If one actually looks at the current pingora API, it has limited ability to initialize async components at startup - the current pattern seems to be to lazily initialize on first call. An obvious downside of this is that a service can startup in a broken state. e.g. https://github.com/cloudflare/pingora/issues/169
I can imagine that this could easily lead to less visibility into issues.
It has no mention of any chloroquine trials in Denmark, but mentions an upcoming one for azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine:
"A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Double-blinded Trial Evaluating Treatment With Azithromycin and Hydroxychloroquine to Patients With COVID-19 N=226 patients with positive COVID-19 test/diagnosis during the hospitalization randomised to Azithromycin and Hydroxychloroquine or placebo".
It seems more likely that the news article is slightly inaccurate here, rather than the agency's information being outdated, but either is possible.
I know it's less of an issue for go users, but one of the great things about nix is how your runtime dependencies are (mostly) defined by inference from the programs you've built. So, if you build a program that links against libpg.so, the runtime requirements will automatically include that library!
Since your runtime requirements depend on how you compile a system, you usually have to be quite careful with keeping your Dockerfile in sync with what you're building. This busywork just goes away.
Nix involves quite a large upfront time commitment to understand it, but it solves problems that I haven't seen solved elsewhere (well, I guess guix is similar), and does it across all the languages you write for. That it can work across toolchains and languages is a unifying force, and so I think it's one of the better systems for reducing the "exponential fragmentation" referred to above.
Actually, the thing we started using nix for was reliable caching of compiled artifacts, including not just your code, but all the programs and libraries that your code depends on. It's another thing that's difficult to do in a general sense, but if you have a fairly strong notion of reproducible builds, it's possible.
That is not what the note said. It said that screenshots made their way outside the company.
I would associate that with an email account that wasn't the work account, a printed page that was taken off-premises, a non-work cloud-hosted storage service, or to a computer that wasn't a work computer. It does not say that the place the information was sent to was any third party.
It could turn out that the information was sent to a third party, but that has not (yet) been claimed.
Yup! I assume that at this point general counsel is involved in everything Google says publicly; it's then worth nitpicking at the exact details of what has or has not been admitted, because legal folk definitely have!
Google’s statement is, in my opinion, disingenuous.
Including personal information on your work calendar without using privacy controls is pretty bad practice, though obviously some people occasionally did it. There is no indication that this information was a target of the fired employees. There is also no indication that these personal events were included in screenshots “outside the company”. And that phrase encompasses a wide range of possibilities, I suspect that Google made it so general because the specifics would have sounded more benign.
The statement in general is designed to cast the four in the worst possible light.
Irrespective of Google's statement, it appears that the people they were following felt unsafe. There's a little bit of "why didn't you tell me" to this. If someone were cataloging my every movement because I left my phone broadcasting to a bunch of Bluetooth beacons then sure it's my fault for doing that but if you're my coworker surely you'd tell me! If you instead were all like "Yup, it's bad practice to be doing that so of course I could tell where you were at all times. All I did was set up the beacons, man. You broadcast to them." I'd think they were pretty fucking weird. I'd seriously think they're a kook of some sort.
Likewise, if you saw me put "Get kidney transplant" on my calendar and decided to subscribe to my calendar, then that's pretty fucking weird. I wouldn't buy "that's bad practice so I was allowed to stalk you". I'd be like "this dude is a fucking weirdo, can I go work elsewhere?".
My calendar at every place I've worked has been public with private events for sensitive stuff but any time I put some private stuff public I'd expect someone to ask me if I meant to do that if they noticed.
I do appreciate that some people felt unsafe, but I wonder how exactly the messaging was made. Nobody ever came to me and asked how I felt about my work calendar being shared. You can't even get that information from Google.
So this information on sharing was provided to particular people, and they were asked, "do you feel scared?". Presentation is everything, and if presented in terms of how their personal information was included, it can feel different compared to when shown in neutral terms. In addition, if these people were told that the four employees were dangerous or a threat, this will also colour their viewpoints.
Bluetooth and kidney transplant arguments are about two hypothetical stories, and pointing out that if these had happened, it would be weird (well, yes it would, but that's not this story, they are very different).
Why in the first place someone was screencapping someone's calendar? Were they trying to organize some impromptu meeting with a hihger-up? Who was scared exactly? How did this came to light?
I mean if the recently fired folks tried to pressure some other group, that's bad, and it seems it has nothing to do with unionizing. But if they were trying to catch some elusive exec to have a statement from, that could be different.
