zigglezaggle
By leaving this comment you've let the model know it's not sly. Down votes and flags / removals will do the same. Eventually it'll be sold as an auto-astroturf model ("50% fewer spam removals than the competition").
Or maybe it's just someone who gets a kick out of seeing how their prompt performs.
The reasons police use these tactics is because in many jurisdictions, getting a guilty verdict is borderline impossible, even in the face of an overwhelming amount of direct evidence. Defense counsels have become experts in shit-slinging to ensure that juries are as confused as possible going into deliberations. "Jury of peers" means it's somewhere between possible and probable to get one or many jurors sympathetic to the defendant, especially in cities. Jurors attempting to appear "unbiased" frequently just choose the middle ground option between the prosecution and defense, without actually taking a look at the evidence.
The current system is extraordinarily flawed and leads to these outcomes where all sides are forced to use immoral tactics to get their desired outcome, because that's the only realistic shot they've got to accomplish their goals. The correct response is not to further kneecap one side of the conflict.
This is the problem with your argument and all others like it.
Like the parent comment states in this thread, there is a truly mind boggling level of nuance and complexity that goes on in almost every single discrete field. The nuances that make you succeed in one field may not (are probably not!) the same as another field.
We can even see this within a field: Being a good engineering manager does not make you a good engineer, or vice versa. So why should we think either of these disciplines can be extended into geopolitics, finance, or anything else?
One key difference though? Google backed off, apologized, and if I'm not mistaken, explicitly said "We messed up." Versus... this.
Genuinely, there is too much appeal to emotion from both sides of the argument and not enough substance, so if you have something here I'd be interested to read about it.
It's an unresolvable problem. If you think he's that horrible, you can't get rid of him because you're signing your own death warrant (figuratively or literally, depending on how extreme your view is). If he isn't, you've got an incredible asset in your court.
This change has user facing implications in that it is removing application data and/or functionality.
Your example is that people changed the name of some internal constants and private methods. Nobody notices except the developers.
Plenty of startups have disrupted banks. AMEX purchased one to jumpstart its small business checking accounts just a few years ago. You're just not looking hard enough.
If you move the goal posts to core checking/savings accounts by consumers, then yeah there's not much of an upside there. Consumers go decades to lifetimes on average without changing banks. Capital One was the last one to do anything "disruptive" here re: providing accounts and credit to the lower class, and I'm not sure there's enough juice to squeeze left for a smaller, more focused product to make any money given the stickiness of checking accounts generally.
A lot of people are reliant on this aid. A lot of people are going to die within weeks.
(Also worth noting that scrum and most of the best known agile methodologies predate the manifesto; the manifesto was formed from guiding principles of those methodologies, not the other way around: https://agilemanifesto.org/history.html)
There are two ways of working, remote or in person. Hybrid is a swan song of bullshit where you get the worst of both worlds and few of the advantages. So organizations need to make sweeping changes one way or another: either restructure towards remote-first or return to pre-covid paradigms by not only getting people back to the office, but also teams back in the same office. Both require some pretty sweeping changes to get there, and it's understandable (if maybe not defensible) that a majority of established organizations don't want to reinvent themselves.
At the end of the day, if in-person is the final vision, yes you should be fired if you don't comply with it. Almost everyone is replaceable, including even the top levels of management. Keeping employees who are actively hostile to (remember, not just disagreeing, but actively disregarding) a core organizational standard doesn't help anything --- regardless of their performance.
All that being said, I find it amazing that companies were presented the opportunity to use a new remote paradigm on a silver platter and decided to scoff at it rather than embracing all of its advantages, but maybe that's why I'm not making those decisions.
This peer was typically evaluated as a high performer during performance reviews, but was denied for their request to remain remote, and they decided to ignore the order and accept the consequences.
The organization is also actively monitoring and blocking bonuses and promos for those who are not fully ignoring the mandate but are not meeting the full expectation.
USA based financial institution.