their management stack and the political establishment that is responsible for the system.

Those who establish, support and tolerate that system should be as directly exposed to its consequences as practicable. It is good for them to see these stories and feel the consequences of their decisions.

Regulators are, in general, too sheltered and disconnected from the impact of their actions.

Incentives matter. When you get to make decisions that impact others, but not feel any of the costs associated with that, you do not have the correct incentives. I hope the staff of FDA read this and can’t sleep tonight. We can hope they feel some emotional pain, even if it is only some small subset of the pain they have and continue to cause to others.

FDA delenda est.

Counting lines of code, commits, changesets or any other simple metric will destroy your culture.

The team _will_ find out, and then instead of contributing to the success of the business in earnest, they’ll be doing stupid things like maximizing their changesets or racing for “easy” large changes like deleting a module.

It doesn’t matter whether those values do or do not correlate with reality (IMO, if they do, it is for relatively junior engineers only). If you give off the smell of measuring people like that, you will ruin any collaborative team environment and you risk never being able to recover that.

There’s a good chance you’ll chase away excellent engineers with this sort of low-effort metrics management too.

> Recruiters at my company aren't explicitly told to hit certain quotas, but they are given larger bonuses for diverse hires and they do have targets for certain percentages of diverse candidate.

I'm definitely not a lawyer and I live nowhere near the Bay Area, but by my reading of most of these laws, this is illegal. I realize we often interpret these issues differently depending on who they effect, but this sounds like an open-and-shut case of discrimination to me.

This article doesn't seem to answer the question. It just asserts, without evidence, that "luxury is about no-nonsense boldness." Why wasn't this true in the past?

The OP did precisely this!

Which platforms don't ban consistent winners?

This is merely a series of opinions in academic article form.

I went ahead and flagged this. It is not HN quality. It is not even Globe and Mail quality.

The other comments have already expressed why that is the case - but in summary, there is no security flaw coherently expressed here, Excel is possibly the right tool for the job (it saves tens of thousands of dollars of custom software development through government acquisition programs) and the editorialism in the title was unnecessary and further hurt the credibility of the "point."

I am generally against often-called "excessive regulation," but the regulator -- perhaps FTC -- should aggressively prohibit the misleading marketing message here.

The entire problem manifests from calling this lane keeping mechanism "Autopilot." Tesla should be prohibited from using that language until they have achieved a provably safer self-driving level 3+.

The problem is exacerbated by Musk's aggressive marketing-driven language. Saying things like we're two years out from full self-driving (first said in 2015) and the driver was warned to put his hands on the steering wheel (15 minutes prior to the crash) makes Musk look like he is plainly the bad guy and attempting to be misleading.

"Provably safe" probably means some sort of acceptance testing -- a blend of NTSB-operated obstacle course (with regression tests and the like) and real world exposure.

If that is the case, why are there only 2000? The conditions must be more complex than that. Unless 2000 is nearly every phone they touched in that time period?

I'm having a hard time speculating about what phones are "encrypted cellphones" by this count. Are they counting iOS devices with a strong passcode or is there some other functionality they're specifically "having trouble" with? I find it hard to believe they're talking about Phantom and specific-application "cryptophones."