i'm curious, how do you think other large companies operate with regards to reporting progress/status/results up the management chain?
At least at companies where the upper management is aware enough of the details to make good judgements, and the business is critical enough for some reason that low level management can't just be entrusted to yeet/yolo-things into production?
We need to get past the point of binary perspective. The question isn't whether any one of us is innocent or guilty. The question is of what.
The word "rape" makes people visualize the most extreme scenarios of strangers in the night attacking those weaker than them, and assaulting them with violence.
But there are still significant parts of the world, even the western world, where "marital rape" is considered an oxymoron.
So people tried to come up with a generic neutral term like "sexual assault" which could mean everything from someone's worst rape nightmare, to unwanted touching in a sexualized manner in a crowd.Because that's the reality - physical contact requires consent. And consent is........complicated.
If I say "Do you consent to sex with me?" and you say "yes", did you consent? Yes.
If I say "Do you consent to sex with me, so I don't murder you", and you say "yes", did you consent? No.
Everyone can plainly understand the above. But finding the line for consent shifts can be surprisingly difficult.
* "Do you consent to sex with me, so I can give you the antidote to the poison you accidentally ingested"
* "Do you consent ..., so I can pay for life-saving cancer treatments that you need so that you otherwise can't afford?"
* "Do you consent ..., so I can pay for your rent, and otherwise you will be evicted?"
* "Do you consent ..., so that I don't fire you from the job you have?"
* "Do you consent ..., so that I no longer support you financially in a way that is currently entirely based on good will, and you've come to depend on it, and are scared of losing, because you've moved across the planet to be in my orbit, and now it looks like if you disappoint me, I'll turn on you"
Gaiman's accusations are at the end of this spectrum. Should he be in jail? I don't think so. Should he lose his livelihood? That's entirely up to his fans. Is he "innocent"? Well, if the facts aren't in dispute, I don't think so.
> Gaiman's legal papers also included WhatsApp messages which he says back up his case, in which Ms Pavlovich thanked him for a "lovely lovely night" and told him their relationship was "consensual".
PLENTY of sexual assault victims "thank" their assaulter, and assure them things were consensual even when they're not. Because they still feel at risk. Or because *THEY DON'T WANT TO ADMIT TO THEMSELVES THAT THEY'RE A VICTIM*.
Nobody wants to feel like they were violated. Nobody wants to admit that they didn't consent. Nobody wants to have the burden of now being the one to decide what to do about this - on a social level, on a criminal level, etc.
Admitting you were assaulted is saying "OK, so do i want this to be something I have to admit about myself for the rest of my life? To waste countless time and money and stress and anxiety to pursue justice that probably won't happen? To risk my own safety and sanity?" No wonder so many people don't.
None of this may change anything that's in this Project. But the whole framing of it pisses me off. It leaves no room for nuance. This man is probably not a monster. That doesn't mean he's not an abuser.
I remember reading the original accusations and the presented fact that the victim was a penniless defenceless girl totally made me believe that indeed something bad had happened.
Seeing the pictures and videos presented on TFA demonstrates I think that about a year back, I was skillfully lied to in print, and fell for it, it's kind of a watershed.
I mean I pay for Youtube Premium because I use Youtube Music instead of Spotify.
I get a very unopinionated but effective music player that has all the music I need, and it doesn't try very hard to "upsell" itself to me unlike Spotify because to Google YouTube is the real money driver.
So to me getting no YouTube ads as well is well worth it.
for what it's worth, you could divide up your youtube premium membership cost and give that to 500 creators and they would see more revenue in their pocket than your premium watches get them.
Premium viewcount is grossly over valued by the people who pay for it, because they need to justify their sunk cost. I doubt most content creators even track it because the difference is minimal. We're talking a few bucks a month, tops.
I remember when youtube premium first came out and YT pimped this trope super hard. Then it came to light that the difference is basically nothing because most people don't pay for premium.
I think there's an even simpler point that people who make fun of athletes for blowing their paychecks instead of saving them miss:
* These are elite athletes at the top of their pyramid, which means they have an absolutely bonikers elite competitive drive that got them where they had so far.
They were probably the best player on every team they've been since kindergarten. They've made it to the top of the pyramid and most want to keep going. Championships, all-stars, MVPs, all of these are things they are USED to getting at every level so far, and they want to keep going.
So when they sign there $X00,000 rookie deal they're not thinking "OK how do i save the most of this for my retirement", they're thinking "how do i get $Y,000,000 deal next? And the $WZ,000,000 deal after that?" And of course then I'll be set for life, and it will be easy to save and retire cuz i'll be rich.
Changing defaults doesn't have to mean changing existing configurations. It can be the new default for newly created VPCs after a certain date, or for newly created accounts after a certain date.
And if there are any interoperability concerns, you offer an ability to opt-out with that (instead of opting in).
> Changing defaults doesn't have to mean changing existing configurations. It can be the new default for newly created VPCs after a certain date, or for newly created accounts after a certain date.
This is breaking existing IAAC configurations because they rely on the default. You will never see the change you're describing except in security-related scenarios
> There is precedent for all of this at AWS.
Any non-security IAAC default changes you can point to?
I agree with you, but "better" is subjective, and this change was ON PURPOSE because most consumers would disagree with us.
It's why they all have "motion smoothing" turned on all their TV's too. Yes, it's animation, but the Blu-rays look "higher resolution", and look "smoother" and less "noisy".
All the artistic benefits you and I see are lost on most watchers.
At least at companies where the upper management is aware enough of the details to make good judgements, and the business is critical enough for some reason that low level management can't just be entrusted to yeet/yolo-things into production?
reply