Good managers are largely similar, but bad managers are each bad in their own way (with apologies to Tolstoy).
From my good managers I have learnt the value of shielding working employees from excessive meetings and bureaucracy, and trusting people to work out their own solutions while assiting and supporting them.
However, I have learnt so much more (direcly and indirectly) from my bad managers. A couple of examples:
From the manager that everone described as "he is very good technically, ....", I had to quickly learn how to smooth relationships, negotiate with, and jointly arrive at solutions with other parts of the company after my manager would bang his fist on the table, yell about having told them the correct way to do things previously and that the current problem is all their fault before storming out of the room.
From the manager that quickly grabbed full credit for anything and everything done by his team, even when he had zero involvement, I learnt how to be more considerate in making sure I gave out appropriate credit (both internally and to clients) of the people that I worked with.
Shielding is a tricky thing. Shielding is nice, less stuff to worry about, but also reduces transparency. In the end you're not working for your manager. Your manager will not use the thing that you are building. I would say that any mature organization doesn't need a manager to shield the team, the team should be able to that themselves.
I think shielding doesn't necessarily mean lack of transparency, if they are a good manager they should be able to provide you context and information about the bigger picture while still protecting your time and representing your interests in meetings with higher ups and peer groups.
Just my personal (contraversial) opinion, but I believe that opting out of being a donor should also opt the person out of being a recipient. Include a 12 month waiting period for someone who has previously opted out, but now wants to opt back in to qualify as a recipient to reduce the ability to gain the system.
My slight adjustment to your plan (but probably still controversial):
Anyone can receive a donated organ. But those that do are permanently opted in to donate.
Well, I actually don't think that. People can legitimately change their views and philosophies. The "wedginess" of this rule would probably do more harm to society than the marginal increase in organ availability.
"We could very easily save your life with a transplant, but we won't because you did not choose to be an organ donor" is not something I think people in this country have the stomach for. This would be like if we didn't treat people who opt not to carry health insurance. In theory that prevents moral hazard, but in practice no society would be willing to let people with treatable ailments die.
The NHS has budget constraints so they are making this kind of decision all the time. It’s unlikely to be made by the doctor treating the patient anyway.
I think it's perfectly fine and respectable for someone who opts out of donation to decide for themselves, when the issue faces them, that they won't take a life saving organ.
That's very different from mandating and coercing organ donation in order to be eligible.
Right now, organ donations go to those with the greatest need. You are saying, well no it shouldn't go to people who aren't moral according to my philosophy.
I think you have to consider how that could go wrong, and who might be considered the wrong sorts of people, the sort of people who don't deserve to be treated.
Who might prominent political figures decide are immoral, abnormal, unproductive, unworthy, or unpatriotic?
There are long waiting lists for organ donors; why should I donate my organs to someone who won't return the favour? I'd rather donate them to someone who would.
What if I off-shore my earnings to avoid paying tax; what if I vote Republican. Does consenting to organ donation make me a worthy person despite anything else you may disagree with?
That’s irrelevant. If you just treat organ donation as an exchange system, an “organ-bank club” if you will, you don’t need to bring judgement into it.
The only logical conclusion is that this is cheap performance because if they really thought about caring about their own workforce and took their newfound principles to heart, they’d resign en masse.
Back in the early days of mobile number portability the majority of telcos put in systems to make porting out harder, e.g. getting an unlock code. This gave them a chance to keep the customer when they called up.
Regulators (particularly in Europe) soon put a stop to that to promote competition. While this was good, the majority of regulators failed to put in a consumer protection mechanism to stop identity theft through account stealing.
The article describes a more insiduous attack, as the mobile account is still active (hiding the existence of the attack from the user), but the message destination has been rerouted, making all the linked accounts that use SMS as their 2FA also vulnerable.
The article spends most of its words discussing the reality of math via Platonism vs empiricism while forgetting its own title "What is Math?"
If going for a pithy answer, I like tha following quote by G. H. Hardy:
A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.
I think I originally saw this quote in "A Mathematician's Lament" [0] (also known by the author's name as "Lockhart's Lament"), which has a lot to say about modern math education.
This would be a reasonable argument if they were trying to attract a CEO to an already sinking ship. Being the one in charge when it starts sinking is a different case.
IMO, this is the most important comment here (so far) in understanding the investment & maintenance decision making and constaints of PG&E.
From the linked CPUC Decision Making in the above comment, there are multiple examples where PG&E have advocated for increased spending for safety purposes, but organisations such as the Division of Ratepayer Advocates and The Utility Reform Network were pushing back. Ultimately, however, it is the CPUC that weighs the arguments of the different parties and determines allowable spending.
IANAL, but I expect this is part of the prosecution's strategy from the start rather than a change.
My understanding is that lawyers like to use a multiple lines of attack/defense approach. So in the context of this case, they would first argue that object A is not of type B (and hence not afforded any protection that type B might confer), and next argue that even if A is of type B, that all type Bs are subject to prosecution anyway.
My guess is the next step of the prosecution's argument will be, even if A is of type B and type Bs are generally afforded protection from this type of prosecution, this case is an exemption because of "national security."
From my good managers I have learnt the value of shielding working employees from excessive meetings and bureaucracy, and trusting people to work out their own solutions while assiting and supporting them.
However, I have learnt so much more (direcly and indirectly) from my bad managers. A couple of examples:
From the manager that everone described as "he is very good technically, ....", I had to quickly learn how to smooth relationships, negotiate with, and jointly arrive at solutions with other parts of the company after my manager would bang his fist on the table, yell about having told them the correct way to do things previously and that the current problem is all their fault before storming out of the room.
From the manager that quickly grabbed full credit for anything and everything done by his team, even when he had zero involvement, I learnt how to be more considerate in making sure I gave out appropriate credit (both internally and to clients) of the people that I worked with.