Unless there's a need to interact (and there rarely is at an all-hands), it would save everyone time to just prerecord it. Any followup questions can be sent via email with reply-to-all (or an internal mailing list).
I couldn't care less about seeing and feeling my ceo, I just want to do my work and get paid with as little pointless interruptions as possible. Though this could be different if I worked for something I really cared about.
How large is the company you work for? In mine, I can't imagine wanting to "feel the leaders I work for and with" - the very idea of working with them feels like jumping 5 steps up and 2 steps sideways in the corporate org chart.
It was different before acquisition, back when the 90% of the company fit on one floor of an office building, and the CEO was someone you passed by regularly, and who contributed actual engineering. But company this kind and size, they don't do "all-hands" and "town squares" videocalls...
Yes, a lot gets lost in an email vs. video. I'm not saying it has to be a live meeting, but videos of execs talking about strategy often make their ideas much clearer than a written text.
And live has the big advantage that it cannot be re-recorded, so it's more natural and not as rehearsed as a recorded video.
If a strategy is clearer orally than on paper, something is very wrong. Either you're getting bamboozled by charisma and a bad plan is getting a fake dress up OR they don't know how to write.
…or some people just prefer visual interactions to text only formats.
This is very true in my case because I’m dyslexic so I ingest context more easily when heard vs when read.
For other people, it might just be a personal preference. Just like you have the personal preference to read rather than watch.
Arguing that the GP has some major character flaw because of their own personal preference really says more about your own character than it does theirs.
Also it's not personal preference. If you're an executive you need to know how to write properly. Execs rely on oral communication to use their charisma points on you, when you read the plans many times they have nothing to do with what was said or it's much simpler. Same with politicians.
A good all hands meeting is about much more than just outlining company strategy.
It’s about uniting everyone emotionally as well as academically.
The emotional component is an absolutely a critical part.
And this is one of the tells for a company that cares about staff moral verses those that don’t. One that care make their all hands about the employees too.
It's not about interactions. Sure, some people prefer or respond better to talk than to reading, or video, etc. But if the execs can't articulate their plan in writing, and can only explain it over words, it's a good indication they don't understand it themselves and it's probably nonsense - for the same reason your exciting, beautiful solution to a programming problem falls apart when you're three lines into writing it down.
Turns out, people have only so much working memory, but are good at covering for it with emotions.
Sure. But when all hands meetings are done well then they aren’t just about communicating company strategy. They’re about the employees too.
You’ll see demos from colleagues in different departments who you might not normally work with. And individuals praised for specific wins.
A good all hands should be for the staff, not for the execs. And that’s the harder skill execs need to learn: when to stfu and let their staff have screen time.
If all hands is done well, it brings the business closer and motivates employees in ways that an email couldn’t. However this is lost on most execs and so all hands often ends up being an ego trip for themselves, and when that happens the thats when things need to be communicated via email.
I'm not opposed to video, but if stuff gets lost in the written version that's more a statement on poor exec written communication skills than video being better than text.
People ingest info differently, and being able to communicate the same info in multiple ways should be table stakes at that level.
The video just gives execs more leverage to use the skills they use every day (people skills) to overwhelm the skills you use every day (charitably either the same skills or some sort of knowledge or physical skill). The more they're comfortable, the worse off you are. Their entire position within the company hinges on being able to exploit you for as much as you're willing to let them get away with, which hinges upon how well they're able to convince you you're worth less than they are (after all, you earn less).
Giving them anything is the wrong move. If you think you are getting as much out of the video as they are getting out of you watching them speak, you are wrong. The degree of wrong depends on your affinity with their chosen craft (which is, to be clear, grifting you).
>Have you ever attended an all hands that couldn’t have been an email?
Yes, they are the ones that happen once or twice a year, not the ones that happen weekly or monthly though, and they covered topics that have a broader scope than what I'm personally working on at any given time.
Tell me you don't manage a lot of people without telling me you don't manage a lot of people.
In some roles you have to over-communicate. All people -- me included-- over estimate how carefully they pay attention to communication. So people will say you could have just sent me an email in good faith and sincerity and the reality is that would not have gotten the point across, the discussion started, or coordination happening.
Exactly that. (Hijack session rather than account: any competently designed system should require re-auth before any action that would allow permanent account takeover).
This is very different to shadowing where there is a clear scope to the rebinding. In this case, I cannot employ equational reasoning within a scope but must instead trace back through every intervening statement in the scope to check whether the variable is rebound.
