This statement is much more in line with Caldbeck's initial statement:
> Obviously, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. While significant context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. The fact is that I have been privileged to have worked with female entrepreneurs throughout my career and I sincerely apologize to anyone who I made uncomfortable by my actions. There’s no denying this is an issue in the venture community, and I hate that my behavior has contributed to it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Binary released an updated statement in light of this new apology and indefinite leave.
Their statement says that any claims or reports that Caldbeck did anything "inappropriate" with women were "false". That ship sailed with Caldbeck's most recent statement.
> I have made many mistakes over the course of my career, some of which were brought to light this week.
> It is outrageous and unethical for any person to leverage a position of power in exchange for sexual gain, it is clear to me now that that is exactly what I've done.
Those read to me like admissions of guilt. I'd expect lawyers to strongly advise against writing such things.
IANL but insofar as sexual harassment exists within the context of a company with employees, my understanding is that his behaviour, while deeply immoral, is not illegal — he has admitted to being wrong, not to having done something illegal.
BUt isnt that kind of direct action a problem unless there is any actual proof? Imagine that you are innocent and someone is out to get you with false claims, you can lose your job in no time and your reputation can be in shambles before you can do anything about it.
First off, groping is very clearly not free speech. Next up, power dynamics matter. A random person hitting on you may be annoying. Your boss hitting on you and implying that you will lose your job unless you comply (or in this case, that you will lose funding) is coercion and also pretty clearly not okay.
Even if you're 100% okay with the remark you have to admit that it's a huge show of incompetence to make it at a meeting specifically about fixing Uber's sexist culture.
Sure, but the iron fish option is cheaper and just as effective. With the money they're saving but using ingots instead of whole skillets, they can solve other problems too.
When you turn battery saver on transition animations disappear (making everything feel less reponsive). The phone stops polling for updates as frequently. The screen dims. It's a noticeably worse experience because it does a lot to save battery. When I have plenty of battery or know that I'll be charging my phone soon I would much rather have all of those nice things than not. It's a tradeoff because the circumstances dictate how important saving battery is.
Specifically:
The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial.
The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach us anything? There are two ways to do that: by pointing out some consideration that hadn't previously been mentioned, and by giving more information about the topic, perhaps from personal experience. Whereas comments like "LOL!" or worse still, "That's retarded!" teach us nothing.
"Second, Miller and Valasek have been sharing their research with Chrysler for nearly nine months, enabling the company to quietly release a patch ahead of the Black Hat conference."
"WIRED has learned that senators Ed Markey and Richard Blumenthal plan to introduce an automotive security bill today to set new digital security standards for cars and trucks, first sparked when Markey took note of Miller and Valasek’s work in 2013."
> "Second, Miller and Valasek have been sharing their research with Chrysler for nearly nine months, enabling the company to quietly release a patch ahead of the Black Hat conference."
I did admittedly miss the "nine months" portion of that, but that's still only one company out of many.
> "WIRED has learned that senators Ed Markey and Richard Blumenthal plan to introduce an automotive security bill today to set new digital security standards for cars and trucks, first sparked when Markey took note of Miller and Valasek’s work in 2013."
If you read further, you'll see the paragraphs on Markey's letters to auto makers regarding the 2013 findings; Markey's own findings only reinforce my point further.
Also, note that my point - that auto makers mostly ignored Miller and Valasek, according to the article - would not include senators (unless said senators build cars, of course).
> I did admittedly miss the "nine months" portion of that, but that's still only one company out of many.
Yes, it's the company that owns Jeep. The company that has a demonstrated the security flaw. How different automakers responded to different security issues isn't related to this article or discussion.
> Also, note that my point - that auto makers mostly ignored Miller and Valasek, according to the article - would not include senators (unless said senators build cars, of course).
Senators may not build cars, but they can (and are trying to) force auto makers to take security seriously.
The argument in this comment chain has been whether this problem could get the attention it needed without such a dangerous publicity stunt. The fact that automaker and lawmakers were convinced to take action by less dangerous demonstrations shows that this stunt was not necessary.
> How different automakers responded to different security issues isn't related to this article or discussion.
It is related to the article when the article discusses those responses.
> The fact that automaker and lawmakers were convinced to take action by less dangerous demonstrations shows that this stunt was not necessary.
One automaker (even this is dubious; Chrysler seriously expects people to believe that the only way to patch a bug that allows total control over a car's transmission and brakes - let alone the rest of the car - is via a USB stick, and that over-the-air patching isn't an option? Please.) and two senators. There are dozens more automakers and 98 more senators to convince. Hopefully the demo helps make that a better situation.
Meanwhile, a bunch of Dodges and Chryslers are driving around America totally susceptible to UConnect bugs, and a very large number of new cars on the road don't even have the most basic safety precautions (like, you know, not connecting the brakes and transmission to the Internet willy-nilly).
The convincing so far has been negligible. Hopefully that'll change soon, before someone with less-benevolent motives follows in Miller's and Valasek's footsteps.