But there are no specifics anywhere, just "Google bad, union good" or "stalkers bad"
Agreed that there's not enough context to say why screencapping happened, what happened to said screencaps, and how all of this turned into scared employees.
I currently perceive Google's note as if it were a press release; treat with appropriate scepticism. We'll have to see if more information comes to light.
Many would argue that the team the person looked up was making other employees feel unsafe by installing a mandatory policy enforcement chrome plugin for the entire company. So looking at their calendars and seeing what their meetings are about could just be seen as making sure the team isn't doing something nefarious. But of course the people who spies on behalf of management gets special privileges so nobody gets to even look up public information about them, then they evidently get fired.
> There is no indication that this information was a target of the fired employees.
This bit?
"The individual set up notifications so that they received emails detailing the work and whereabouts of those employees, including personal matters such as 1:1s, medical appointments and family activities"
They obviously subscribed to work calendars in order to follow the work activities of those people. There is no other technical way to do that.
There isn’t a way to separate out personal events — which shouldn’t be there, or at least should be marked private.
That this information was included, does not indicate that it was a target; it does indicate that it was a useful way for Google to attack their actions.
Even if it was purely just to follow their internal work calendar - which seems unlikely, as they weren't people in their work group - it doesn't explain this:
>"Screenshots of some of their calendars, including their names and details, subsequently made their way outside the company."
There is no reason to be sharing a work calendar with others outside the company, and without that person's permission.
Does Google allege that the fired workers were responsible for that?
The quote clearly suggests that, but if Google won't make a clear allegation (in a statement containing other clear allegations), they must not have much evidence, if any.
If google is making false statements on the matter they will be in for a world of hurt. Its just not likely that large, publicly traded, heavily scrutinized corps like Google are going to lie about matters soon to be litigated.
Meanwhile the individuals in question have zero reason NOT to lie to reporters; they're under no legal obligations and can say what they want.
> If google is making false statements on the matter they will be in for a world of hurt.
Is that so? When faced with unions in their infancy, often the companies come out with all guns blazing. They might even face fines after an incredibly lengthy court battle, but putting down that organizing effort down while it hasn't taken roots is more important to them.
Opposing unions in an illegal manner is not likely to impress the various oversight agencies, or any courts that get involved.
Once a company becomes big enough, claims that they're lying to persecute a handful of users become implausible because the potential liability for doing so vastly outweighs the minor benefits they might gain. And this isnt the 1920s, you can't just fire people for trying to unionize and realistically think that it will solve the problem or that no one will notice.
Ignore the names of the companies / individuals involved, their histories, etc-- just look at the incentives that each party has around lying vs telling the truth-- and it's not hard to accept that Google is more likely to be truthful about this than a terminated employee.
I suspect they have evidence of exactly what they said, that the screenshots were obtained by people outside Google, but don't have evidence that the fired workers were responsible for that.
Given the other contents of the statement, I think if Google had evidence that a fired worker sent a screenshot outside the company, they would say so.
> If google is making false statements on the matter they will be in for a world of hurt. Its just not likely that large, publicly traded, heavily scrutinized corps like Google are going to lie about matters soon to be litigated.
The potential lying from Google is also done by individuals who have no obligations to tell the truth. To me it seems incredibly rare that a human being (the person(s) doing the lying) gets any significant punishment for actions credited to a company. In my observation the more common scenarios are that the company and employees either fully get away with blatant lies or the company has to pay a small fine in relation to its profits.
>The potential lying from Google is also done by individuals who have no obligations to tell the truth.
They're representing the company in their official capacities, and as such the company will bear any consequences. There can also be individual sanctions, such as happened with Elon Musk who is now individually forbidden from being CEO because of a tweet he made.
> In my observation the more common scenarios are that the company and employees either fully get away with blatant lies
Then you're not paying attention. Public companies lying to shareholders open themselves up to massive liability, including SEC action and civil suits from those shareholders.
Google's statement does not claim that the screenshots were shared with others. "Outside the company" covers a multitude of possibilities. It could also include saving screenshots in one's personal GMail account (in Google Docs, etc.), which Google may be able to access (I don't know if they can or not, but the relevant company is the US, where these things are usually more legal than in the EU).
If so, it might suggest a wish to share with people in future, e.g. in a court case, etc., but it doesn't necessarily mean that this information _has been_ shared.
It could also mean that the information _was_ shared with others, just pointing out that it isn't exactly what the statement says.
I sometimes put personal appointments into a work calendar to avoid getting people scheduling meetings for that time (as a manager, I get a lot of people scheduling meetings on my behalf).
