Note that the reason he told them to drop the trade secret claims is because they're kind of ridiculous:
> the judge scolded Waymo for being "overbroad" in what it says are 121 trade secrets involved in the case. For example, Alsup wrote that Waymo can't claim that the way it positions light sources in its Lidar is protected, since the design uses well-known principles of physics.
Google's spin is that they're dropping them because they're no longer using them, but the reality is that the judge has told them they're wrong:
> Judge William Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco, who is overseeing the case, urged the company’s lawyers at a hearing on June 7 to drop the patent claims because "you’re going to lose on all these patent claims unless you pull some rabbit out of a hat."
"you’re going to lose on all these patent claims ..." because Uber is no longer using them.
Waiting to be asked by the judge to drop them is the only valid political chess move they had. Withdrawing them without being asked would be worse, IMO. But the reason remains the same: Uber used to have them in their design/prototypes but they no longer do.
The judge asked them to drop all the patent claims, even the one that Google claims Uber is still using/infringing, which means it's unlikely to be related to whether or not Uber was or continues to infringe on them and more likely to be related to the strength of the patents themselves. A lot of patents get invalidated during cases like these...
"Likely to ne related to the strength of the patents" means that the patents have been scrutinized by the court and determined to be invalid. But that is not the case.
I really hope that stories like this will let us stop blaming specific companies like Uber and accept that this is a problem with our industry. We're never going to be able to fix this as long as we keep sticking our heads in the sand and pretending it's not a systemic issue.
As with all corporate evils, it will require leadership from the top down establishing clear standards of behavior with strong enforcement. Simultaneously, external pressure via media, lawsuits, and missing key talent can be applied on companies not doing it or reinforcing those half-assing it.
Not sure I agree- because investors aren't in the same category as employers, it's harder for a founder to get any sort of justice for discrimination or harassment. AFAIK, the bar for a lawsuit is much higher.
Also, most of these firms aren't huge organizations- they're small management teams with a couple partners and associates / analysts. From what I can tell on Crunchbase, Binary Capital was just Justin Caldbeck and Jonathan Theo before it imploded.
That's both incredibly condescending and wrong. "One mega company owning every industry in the world" is not the only way to have a monopoly.
You can have monopolies on specific industries or in specific regions (e.g. AT&T and Comcast split up towns in a state and each one is the only provider in that town).
So was the parent's statement of "This is really basic" when they hadn't provided any evidence or even a clear claim (did they mean a few big players controlling each market, as in the fuel market, apple market, etc., or a few big players controlling a market as in the American market, European market etc).
Just giving them a few weeks at the company before asking seems like a problem. After only a few weeks, they probably don't have enough experience to answer with anything other than their own biases.
For example: you call out your Google Docs tracking system as something that should be obvious. But that's probably not obvious after only a few weeks. Some companies (especially smaller companies) can get by totally fine with that, and if you've only been at a company for a few weeks, you don't know what kind of company you're at. If they tell you that your Google Docs tracking system is bad, they're probably just reacting to it being different than what they had before.
Anyone who responds with a long list of grievances after only a few weeks is probably the type of engineer that you _don't_ want on your team: it probably means that they're unwilling to evaluate problems and solutions within the current context.
> - Always enable --noImplicitAny and --strictNullChecks. Without these flags, the type system is barely better than using JS.
It may be a good idea to add those flags for new projects, but if you're converting existing projects, that's just not feasible.
Further, you can actually see huge benefits just from switching to the TypeScript compiler without any changes to your code.
At my last company, we started switching to TypeScript just by running our large JavaScript codebases through the TypeScript compiler and installing type definitions [1] for the popular libraries we were using. While we were doing so, we started finding a lot of bugs in existing code that TypeScript was detecting for us automatically by inferring types from how we interacted with known libraries.
First, tesla collects zero lidar data.
So no, they don't, because they don't collect the same kind of sensor data.
The second assumption is that the sensor data google is collecting, that is similar to tesla's, can only be collected by google's self driving fleet ,and not any of the other ways google has to collect data.
Because, as above, it's not the same kind of sensor data, this is also false.
And Uber? i didn't make any claims about the current status, but a few years out. Tesla is using radar, instead of lidar, and cameras. Their goal is fully autonomous and they believe they can do it with their current set up. Their equipment could change, of course, but they will soon be shipping 100,000 cars a year.
While you're picking nits and calling things wrong, note that a lidar-equipped Tesla has been seen at Tesla HQ. So it's not zero, but that's OK, I won't refer to your statement as being "false", just over-confident.
