colburnmh
Do you mandate working tests and reasonable test coverage as part of your checkins? That could help, but it if you don't currently do that, productivity will drop further before it picks up. But that's the nature of any impactful change.
When there absurd back and forth on PRs, step-in and mediate a resolution. Pull the people into a room and require a resolution before anyone can leave--drastic, but soon people will realize that they pay more for pointless whinging. It's not doing the company any good for pointless bickering, and it's not improving the product either.
Considering using an external code-review as a service like PullRequest while you are gone. And maybe keep them if it works well.
The police do, however, bear responsibility for not allowing those arrested to have access to medication, maintain their jails to appropriate health standards, or prevent assaults--all of which were also reported in the article.
Further, if a person is constantly falsely reporting their car stolen, they should be arrested for filing a false report. But in this case, there is no central authority that would be in a position to track that because there is no centralized control of the police and these all probably happened in different police districts.
Mistakes do happen, but this sounds like a pattern of egregious behavior that is likely (and rightly if the facts in the article stand up) going to result in large fines, mandated oversight, legal restraint, and removal of a number of people at Hertz. It's not like any of that is going to be helpful to a company that is struggling to stay alive.
You would not expect the CEO of a large multi-national company to manage all of the details of every department within their company. When you combine all 5 of the armed forces together, it's far more complex than any company on earth, and managing the military is not the President's only responsibility.
The President's direction of the military is also bound, to some degree, by the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government. For example, they can't declare war on a country unilaterally. But those restrictions, while important, are not particularly constraintaining at a day-to-day level. The President has wide latitude to direct the military as they see fit. That includings projecting military power as deterrents against hostile foreign powers or engaging in short-term, small-scale offensive operations abroad.
So, no, Presidents aren't going to the front lines and directing troops like kings of old. That went out of fashion around the time of Napoleon. But good business leaders don't micromanage their workers and departmental details, either. They realize, hopefully, that doing so would do more harm than good.
It does mean that the data is not sitting in clear-text form on the provider's disks. But the exact details of that encryption may vary from provider to provider.
Rust and Go have very different language models with very different design goals:
Go was designed to be a very simple language to understand and develop in where reasoning about the program is very easy. The language spec can be read and understood in under a day, and programmers can be reasonably proficient in a week. It was designed to be a system language at Google, where there are lots of smart developers that may know how to code but may not know one of Google's "Big Four" languages (Java, C++, Python, and now Go). Many of the design trade-offs were made to specifically address common code problems found in both the Google and the various Bell Labs code-bases. (Pike and Thompson both worked at Bell Labs before Google.) For example, the lack of operating overloading in Go was not an oversight, it was an explicit design decision arrived at through looking at millions and millions of lines of code: operator overloading is frequently misused and creates subtle, difficult to debug errors.
Rust, on the other hand is a very difficult language to learn and master: the borrow-checker is a harsh mistress, and learning the memory model takes time, practice, and significant cognitive load. The reward for climbing that steep learning curve is the resulting code should be easy to reason about and be very safe. But, Rust code can be inscrutable and have errors and security problems, too, it's just much harder to do than it is in many other languages.
Which one is right? Depends on your goals. Go allows you to solve problems quickly and onboard developers very quickly. Rust requires much longer developer onboarding but provides strong safety guarantees. Both have their place.
Ultimately, the author is arguing in bad faith. There is no objective assessment of the two languages' strengths and weaknesses. And he points out sharp edges in Go--some of which are contrived examples that are explicitly antagonistic to the language design--without acknowledging that Rust is anything less than perfect.
And some of the examples he gives are valid, but are not the indictment that he claims. For example, the Tailscale netaddr.IP article shows that while the design of Go's standard library implementation of the network address type has a number of design issues when used at very large scale. But it also shows that it's possible to create a set of types that satisfies even Tailscale's production demands.
Go has limitations and some sharp edges, but so does every language, especially when used in ways that go against the language design. That doesn't make Go the useless, idiosyncratic development tool that his titles and prose imply.
Twitter: Ba2
Telsa: A-AAA depending on the debt type
However, Telsa and Twitter are likely to have credit impacts if Musk acquires Twitter because of the structure of the deal. Musk is using $62 BN of Tesla stock to finance the Twitter buyout, which increases Telsa's debt leverage, and will introduce $13 BN of new debt for Twitter. Both companies could see a drop in credit ratings, at least temporarily.
But the market is fickle, and Musk is unpredictable, so...
Sources:
https://www.fitchratings.com/entity/square-inc-97197931
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/twitter-credit-faces-a-mul...