It's a straightforward syntactic transformation. The two are equivalent. The scope of the rebound variable begins at the rebinding and ends when the surrounding scope ends. Perfectly clear - the only difference is a "let" keyword.
counter = 0
...
counter = counter + 1
...
vs
let counter = 0 in
...
let counter = counter + 1 in
...
The ellipses in your straightforward transformation are doing some heavy lifting there. Typically the let…in construct has some way to indicate where the scope of the “in” part ends: indentation (Haskell), explicit “end” marker (SML) etc. Even with that, shadowing does make equational reasoning harder (you have to look at more surrounding context) and should generally be avoided.
Sure, scopes are not as easily syntactically visible, but each assignment is creating a new scope, that doesn't change anything for equational reasoning which has to account for captures / substitutions anyways.
No, it’s rebinding the variable within the same scope. Even if you view it as implicitly creating a new scope, the implicit part means it can happen on any line so you have to scan them all and mentally keep track of what changes where, (almost) exactly as you would for imperative code.
Referential transparency is not a property of Elixir or Erlang anyhow. In Haskell terms, everything is always in IO. So this doesn't seem particularly relevant.
This cuts both ways. The last major revision of SAML predates the iPhone by several years. Things like PKCE, which are essential for security on mobile devices and in other cases don’t exist at all in SAML, yet the same attack vectors apply (plus a boatload more).
It used to be the other way around. It’s been a while since I did much UI work, but the web always felt incredibly frustrating for layout compared to Tk. (I think CSS finally has something approaching Tk’s grid layout manager?) There are fewer frameworks for Tk, but I think it has most things you’d need. Maybe some of the finer control over fonts etc is lacking.
Most of what I'd call the UI - all the toolbars and pseudo-floating-windows - is basic bread-and-butter Tk stuff. The 3D context and CAD kernel would be the tricky bits. There are extensions floating around to work with OpenGL (or whatever), but I don't see doing the heavy CAD-kernel lifting in Tcl - that would likely have to be in C, or whatever. (Just as it presumably is for Onshape.)
You are correct. Having written such a thing, you do all your basic UI in Tcl/Tk and have a custom widget doing all OpenGL/whatever rendering. The rest of the code treats it as a canvas-like widget.
One of the authors is from the Centre for Policy Studies. Another is from the Adam Smith Institute. These are the gang of shady right-wing think tanks that brought us Truss and Kwarteng. That tells you everything you need to know about their economic competence.
Their solution is to allow private funds to fund essential infrastructure, it seems.
Which to me just rings hollow, or at best, only a part of the answer. They're correct on some aspects of it, other parts they just gloss over. IE They say that there has been an "erosion" of the industrial base in the UK, while actually the blame could be laid at the feet of Thatcher's service-led policies.
They are not wrong on that thet just make the same error the socialisys do in thinking that is the solution for all time. The solution foe all time ia to both realize the end state of a free market is monopoly and the end state of a state monopoly is stagnation so one needs to focus the government on being proactive and allowing both to compete and put the finger of government on the scale to favor private when public is stagnating and favor public when private ia monopolizing.
Gotta love the fact they go “Hey, look how great France’s infrastructure is.” and then immediately advocate for yet more private infrastructure deals without mentioning that France’s infrastructure was largely government funded (using those taxes they seem to hate).
> From 2010 to the summer of 2024, Britain was run by Conservative-led or Conservative Governments. The Conservatives are the traditional party of business, and in the 1930s and 1980s they pushed through reform programmes that successfully renewed Britain’s economy. Virtually any Conservative minister from the past fourteen years would speak warmly about that heritage if asked, and would express the hope of being its inheritor. And yet, with honourable exceptions, the governments of the last fourteen years failed in this vocation. Failing systems remained unreformed, continuing to stifle Britain’s prosperity. Today Britain is ruled by a Labour Government that recognises this failure to build, and which has articulated high ambitions for changing this. But it remains doubtful that they will be any better at delivering on those ambitions than the Conservatives were.
Depending on the specifics, that sounds congruent with some of Adam Smith's economic theories so it's not surprising to see such arguments used, especially if some of the authors are from the Adam Smith Institute.
His whole invisible hand metaphor is about society advancing as a whole from agents acting in their self interest.
It's more likely a sincerely held belief than an attempt at misdirection.
> His whole invisible hand metaphor is about society advancing as a whole from agents acting in their self interest.
That theory is predicated on the market being composed of buyers and sellers of broadly similar financial power. This is no longer the case in most markets, certainly not in the UK as far as ordinary people or most small companies are concerned.