Usually the personal details are pretty sparse -- just containing the minimum I'd normally share in person eg "dentist", "doctors", "kids school performance" / "parents evening". These would be days where I'm technically working but organising my work hours around a personal appointment (otherwise I'd just put "annual leave" if I'm taking a full or half day off).
This would be enough to fall in line with Google's statement even though I'm technically not using work's calendar for personal appointments.
I meant, there is no way for subscribers to a calendar to do that automatically. There are possible heuristics that could filter out clearly personal entries (keywords, etc.), but that feature would need to be implemented by (cough) Google.
There are obvious ways for calendar owners to separate the information (which was not done in the instances that Google refer to).
Because you have one life and busy days and personal and professional merge with a lunchtime meeting then an afternoon doctor's appointment etc.
When you are back to back most days (common at Google) you can't be juggling multiple calendar accounts all the time, not least because a personal event doesn't show on your professional cal meaning someone can try to double book that slot.
Idk, I use Google Calendar (browser, android app) and currently run work calendar, private calendar, and facebook events seamlessly. Don't think I've spent much time at all setting it up, either.
Right, but there's no way to separate out personal events when you subscribe to someone else's work calendar if they put personal events on their work calendar.
> "The individual set up notifications so that they received emails detailing the work and whereabouts of those employees, including personal matters such as 1:1s, medical appointments and family activities"
Which could mean simply:
1) individual subscribed to other employee's work calendars, which are visible to everyone within Google,
2) individual had calendar notifications turned on, and
3) other employees posted personal matters on their work calendars.
This appears to be the default for G Suite settings, though. I can set up notifications to receive emails about work calendar entries for anyone in my company.
Details around medical, family etc. are only visible if the employee adds that information to their work calendar.
It's a little stalky, but yeah your work calendar is public on purpose - it's incredibly useful. People look it up before walking to your desk to chat and especially before setting up meetings. Just put a block of "busy", serves the same purpose. Nobody really cares if you're in a hospital or just running.
You cannot take any screenshot or any document or any piece of code from any company. This is common sense, in addition to probably being a copyright issue. I'm not sure why would anyone expect to be respected by their employer without following this rule.
Including personal information on your work calendar without using privacy controls is pretty bad practice, though obviously some people occasionally did it.
Given the attitude Google itself has towards privacy in general, I'm not at all surprised by this... if I remember correctly, employees are even expected (obliged?) to use their personal Google account for work.
I'd never work for Google, one of the reasons being this "work-life mixing". I personally maintain a very strict "firewall" between personal and employee matters.
How about this: you have a load balancer that sends much less traffic to servers that are running slowly (but still a small amount of traffic, so that it recognises when the machine recovers). One backend server has a hardware problem; requests that usually take milliseconds now take seconds; the 99th percentile on that machine is much higher than anywhere else. But it's actually serving a tiny tiny fraction of traffic. Is the value useful in indicating the performance of the service as a whole?
Yes in this case max of P99 latencies across all servers is useful. It will be high if any machine's P99 is high indicating that something is not normal. If it's a known ongoing condition, I would make two metrics, one that includes the trouble server in the aggregate and one that doesn't and alert on that to find out new unknown problems.
Okay, I see what you mean. It is a statistic, and so far as it is what it is describes, it's true. And it has some use.
The problem is that what people are usually asking for, is the 99th percentile of response time for user requests, and they get the above statistic, not because they want it, but because they are limited by their monitoring systems; they accept it as a proxy for what they want, when it is actually something completely different, and may have completely different values.
It would be more useful to calculate the distribution for overall response time, and also calculate the distribution for each individual machine; you could then look for anomalies (in your statistics) that could identify which machines are performing badly.
The general aim of error handling in languages like Elm is for types to not lie. If you can either return a result, or an error, the type represents that. The more places that can return an error: the more complex the types, and the more complicated the error handling. You can always pass the error value up through layers, but as people would say, it's just easier to make illegal states unrepresentable.
It's not an aim to pretend that failures don't happen, especially when doing remote calls, and the types will be transparent in showing where this occurs.
1. the large number of values that you now know definitely have a value, and you can access without fear that they don't.
2. the helper functions for Maybe that let you deal with optionality in various ways; the possibilities are extensive and useful. null doesn't give you any help, and generally any helper syntax is limited to one or two possibilities.
3. Code cannot fail due to trying to access a null pointer accidentally. Functions that definitely return a value (ignoring severe issues like OOM, etc.) is a somewhat useful property.
I can imagine that this could easily lead to less visibility into issues.
reply