"Project Gutenberg began in 1971 when Michael Hart was given an operator’s account with $100,000,000 of computer time in it by the operators of the Xerox Sigma V mainframe at the Materials Research Lab at the University of Illinois."
> a more balanced version: <bunch of weedy ACLs, judgement calls, liability/>
Too complicated and subjective, stinks of more risk.
Also, I don't think it's dehumanizing it all (having been on the receiving end of it way back when during a layoff, and involved in the process more times than I care to count). It's standard practice for involuntary terms at all companies we work with, whether employee is IT or not. If a company is not doing this already, I'd encourage them to.
> Too complicated and subjective, stinks of more risk.
I actually think there's less risk, because it's not as narrowly focused on what a just-fired employee can do. That's not the only scenario of concern.
> Also, I don't think it's dehumanizing it all (having been on the receiving end of it way back when during a layoff, and involved in the process more times than I care to count).
Interesting. Thanks for the perspective. I've been fortunate enough to not be on the receiving end of a lay-off, knock on wood. It's happened to my teammates/reports though. Wasn't my decision. :-(
corporate overlords? These are the state governments selling your data. The call is coming from inside the house. The sooner we realize that government is comprised of the same slithering slime of human greed and laziness, the more realistic discussions we can have.
It's not even remotely the same scale. At least the government ostensibly has its incentives aligned with the public. False equivance gets us further from where we need to by focusing people on the wrong problems.
"Ostensibly" is the mistake in your formula. Current events are replete with examples to the contrary. It's not equivocating to recognize that governments are organizations of humans, subject to the same limitations - the larger they get, the harder they are to manage well; talent is incredibly important to success in mission; leadership is incredibly important to integrity, ethics, and strategy; lower oversight and mediocre control structures lead to abuse. You can see the challenges that government as an organization has there. And as to scale..? Son. At least you can "ostensibly" choose whether or not to interact with corporations unless they are colluding with... government.
Consider the bulk of your comment to be directed similarly as criticism to corporations, minus effective correction mechanism, plus direct incentive to extract as much wealth as possible by providing as little value as possible.
Which isn’t to say government is bad as an institution.. just to say that we regard it with an assumption of good faith at our collective peril - it’s track record counsels the opposite.
It would be comical hear this as if you think it contrasts with companies if I didn't know you believed it. The very "slime" that leads to the government doing these things accumulates at the behest of the entities you're defending.
Honestly, we're better off with it than without it, speaking as someone with exposure to that industry's internals. That act drives a lot of good security practice within the organizations (mostly liability shifting, but still good). Specifically, the fear it instills of ruinous penalties from regulators drives good practice adoption, IME.
Further, multiple crappy patient portals across providers is a crummy experience, but it's an improvement over the world where providers held the data hostage and had zero interest in accommodating your requests for it, or even the idea that you owned it.
"Clothes make the man", as the idiom says. Clothes don't impugn your character, but they define you in the eyes of others.
Having been a long-haired holey jeans-wearing guy in my past, I was naively surprised when I cut my hair and noticed that people treated me very differently in business settings. When I started wearing nicer clothes on top of that, it was night and day - the kind of reception you get in banks, anything like that. It sucks that humans are built to judge and filter on appearances, but it's just the reality. You can use it to your advantage.
Honestly, I trust these systems more than humans to do the same work. While we're all talking anecdotes, this one time at Walmart (how all good stories start) many years ago I was in the music section and these two in-store security guys approached me, saying they had told me to never come back in the store, etc., making a big scene. I so rarely go to Walmart and found the situation kind of humorous and wanted to see where it would go (knowing I had not done anything wrong now or in the past). They had seen me on video evidently and thought I was somebody else - serial shoplifter or public urinator or who knows what. Anyway, I tell them I've never been told to leave prior to this visit, didn't know what they were talking about. They were adamant that I was in the wrong, asked me to come back to the office while they looked into things. I was like, "sure!", more entertained than upset. So there I am sitting in the office while some guy combs through video footage. A guy of authority comes in, tired demeanor, asks these guys - well, did you match his ID? "No", says he. Checks ID, realizes I'm not their guy. Many stressful apologies on their behalf. But that's humans for you.
https://www.gutenberg.org/about/background/history_and_philo...
reply