I feel like anyone who already had a know-how to change their DNS will just change to one of the other hundreds of free servers and the people who couldn’t be bothered to switch to google DNS will already have been “blocked”. Or they are using a VPN already…

No problem!

Your thinking seems more insightful than mine.

My reasoning that he is mainly after the money is that in the past year he has been paying a lot of legal fees and fines, while trying to run a campaign. He had his NFT collection which made him a quick buck to then immediately floor in value, same for trump media stocks - except they then skyrocketed again, and now flooring again. So… Just seems like something he’d do.

The 2nd reason is that crypto is a very divisive topic with loads of people hating on it - including banks and some other financial institutions. I’d expect it’s a double edged sword for supporters, but maybe he’s gaining more from it than losing in terms of votes.

Considering that it’s been a few days since he made his statement and there hasn’t been massive movement on BTC price, he’s either not influential enough to impact it or I was wrong.

/shrug

Sorry, but I think you’re reading into my words something they didn’t say or imply. In fact I tried my best to avoid wording it in a way that implies crypto is a scam (because I don’t believe it myself).

What you’ve quoted strictly implies 2 things:

1. There are people who consider crypto a scam
2. Everyone will regard crypto as a scam after trump’s future actions.

The 2nd is definitely an exaggeration, but neither of them claim crypto is a scam only that it has an image that it is - which I maintain it does with a significant portion of people.

I do think trump picked crypto as a target for his attention because it’s a volatile and under regulated market he may be able exploit to try to make money off of whoever listens to him. I hope I’m wrong though.

I didn’t say crypto was a scam, but it is regarded as a scam in general and as you said, it’s pretty easy to get scammed trading it or using it if you don’t know what you’re doing - which would definitely be true for anyone buying in on a public figure’s advice.

It’s also an incredibly volatile market which is relatively easily influenced by large players without much regulation. If he does have the influence to manage to impact it, I am pretty sure he would happily take his gains from his followers. If he doesn’t, well let’s just hope all the people who buy in without any research don’t lose their money by selling as soon as the next crypto winter comes for a massive loss.

What I expect will happen: have his followers buy in at current high price point -> price goes higher -> him and his rich whale friends sell -> price goes down -> the people who just invested because he promised big stonks but realistically can’t afford to leave their money in for years panic and sell -> price goes down -> him and rich friends buy in again.

Sure, it’s mostly his followers getting scammed, but if this does happen I can’t imagine them not vocally blaming BTC for losing their money - which would likely fuel the crypto is a scam narrative.

Maybe his words are not influential enough to actually sway the price and nothing will come of it though, but based on the previous things he has done (his NFTs, the truth social stocks) if he has the opportunity to take money from his supporters, he certainly will.

Everyone who has not regarded crypto as a scam will certainly do, once he’s done with the pump and dump he’s setting up here.

I wonder if this will also have a reverse tail end effect.

Company uses AI (with devs) to produce a large amount of code -> code is in prod for a few years with incremental changes -> dev roles rotate or get further reduced over time -> company now needs to modernize and change very large legacy codebase that nobody really understands well enough to even feed it Into the AI -> now hiring more devs than before to figure out how to manage a legacy codebase 5-10x the size of what the team could realistically handle.

Writing greenfield code is relatively easy, maintaining it over years and keeping it up to date and well understood while twisting it for all new requirements - now that’s hard.

Good point, thank you for pointing it out.

Maybe a better way to phrase it is that a report from the investigator could qualify what they considered/found when they said the claims were false, baseless etc, and any evidence they found/data they had access to. (E.g. if they could look at all internal communication but their data retention policy is 6 months and this happened 7 months ago, its not the same as not finding anything)

For example, “allegations of sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed” is a wide range. It could be there were no allegations recorded from the employee (as in, they weren’t reported), or they were addressed by a slap on the wrist or a “just don’t do that again” to introducing workplace behaviour training, forcing the perpetrator to go through it, suspending them without pay and so on.

You are right it’s not proof of no wrongdoing, but it would serve as proof that they handled things in a generally suitable manner, rather than that they managed to twist things around to check a box for the investigator.

Release an actual report of the investigation by the third party rather than a statement.

What claim was investigated, what proof did they find if any, what evidence did they have access to etc.

Finding no proof of wrongdoing or proof of no wrongdoing is a big difference.

Yea idk.

After having dealt with some audits (although not this exact topic), in general they followed the same format. “Assert that we do the thing we claim to be doing”. So if the thing they claim to be doing is a low bar, the audit means nothing. If they dont release any evidence, or a report of what they were ascertaining it means very little IMO.

I can’t remember if the employee released any evidence with her claims either though, but in general I’d prefer my odds with assuming her story is closer to the truth against a company which has had other mishaps recently, underpinned by evidence. All of which they tried to brush under the carpet.

So yeah. I’m pressing X for doubt.

So they filled reddit with bot generated content, and now they’re selling back the same stuff likely to the company who generated most of it.

At what point can we call an AI inbred?

Agree that it’s misleading, but to add there is another significant concern given how glassdoor is already “pay to win” from the companies perspective: they could just offer identifying the users as a paid service.

It would be digging their own grave if that starts happening, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping many companies…

If they forced the maintainer of some FOSS software to merge in some code, even if the maintainer isn’t even allowed to speak about it eventually someone would notice (since open source), fork the project and just cherry pick out their crap. Then it’s whack-a-mole of trying to keep people from multiplying it.

Or they could claim the software is illegal and have no way to enforce that either.

So basically as long as said software is useful for more than a handful of people, it’s infeasible to try to enforce it (e.g. see how it goes every time some software gets a cease and desist, they end up even more popular than before)