I can't speak to the pre-NeXT Steve, but the post-NeXT Steve was known for being extremely demanding, and expecting a high level of competence, and getting angry if you tried to bulls**t him, and even for berating people's work, but not for threatening people or berating the people themselves, to the best of my knowledge.

I like that punch line more!

Yeah sure, I can see that this could be problematic for some people.

Wondering why I got modded "troll" though. Is that some passive-aggressive way the for the moderator to say they don't like the situation in the UK?

In southern England, I grew up with Yur-anus as the pronunciation.

You know Star Trek and toilet paper have in common?

â¦

They both circle Uranus searching for Klingons

Not necessary. I could clearly hear Gene Wilder's voice as I read it.

Not in the UK, or at least it wasn't in 2020. Some interesting points in this article:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thisismoney.co.uk%2F...

Causing annoyance is a different issue.

The UK government is also looking at some solutions, detailed here:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2F...

They should come up with a way to use existing infrastructure, like putting charging sockets in lamp posts. Oh wait, they do do that already here in the UK! There are also dedicated on-street charging stations and some people even just run a cable from their home across the footpath (sometimes even with a cable cover).

To be blunt, avoiding a tenth of your team because you don't want to deal with them is a guaranteed way to fail as a manager. Part of being a competent manager is figuring out how to manage each individual, and the way you do that is going to differ depending on who you are managing.

Yeah, there can be a point where individuals simply are unmanageable, and at that point, that's where HR comes in. If they are doing their jobs and are not creating a hostile work environment, you should be able to manage them. As a boss, it's literally your job to manage the people you have working under you. If you can't figure out how to manage 10% of your reports, you should consider a career that doesn't involve managing people. This really isn't a grey area. Some people just aren't good at managing.

And denigrating a big chunk of your workforce with slurs like "SJW" really is exactly what they're talking about when lawyers use the words "creating a hostile workplace" in the context of wrongful termination claims, etc. You cannot adequately manage people if you don't respect them. So it's not just bad from the perspective of the company not doing as well as it otherwise could. It's also bad from the perspective of losing very expensive lawsuits, which is why managers who say things like you just said tend not to be managers for very long.

True, but it also often takes people over them jerking a knot in them when they go too far and cause serious harm to their underlings. Contrast Steve Jobs before he got fired for being a tyrant and Steve Jobs after his return. The best thing that can happen to leaders like that is getting fired and having to try again at a new company, and hopefully learning from their mistakes.

Leadership != bullying, and one of the greatest failures in the modern world is people thinking that the only way to lead people is to scare them into doing what they have to do. Because when you scare people into doing something, they're only going to do just enough to not get fired. They're going to keep their heads down and not rock the boat. And when something genuinely is badly broken, they're not going to say anything out of fear of getting blamed for pointing it out. When you inspire people, that's when they do their best work. That is how you manage people — not by intimidation, but by inspiration and by example.

No, 10% were traumatized enough to seek professional help. In my world, if you traumatize ten people so badly in your professional career that they need therapy, you probably shouldn't be managing anyone, and whoever is managing you should be doing everything possible to limit your interactions with other people.

Just saying.

Well, not that shocked.

Apple is pretty much known for this. Not everybody is cut out to work in that sort of environment, and this is not saying anything bad about the people. Some people handle bullying and tyrannical leadership causing levels of stress that others would completely break under. Does it result in better products faster? Maybe, maybe not. Is it a hostile work environment? You bet.

Of course, not all of Apple is that way. But the biggest problem with Apple is that internal mobility sucks (or at least this used to be the case), so when you realize that you're in that sort of situation, it's hard to get out without leaving the company. If internal mobility weren't so broken — if you could just look for internal jobs, click, have a half-hour call with the hiring manager, a quick team fit meeting, and suddenly be working under somebody else a few days later, then bullies wouldn't be able to hold power, because nobody would continue working for them. The more you restrict internal mobility, the more bad managers damage companies.

And it doesn't surprise me in the least that this story would be about Apple Fitness. Besides that particular team being more likely to attract jock-like folks who are more likely to be bullies in general, statistically speaking, it's also a team whose product seems almost deliberately designed to bully its users. I tried it, and pretty much ignore it now. The point where I lost interest was when they wanted me to pay money for a subscription just so I could tell it whether I'm walking or cycling so that it has some idea of how much exercise I'm getting. When I bike for an hour or more and it says I haven't "closed my move ring", whatever the f*** that means, my reaction is that this product is junk designed to squeeze money out of users, rather than serve their real-world needs.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that a product that is quite obnoxious in its behavior is run by a leader who is accused of toxic leadership by a large number of his employees; the only question in my mind is whether his toxic management style made the product bad or the product being bad made his management style become toxic.

Totally fair. That said, I'm not even sure it's worth mentioning the lifespan of protection in that context. You'd expect a silicone gasket to last at least a decade if not disturbed, and I doubt that even ~0.0000000001% of devices will still be in active use after that long. :-)

Repairs, however, are worth mentioning, because the manufacturer obviously can't guarantee factory sealing after a repair; it depends on whether they do the repair correctly.

Security? Data centers already have to do that. So in that context, it's almost a no-op.

And per-unit costs are an economy of scale problem. Yeah, the first few units cost a lot. But as you build more of them with the same design, the cost of replicating that design goes down. So this one basically amounts to "SMRs can't be successful because they aren't successful." It's effectively begging the question, just with some layers of abstraction involved.

I assume that smaller plants are probably safer and easier to get approved in places where people actually live. Also probably cheaper to build per megawatt, and certainly cheaper and faster to build in an absolute sense, so able to provide a return on their investment sooner. Whether those were the actual reasons or not, I have no idea.

Every technology is a failure until it isn't. But no, there are a number of SMRs out there that are in operation, just none in the U.S., AFAIK.