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.
In my world, I realize that 10 percent of people are SJW crybabies, and I do everything I can to avoid them.
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.
Managing people to produce amazing products is HARD WORK. It often takes flamboyant, offensive, exciting, and interesting personalities from all walks of life to provide that type of management and to take the risks necessary to both attract passionate people and keep others away.
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.
Only 10% of his team is upset with him?
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.
It's unethical to claim IP68 for the life of the product, when you know the life could be 10+ years. The argument that IP68 should be active during the warrant period, 100%. My point is that IP68(K) is rarely rated for the lifetime of the product, and the fact Google is pointing that out should not be surprising.
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.
What are they?
You weren't paying attention the last 23405734027 times I explained, why waste my time on you now? The short short answer is per-unit costs and security. If you want more, see if you can find my zillions of old posts on this subject which I know you have had the opportunity to read because you were in many of the conversations where I wrote them.
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 wonder why they went small? SONGS (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station) was 2GW. Its shut down now, but a decent nuclear power plant is in the gigawatts not megawatts range.
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.
It's an SMR - a Small Modular Reactor. A failed technology that has yet to see a single operational prototype.
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.
The IP68(K) or IPXYZ rating is only valid for a certain span of time, if the rating is a critical consideration you generally have to get systems retested, or, perform serious testing to show environmental response.
Nobody is asking for it to be a critical consideration, but if a product advertises water resistance, it is reasonable for a consumer to expect that it will not die if you get it wet during the warranty period, so long as the user doesn't modify the device. A warranty is expected to cover any manufacturing defects, and the way I see it, if a product that is advertised as water resistant has water ingress during the warranty period, 99.99999% of the time, that's a manufacturing defect, and the warranty absolutely should cover it.
More than that, if a manufacturer isn't willing to stand behind the waterproof rating, what's the point of having these rating at all? They're basically just misleading marketing noise at that point. Why should companies be allowed to advertise water resistance as a feature if they are unwilling to guarantee that the devices really are water resistant during the warranty period?
Yes, I'm aware that the entire industry does this. It's still disgustingly unethical, and I'm disappointed to see it continuing to spread. We really should have laws about this sort of thing.
The chances of having a manufacturing defect has nothing to do with location of something being made and everything to do with QA/QC oversight over said location. There's no reason to prefer a phone from one company from one country over another, especially considering you're ultimately covered by the same American company if something goes wrong.
This. Apple is known for doing drop-in inspections to keep factories on their toes QA-wise, not to mention to ensure that working conditions don't degrade. And the same company (Foxconn) runs manufacturing in both countries, so there's really no reason to expect significantly different quality.
Thatâ(TM)s funny ; you know, when Apple first moved iPhone production to China, people were saying the exact same thing about China.
iPhones have always been made in China since the original iPhone in 2007. And Apple has consistently been making stuff in China at that point. Other manufacturers have been making phones in China for years before Apple, at that.
Quite famously, Apple bought all the air cargo space from China to the USA in 1996 or 1997 when they introduced the original Bondi Blue iMac. It basically forced all the other manufacturers to not have product on the shelves for the holidays.
I could be wrong, but I think the first device like to be actually assembled in China was the iPod in 2001. Bondi Blue might have had parts made in China, but I'm pretty sure it was assembled in the U.S.
Also, it was announced in August of 1998. There's no reason that buying all the air cargo space for a product released in August would affect things happening around the holidays. By a month or so after release, they tend to use boat shipping unless they are direct shipping them from the factory to the consumer (i.e. for build-to-order machines).
I think that original report from BusinessWeek was apocryphal, but if it had any truth at all, it was a year later than they claimed, and it would have been way too early to destroy the holiday season unless their operations team was just really doing things badly.
The very first iPhone was made in China. In fact, the very first iPod was made in China. More to the point the iPod was the first Apple product line to be made in mainland China, though you could argue that the first Apple product made in China was the Newton Messagepad, depending on how you resolve the geopolitical question of whether Taiwan should or should not be considered part of China.
Foldables typically have the additional property that you can use them without opening them.
That sounds like the startups alright, but I've heard of lots of use cases where AI was powerful, from protein folding to theorem checking.
Sorry, I should have said LLMs. AI in the broader sense can be used for all sorts of stuff.
You cannot block them without blocking the internet. You will run what they want on their computer.
That's the only safe way to run Windows. Block the Internet.
The perversity of nature is nowhere better demonstrated by the fact that, when exposed to the same atmosphere, bread becomes hard while crackers become soft.
