metellus

The same way someone new (young people, immigrants) gains history now. Start with something low/no risk in order to build history.

This statement is much more in line with Caldbeck's initial statement:

> Obviously, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. While significant context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. The fact is that I have been privileged to have worked with female entrepreneurs throughout my career and I sincerely apologize to anyone who I made uncomfortable by my actions. There’s no denying this is an issue in the venture community, and I hate that my behavior has contributed to it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Binary released an updated statement in light of this new apology and indefinite leave.

First off, groping is very clearly not free speech. Next up, power dynamics matter. A random person hitting on you may be annoying. Your boss hitting on you and implying that you will lose your job unless you comply (or in this case, that you will lose funding) is coercion and also pretty clearly not okay.

Even if you're 100% okay with the remark you have to admit that it's a huge show of incompetence to make it at a meeting specifically about fixing Uber's sexist culture.

Sure, but the iron fish option is cheaper and just as effective. With the money they're saving but using ingots instead of whole skillets, they can solve other problems too.

This website has absolutely no information about the product it's trying to display.

When you turn battery saver on transition animations disappear (making everything feel less reponsive). The phone stops polling for updates as frequently. The screen dims. It's a noticeably worse experience because it does a lot to save battery. When I have plenty of battery or know that I'll be charging my phone soon I would much rather have all of those nice things than not. It's a tradeoff because the circumstances dictate how important saving battery is.

Everything needs maintenance.

> I did admittedly miss the "nine months" portion of that, but that's still only one company out of many.

Yes, it's the company that owns Jeep. The company that has a demonstrated the security flaw. How different automakers responded to different security issues isn't related to this article or discussion.

> Also, note that my point - that auto makers mostly ignored Miller and Valasek, according to the article - would not include senators (unless said senators build cars, of course).

Senators may not build cars, but they can (and are trying to) force auto makers to take security seriously.

The argument in this comment chain has been whether this problem could get the attention it needed without such a dangerous publicity stunt. The fact that automaker and lawmakers were convinced to take action by less dangerous demonstrations shows that this stunt was not necessary.

Did you read the article? Here are two quotes:

"Second, Miller and Valasek have been sharing their research with Chrysler for nearly nine months, enabling the company to quietly release a patch ahead of the Black Hat conference."

"WIRED has learned that senators Ed Markey and Richard Blumenthal plan to introduce an automotive security bill today to set new digital security standards for cars and trucks, first sparked when Markey took note of Miller and Valasek’s work in 2013."