Yes. Markets pursue the interest of wealth-weighted humans, not evenly-weighted humans. Disguising "wealth weighted value" under the concept of "value" (which, colloquially, has a more even weight) is the propaganda coup of the century.
What happened wasn't primarily due to her budget. It was due to a meltdown in the pension sector triggered by over-leverage, arguably caused by the BoE not doing its regulatory duties correctly.
Don't get me wrong, a budget that cuts taxes without cutting spending is no good. But the idea that what happened was a direct consequence of that doesn't make much sense as it had been telegraphed a long way in advance, giving the markets plenty of time to adjust. The central bank changed monetary policy a day before the mini-budget, and changes in that are kept secret until the moment of announcement. Additionally, UK spending has since blown through what the mini-budget would have created without any sudden market turmoil.
Regulators failed to anticipate the dangers that borrowing by pension schemes posed to the stability of the UK’s financial system, according to a parliamentary report into the turmoil that hit the gilt markets following Liz Truss’s disastrous “mini” Budget in September last year.
Pension schemes suffered multibillion-pound losses after they were forced to sell assets to ensure that complex derivative-linked strategies — known as liability driven investments (LDI) — did not implode when gilt yields jumped as investors rejected the then prime minister’s economic strategy.
Also, Truss is basically correct that the UK needs more growth. Disagreeing on her tactics is reasonable, disagreeing on her goals isn't. She was unfortunately attempting to create growth from a position of weakness: in a party that didn't want to do anything hard like cutting spending, and with a fragile/over-leveraged financial sector.
Pull the other one. Only some of the tax cuts had been telegraphed in advance. Abolishing the top rate of income tax and cutting the basic rate early hadn’t been. They ignored all the warnings they were given and sidelined the OBR. The Truss/Kwarteng budget directly crashed the economy and trying to pretend otherwise is some serious revisionism.
The committee report only looked at the regulator. To be sure, the regulator and the pensions industry should have done more. But the idea that Truss and Kwarteng are blameless innocents in the whole fiasco is ridiculous.
That's my point. Crazy economists are not responsible for the damage, it's the elected people who listened to them and followed through. To create an intentionally extreme parallel, imagine they have chosen a group of idk, satanists. Would you blame the group of satanists for being satanists, or the people in charge of a country who contacted a group of satanists for advice?
Of course, the second most upvoted comment is an ad personam dismissal that doesn't even engage with its arguments. How's that for HN-level intelligent discourse?
the parent comment already explained how extremely deceptive and dishonest the article is so what else is there to add? this is like complaining about someone not wanting to bother refuting every individual thing a pathological liar has said when their lies are so obvious
The way DH is used typically for encryption (ECIES) or in TLS doesn’t give you authentication. But you can get authentication from DH alone, without PSK or PKI. See https://neilmadden.blog/2021/04/08/from-kems-to-protocols/ for some details on the security properties of various types of DH.
I meant that some data still needs to be distributed securely, just it's the sender's public key rather than a PSK. I recon "pre-shared data" was not the best choice of words...
Just want to point out that the article specifically says to use an authenticated KEM (AKEM). A normal, unauthenticated KEM would not work as it provides no authentication. There are no post-quantum authenticated KEMs as yet.
There are post quantum KEMs though that authenticate with a classical mechanism, which limits quantum attacks to interactive from the previous total breakage of recorded ciphertext exchanges (e.g. Wireshark capture at a router encountered in both directions of the traffic flow).
Google's post-quantum TLS experiments that were done in public via Android Chrome are such; basically you just do normal TLS handshake but stack the key derivation from the traditional DH-type perfect-forward-secrecy exchange with a post-quantum-perfect-forward-secrecy exchange that you all seal under the same handshake authentication, and where you make sure to only use post quantum symmetric primitives to fuse the traditional session key material with the PQ session key material such that you don't rely on either one's resistance to keep your secrets secret.
Sorry I don't have a link quite on hand right now.
OK, sure. As far as I’m aware, nobody’s actually made that into an actual AKEM proposal though. (I wish they would, as I think many applications would be fine with pre-quantum authentication and post-quantum confidentiality).
Originally it was about scalability - signed/encrypted cookies are stateless, and hence (in theory) allow easy horizontal elastic scaling: just share the key with the new nodes. But I suspect that in a lot of cases now it is because it is easier initially to throw a key into an environment variable than standup a database, sort out caching, etc. It’s only later that you start thinking about revocation and idle timeouts and key rotation and all the other stuff that it becomes clear that it's not that simple to do well.
