It's not about displaying the names next to the reviews on GLassdoor.
It's about building an internal database of user profiles with their names. And they are apparently pretty aggressive, getting the names from support cases and third parties:
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/about/terms/
> "We may update your Profile with information we obtain from third parties. We may also use personal data you provide to us via your resume(s) or our other services."
The worry is that when they get hacked, it will be possible to map real humans to reviews. Which is potentially going to be catastrophic for anyone who posted negative reviews. Not a good move from a website which is some sort
Hacking is not the most likely negative scenario. Your data is already in multiple hacked databases, anyway. You've already lost that fight. Even if Glassdoor gets hacked, the information they already have on you (email, place of employment) is enough to deanonymize you when combined with other hacked databases.
The most likely negative scenario is that it'll now be much easier for companies to uncover identities of people posting reviews about them on Glassdoor. HR inviting you for a "chat" due to a negative interview is what I'd be concerned about. As another commenter said already, this is phenomenally stupid from Glassdoor, because they're losing the remaining little trust people had on them for keeping their users anonymous.
Hum, our CEO said something along these lines at the last All Hands.
I don't really know where he got that... I always liked my coworkers and I had the chance to have consistently amazing managers, but I still left previous jobs because was bored to death or got a better opportunity career or money-wise.
There are definitely some types that only care about their colleagues and bosses (I talked to one in my team just recently), but that's probably not even the majority. These people probably tend to stay a loooong time so maybe they are more visible to the execs?
Well, that's the same for all documents. You can just make them up, it's not that hard with 5 minutes of photoshop.
But if there is a control and a manufacturer get caught lying about the provenance they are going to have a bad time (or the car manufacturer/battery resellers which didn't do their due diligence).
If you look at the list, even Brita doesn't claim that their pitcher filter the really nasty stuff. At most they "help to reduce". It looks like they are really designed only to remove the chlorine taste.
Their "Faucet Mount Filters" looks a bit more effective.
Question: That is a point that would protect GPT models in the abstract, but that doesn't hold for OpenAI and Microsoft that provide "Image generation as a service"? The actual implementation is irrelevant, if must not be able to provide images that are infringing copyrights? (Just like a designer in an agency cannot use Mario for a print).
So using a model running on my laptop to generate a "Mario like" image would be fine, but it would make monetizing this difficult?
Why are you putting the blame on scrum if you don't even implement it?
I did scum in a previous company and it worked fine. Nobody looked at the story points except the devs during planning. We had a honest discussion with the product owner every time and did find the time to do tech debt.
It wasn't perfect, but it worked well.
Granted, it required a very specific management, devs with the right mindset and constraints on the kind of projects that could be done (anything customer facing with a tight deadline was off for instance. We used that for the internal infra).
So I don't see how you would build a plane at Boing with scrum for instance. Or anything that require very tight coupling af many teams (or hardware).
But for us (60 devs in a company of 200), Saas, it worked great.
I am sorry but Genocide is not about actually killing people, it is about "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group", which includes "killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide)
> Russian Federation agents have taken at least 19,546 children to that country from Ukraine since 18 February 2022. Among other violations, Russian Federation citizenship is imposed on them, and they are forbidden to speak and learn the Ukrainian language or preserve their Ukrainian identity
Sorry, genocide is not bringing people to safe and allowing them school. If Putin wanted maximum death of Ukrainians he would carpet bomb big Ukrainian cities (like the US+allies did in Iraq, Vietnam, Japan, Germany, ...)
This war --as bad as it is-- is nothing close to some of the worst wars we've seen in the last 100 years.
He did carpet bomb a big Ukrainian city, Mariupol, the russians have completely destroyed it and killed most of its residents. The only reason he hasn't carpet bombed other big Ukrainian cities is because his bombers would get shot down by air defence systems.
It's about building an internal database of user profiles with their names. And they are apparently pretty aggressive, getting the names from support cases and third parties:
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/about/terms/ > "We may update your Profile with information we obtain from third parties. We may also use personal data you provide to us via your resume(s) or our other services."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/03/glassdoor-adding...
The worry is that when they get hacked, it will be possible to map real humans to reviews. Which is potentially going to be catastrophic for anyone who posted negative reviews. Not a good move from a website which is some sort