cskinner
From my good managers I have learnt the value of shielding working employees from excessive meetings and bureaucracy, and trusting people to work out their own solutions while assiting and supporting them.
However, I have learnt so much more (direcly and indirectly) from my bad managers. A couple of examples:
From the manager that everone described as "he is very good technically, ....", I had to quickly learn how to smooth relationships, negotiate with, and jointly arrive at solutions with other parts of the company after my manager would bang his fist on the table, yell about having told them the correct way to do things previously and that the current problem is all their fault before storming out of the room.
From the manager that quickly grabbed full credit for anything and everything done by his team, even when he had zero involvement, I learnt how to be more considerate in making sure I gave out appropriate credit (both internally and to clients) of the people that I worked with.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/sheilacallaham/2020/09/20/eeoc-...
Regulators (particularly in Europe) soon put a stop to that to promote competition. While this was good, the majority of regulators failed to put in a consumer protection mechanism to stop identity theft through account stealing.
The article describes a more insiduous attack, as the mobile account is still active (hiding the existence of the attack from the user), but the message destination has been rerouted, making all the linked accounts that use SMS as their 2FA also vulnerable.
People who WFH will still spend a similar amount of money, just on different things and in different places.
If going for a pithy answer, I like tha following quote by G. H. Hardy:
A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.
I think I originally saw this quote in "A Mathematician's Lament" [0] (also known by the author's name as "Lockhart's Lament"), which has a lot to say about modern math education.
[0] (PDF) https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/Lockharts...
From the linked CPUC Decision Making in the above comment, there are multiple examples where PG&E have advocated for increased spending for safety purposes, but organisations such as the Division of Ratepayer Advocates and The Utility Reform Network were pushing back. Ultimately, however, it is the CPUC that weighs the arguments of the different parties and determines allowable spending.
My understanding is that lawyers like to use a multiple lines of attack/defense approach. So in the context of this case, they would first argue that object A is not of type B (and hence not afforded any protection that type B might confer), and next argue that even if A is of type B, that all type Bs are subject to prosecution anyway.
My guess is the next step of the prosecution's argument will be, even if A is of type B and type Bs are generally afforded protection from this type of prosecution, this case is an exemption because of "national security."
"First-hand ideas do not really exist. They are but the physical impressions produced by love and fear, and on this gross foundation who could erect a philosophy? Let your ideas be second-hand, and if possible tenth-hand, for then they will be far removed from that disturbing element — direct observation."
First, know what message you want to get across, and focus on that.
Second, avoid almost all "what if" type hypothetical questions.
Third, make your own recording of any interview, and make sure the reporter is aware that you are doing so.
I was fortunate enough to be part of some media training early in my career, where the trainer (an ex-TV reporter) recorded an interview with one of the participants. The next day they played for us the video they had put together splicing different questions into the interview and editing down the responses. The resulting "interview" was a real hit piece, and the editing was done smoothly enough that it presented as a single continuous take (even with the switching camera angles). It would have been very damaging if it had been broadcast like that, and without proof that it was faked the PR effort to counteract it would have been challenging.
IANAL, but my understanding of this case is that the High Court overturned the concept of terra nullius in Australia. Essentially meaning that the Crown (as in the government formed after European settlement) never had valid title to the lands where native title holders maintained a connection to their traditional lands.
Hence, addressing questions from other commenters, since the government never had title nor any rights to the native title lands, they could not have placed any caveat or restriction on the rights of native title holders as to how they use their traditional lands.
https://www.racv.com.au/on-the-road/buying-a-car/car-running...
A few of my family members are teachers (in both private and government schools) and from what I hear there is not yet much of a shift away from the anti-intellectual culture.