Our solution for the same problem was to just have different subdomains for each cert signer (and make sure we ship the right base URL for each manufacturer's app), so we didn't need to do any clever device-sniffing at the SSL termination point. I think rolling our own encryption sounds much scarier, but equally we weren't running at Netflix scale.
I am in the US and have 35+ days in my package and cannot fathom a situation short of major illness where I will use them all in a calendar year.
I realize that it is cultural and probably due my generation’s reputation for work ethic and disregard for work/life balances. I also have been lucky in that I am rarely sick enough to miss work and being remote just means you power through it (I have lost only a half day to sick time in the last 15 years). I see sick days eating up a lot of my colleagues paid time off.
I think on average I probably take a total of 20 days off a year, broken out as 10 days around Christmas/new years, 5 mid/late summer, then 5 around other holidays to extend a weekend.
Do you already have the standard undergraduate books?
* Introduction to Algorithms (Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest, Stein)
* Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools (Aho, Lam, Sethi, Ullman)
Knuth is also great to have as a reference - I've only needed to consult it professionally two or three times, but it's saved a _lot_ of time when I have.
That seems unusually high? ISBN 978-0262046305 is the latest edition, which I see on Amazon.de for 116€ (and you can get older/used editions for less).
I was going to suggest that the benefits would be _de minimis_ and thus nonreportable, but having read through some of the IRS guidance, I no longer think that's the case, as the ability to keep was conditional on the employees testing it. If it was instead "please take up to two programs home, and we'd appreciate any bug reports if you use them", I think that would qualify as de minimis through.
In practice, I doubt the IRS would care even if they knw about it, and I suspect Microsoft's Finance/Compliance teams didn't even know about this as it seems like an Engineering Manager's own initiative.
(There may of course be a different exclusion that applies -- I'm not going to read through the Internal Revenue Code to check...)
20 years is the maximum, not what he'll get. Skimming the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, I make it:
* A base level of 14 for an obstruction of justice charge (§2J1.2)
* -2 for acceptance of responsibility (§3E1.1)
Assuming no previous criminal history, that's a guideline sentence of 10-16 months. If he can get it down one more point to a level 11 sentence, that's a Zone B sentence and can be entirely served on probation.
* +2 for the extensive planning enhancement (b)(3)(B)/(C)
No agreement w.r.t:
* Criminal history (which I believe is fairly standard)
* +2 for aggravated role - §3B1.1(c).
* Going outside the guidelines
~ I'm surprised there's no acceptance of responsibility reduction reserved by the defendant; feels like the DoJ were pressing reasonably hard on this one (tbf, seems entirely reasonable given the conduct here) ~ Correction: this is agreed on p. 2/3
If the court sentences to 18-24 months (p. 12), both parties have waived right to appeal. (And aligns with the minimum level of 15 on p. 3)
is there a video or a simple follow through how one would be able to practically search through city/state/federal court cases with your speed and precision?
I'm afraid I'm not aware of any how-to guide. City/County/State tend to be harder; federal court dockets are all uploaded to PACER (https://pacer.uscourts.gov/) which has fairly good search options, though be advised that there's a usage charge. Lots of stuff then gets uploaded to RECAP (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/), but it is inherently less complete than PACER, though if you do start using PACER, I strongly recommend installing the RECAP browser extension as that will upload any documents you view to RECAP, as well as advise you when a copy is already available on RECAP.
For what it's worth, this one was:
1. Find the DoJ press release (I think this was just Google search for a few keywords)
2. Accidentally notice that the press release said that the plea agreement had been filed in court
3. Open the court's PACER instance, and search for the defendant's name
4. Open the docket for the case, and download the plea agreement
5. Skim through (ignoring the factual background since I was looking for the sentencing information)
I can't imagine the government agreeing to a plea where this guy does not spend at least symbolic time in the pokey. The offense was too obnoxious and high profile to let him walk.
It's not just obnoxious, people hike out there regularly he could have hit and he could easily have started a significant fire in a vulnerable environment. He endangered others for a sponsorship deal and then engaged in a conspiracy to hide it.
I'm not going to lie - I find the video utterly fascinating and I think the world is a better and more interesting place now that it exists. It's a fascinating path permutation of the human condition / state space traversal.
I do think what he did was stupid and brazen and that he should be punished. The punishment should be dealt in such a way that nobody else attempts this again. I'm also glad nobody was hurt (the probability of that was extremely low).
But all of that said, I'm very glad that this video and anecdote now exist. It's incredibly fascinating. Nobody was hurt, and it's such a novel thing.
If you haven't seen the video, you need to see it.
> If you haven't seen the video, you need to see it.
I disagree entirely. It lacked novelty. The entire thing felt as contrived as an amateur stunt, which is what it was, and little more: a precious snowflake and overt narcissist desperate for attention.
I agree with you - it is just not interesting. It is in the same vein as many corporate promo videos. Here is a Red Bull video of someone riding a BMX bike in a bowl suspended underneath a hot balloon at 2000ft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mnizjZat3Q
The point of these outrageous videos is to get attention and promote a brand. Does it really work on their target market: jaded young adults?
Also, I can't tell if any of these videos are real anymore. I don't care because the novelty, the shock, the wow factor wore off years ago.
So someone jumped out of a crashing plane. Whatever. Could be fake. Could be real. Definitely not interesting anymore.