You can mutate the Git data if you chose to using commands like "filter-branch". "filter-branch" isn't used frequently, since it causes issues with every up/down-stream replica if the data has been pushed/pulled, but it is possible. But, even some commonly used commands like "amend", "rebase", and "squash" cause limited data mutations which are broadly considered appropriate and useful.
Sure it's a benefit to Disney, but it's also a benefit to the county taxpayers:
* Disney subsidizes both counties' services and infrastructure by paying property taxes to pay for services/infrastructure, but not consuming them, or contracting for them where needed.
* Allows counties to avoid costly legal and procedural issues when Disney wants to add new features, attractions, or services at their park, or wish to ensure consistency of services provided by the two different counties.
So, what is the crux of your objection?
A couple of hypothetical examples:
* What if one county is dry, but not the other? Does Disney allow purchase/consumption of alcohol on one side of the park, but not the other?
* What if the response time of EMS was significantly different between the two counties (meaning outcomes on one side of the park were far better than the other side)?
* What if the roads on one side are well maintained, but the other side is filled with cracks and potholes (like most city streets), so your initial perception of the park depended on which county you ended up entering the park from?
* What if Disney wants to open a new attraction, but they can't get commitment from the counties to provide the additional power and zoning for it?
How would those things affect your opinion of the park as a guest?
There is no way that the counties will be able to maintain the same level of service to Disney if they take over all the services. They don't have the money, the will, or the culture to do so, nor should they (probably).
Except that it wasn't "removing special privileges" from anyone but Disney:
* What about the special privileges that 1800+ other entities have under Florida's special district laws? Why are they not also being discussed for dissolution?
* Why was the bill introduced, passed with no debate in either house, and signed into law in a 4 day period and in a special session that was not even called for the purpose of debating special districts (it was amended by DeSantis to specifically allow this bill to be passed)?
* Why is the bill structured to force Disney to transition all of the RCID infrastructure and services to Orange and Osceola counties before dissolution on July 1, 2023, but Disney cannot petition for the special district to be re-established until on or after July 1, 2023? That provision means Disney has to transfer all infrastructure/services to the county, petition the government to re-establish the special district, then transition all the infrastructure/services back to the RCID if the petition is granted. All the costs of that mandated, obviously useless double-transition, will be borne by both Disney and the counties taxpayers, and will likely be in 10s-100s of millions of dollars, each.
PS: Yes, the final bill SB-4C dissolves a total of six special districts, mostly to obscure the fact that this was specifically targeting Disney, but none of the other five will suffer even a tiny fraction of the same financial or ongoing business impacts that Disney and Orange and Osceola counties and their taxpayers will.
What happens if the Florida legislature flipped Blue next election, and started passing legislation against right-leaning entities for "misbehaving" by voicing opposition to more liberal social policies?
What happens if the legislature decides to use eminent domain to repossess your house because they disagree with a Tweet you made?
Hopefully, you can see how these actions are pernicious attacks on the first amendment.
I think debating whether special districts should be allowed at all would be a good discussion to have, but it is completely separate from whether what the government did in passing SB-4C is a violation of Disney's (and possibly the Orange and Osceola county taxpayers') first amendment rights.
You realize that is a very slippery slope, right? The first amendment confers free speech as a right regardless of your financial status. If you start to erode that right, and say "if you are 'rich' it's OK if your rights are trampled," then the subjective definition of "rich" will just be adjusted to match the person currently in the crosshairs, until one day, the person in the crosshairs is you.
The state of Florida is dissolving, unilaterally, and without taking any public comment from Disney, the county, the county residents, or the rest of the state, the very vehicle that would allow what you are talking about.
It has been commonly referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, rather than the official name of "Parental Rights in Education" bill in a wide variety of forums, which I'm sure you are aware of. Don't be willfully obtuse.
Disney's special district status is not unique. More than 1800 entities ranging from theme parks, HOAs, libraries, energy district, etc., all have similar rights. Take some time to read this: https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s...
Disney is far less of "unique snowflake" than the outspoken FL Republicans would like you to believe.
* Disney's status as an "independent special district" in Florida. (Note that there are 1800+ active special districts in Florida, so Disney's not unique in that regard.)
* The government's retaliatory actions in SB-4C that the government has said pretty explicitly are due to Disney's public opposition to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill (see https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/15172454664...), which is in direct violation of the first amendment.
These should be argued separately because they each deal with very different matters of law, governance, policy, etc.
Large city massive: Disney's property in Florida is roughly the same size as the city of San Francisco, though the vast majority of it is undeveloped.
> The government can take the district back but now they are on the hook for providing services
Yes, but there is no requirement that they continue to provide services at the same level of quality that the special district provides. The Disney experience will suffer (and tourism and tax revenue will fall) if the counties cannot provide services that are consistent across the two different counties, and consistent with Disney's current level of service.