> I find the video utterly fascinating and I think the world is a better and more interesting place now that it exists. It's a fascinating path permutation of the human condition / state space traversal.
The Thomas fire [0] was only 5 years ago. It burned 100k+ acres, killed two people and indirectly killed 20 more, and cost "$2.2B USD" to deal with.
Southern California is not the place to drop planes out of the sky for lulz or money.
One take, perhaps the most natural one for humans, is to reprimand behaviors for their hypothetical outcomes. It's what the law does. It's what parents do. Admonition is a lesson to everyone.
But this is a rare, once in a universe event. And like with D.B. Cooper, Max Headroom, Chris McCandless, and every other wild act of rule breaking, I'm going to hold it close and wonder.
It's possible to hold conflicting opinions and emotions and simultaneously.
Honestly it's more indictment of human nature and the need for external validation. I hate the fact that people are watching it at all, it almost gives ammo for future potential copycats.
As an amateur working towards their PPL, the whole thing is just gross.
>It's a fascinating path permutation of the human condition / state space traversal.
that raises the question : do you somehow attribute value to human action based on unique-ness? If so, why? It's an interesting philosophy , but I don't understand it as far as 'human improvement' goes.
> I think the world is a better and more interesting place
I think it's unique, but I also think it could possibly set a (yet another) dangerous precedent among net celebrities seeking the next illegal-yet-doable way to make a name for themselves -- I think that itself and things similar to this are a net-negative for the world at large -- it'll likely lead to more dangerous behavior that is then punctuated by larger and more broad legislation that will reduce personal liberty for the sake of some YTers whims once.
There are plenty of fascinating real skydiving and real flying videos to watch. This stunt is revolting and an insult to pilots, skydivers, and the general public. Fuck him and the chute he jumped with.
The FAA will want to make it very unattractive for copycat YouTubers. “No bro, did you hear about that guy?” is what they want prospective YouTube aircraft ditchers to hear from their friends.
> Harmed or threatened to cause harm to a person or property damage
The enhancement is doing so "in order to obstruct the administration of justice" -- I don't think that any of the actual dangerous actions were done to obstruct.
> Substantial interference with administration of justice
That's defined as a "premature or improper termination of a felony investigation; an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources."
I think the first two don't fit the factual picture that we're aware of; the last _could_ but I think it unlikely that there was that much conduct that was beyond the obstruction charge that caused this.
> Extensive in scope, planning, or preparation
Possibly - the SG don't go into much detail about what they mean by this; however, I would be surprised if this enhancement applied (but less so than the other two).
Yeah, you're probably right. The prosecutor press release makes a point of talking about his experience as a pilot and a skydiver, so "special skills" might apply. But the big-ticket accelerator is (b)(1)(A), and I think you're right that it can't apply to him exfiltrating and cutting up his own airplane.
Turns out yes to the extensive planning enhancement, as well as an aggravated role enhancement. But no to the harm/substantial interference/special skills enhancements. Details in uncle/aunt comment (is that a term?) now that I've found the plea agreement.
Thanks! I found it in the California Central District PACER instance by searching for his full name (both the court and name given in the DoJ press release) - I suspect the national index syncs only so often with the individual PACER instances and it just hasn't got this case yet.
Note, however, that even if an agreement was reached that such an agreement is an agreement on what to present to the court; the court may not be bound, in accepting the plea agreement, to accept, in sentencing, the recommended offense level, or the recommend adjustments, or even to stick to the guidelines, depending on the exact form of the agreement.
[EDIT: Revised based on a correction in the response comment].
I believe - and to be honest the Sentencing Guidelines are just on the boundary of my wheelhouse, but plea agreements are well outside - that Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow a plea agreement that binds the court, so depends on the nature of the exact plea agreement. (see also §6B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines)
There's no charge other than obstruction of justice? That's one of those crimes that shouldn't be valid at all without an actual crime in the background. If no crime other than obstruction of justice was committed, how can justice have been obstructed?
You make an excellent point. When I was in jail there were many people who were charged only with obstruction of justice or resisting arrest. Often what would happen is law enforcement would try to arrest someone or search their property and the suspect would interfere with the process. Later, whatever caused the police to take action in the first place was nullified, either by reason of being illegal or having no factual basis, but the suspect was now still in jail for potentially years based on their (possibly) rightful action in trying to stop the police from whatever they were not supposed to be doing.
Sometimes it can just be a lose/lose scenario once you come to the attention of law enforcement. If at all possible, never put yourself in a situation, or associate with those who are going to bring heat upon you from the police.
It's hard to know without more details, but based on what you've said, there may be a case of constructive discharge (even given the caveat that all but one US state have at-will employment). That would be worth speaking to a labor lawyer about, or your state's labor board. Many lawyers will offer a free first consultation.
This is close to what they did to me. Something close to it. They cut me out of everything related to my job. Then abused people I recruited to the company and cut them off also because they knew we were connected.
It’s really hard to prove. If they remove all your responsibilities they can then say “oh he just wasn’t doing any work.”
The management at this company was all fighting with each other: it started when they brought in an outside VP. They began fighting with my manager. And it trickles down to me.
> For this section report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
> 22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If 'Yes' you will be asked to provide details for each offense that pertains to the actions that are identified below.)
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official?
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for a crime in any court? (Include all qualifying charges,
convictions or sentences in any Federal, state, local, military, or non-U.S. court, even if previously listed on this form).
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been or are you currently on probation or parole?
> - Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges?
