In math (and other subjects too of course) many things simply cannot be understood without deep prior knowledge. I came across the Wikipedia page for the modularity theorem a while ago and it reads truly satirical to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_theorem
Not a single sentence conveys any knowledge to me. I have a theoretical physics degree so I am not afraid of math but still.
It took many years for Andrew Wiles and Richard Taylor to prove the modularity theorem for semistable elliptic curves.
Sometimes even Fields Medalists are not sure if a complex theorem about a complex mathematical object is 100% correct.
From Peter Scholze:
"— I spent much of 2019 obsessed with the proof of this theorem, almost getting crazy over it. In the end, we were able to get an argument pinned down on paper, but I think nobody else has dared to look at the details of this, and so I still have some small lingering doubts."
Vladimir Voevodsky started research program centered on formalizing Homotopy theory, because he feared possible bugs in his proofs.
"This story got me scared. Starting from 1993, multiple groups of mathematicians studied my paper at seminars and used it in their work and none of them noticed the mistake. And it clearly was not an accident. A technical argument by a trusted author, which is hard to check and looks similar to arguments known to be correct, is hardly ever checked in detail.
But this is not the only problem that allows mistakes in mathematical texts to persist. In October 1998, Carlos Simpson submitted to the arXiv preprint server a paper called “Homotopy Types of Strict 3-groupoids.” It claimed to provide an argument that implied that the main result of the “∞-groupoids” paper, which Kapranov and I had published in 1989, cannot be true. However, Kapranov and I had considered a similar critique ourselves and had convinced each other that it did not apply. I was sure that we were right until the fall of 2013 (!!)."
You're often in that condition anyway. If you're taken to hospital in a coma or stroke condition, they won't necessarily know who you are nor will you be able to consent to any procedures. They proceed on good faith in that case.
Because having a mass layoff is an easy way to reduce non productive people.
Otherwise you have to go through a complicated process for each individual, with a higher risk to be sued.
In practice, in my personal experience, mass layoffs are a nightmare for everybody, and end up affecting also those not directly involved (especially since in most cases they don't know if they are until the layoffs are done).
So:
- Many of the "productive" people will leave on their own accord for better pastures, even before the layoffs are carried out.
- The rest will find themselves with an increased workload (and the nagging feeling they should have followed the lead of the previous group).
Right-to-work states still distinguish between firing for cause and a layoff for unemployment purposes. If you just get rid of somebody because you don't like them or whatever, that's legally considered a layoff because they did nothing wrong and thus can still collect unemployment.
If you let somebody go just because you didn't like them but you lied and said it was for performance reasons, they'll have to fight to get unemployment, and they may very well sue you for their troubles. On a similar note, if you do want to fire someone for performance reasons, you better have that lack of performance well documented.
Because of this, a lot of companies don't bother claiming cause: they classify all firings as layoffs and don't contest anyone's unemployment. I worked for a company like that once.
There are some nuances to the terminology. Companies avoid the term "layoff" because it implies that people might be re-hired once the slowdown is over. Growing up near Detroit, I remember layoffs where the status of the laid off workers was specified in the union contract. I have not heard of this kind of layoff in recent times, outside of unionized companies.
Laypeople like me usually reserve "firing" for people who are fired "with cause." When companies fire people "at will," they often use words like "reduction in force."
Perhaps a better way of thinking about it is the consequences of being fired. If you are fired "at will," then you are entitled to things like unemployment compensation, COBRA benefits, etc. If you are fired "with cause," then you lose those benefits.
If an employee is a klunker, they will often wait for business to slow down, fire them "at will," and pay the benefits, to avoid potentially getting sued for false termination.
Also speculative, but Google probably has a set of equipments that don't work well with others.
When you play in the access and transport space, there usually a set of standard that you have to follow, in order for it to work together with others.
If Google owns the entire infrastructure, they can build their own equipments that are a lot simpler/cheaper to build, because they don't have to deal with all the standard-crap that other manufacturers have to deal with.
If they bought TWC, then they need to integrate all those devices, including all of the OSSes that are guarded by bureaucrats.
A bit of advise, you need to compare between capital gains vs stock loss. Most problems come when the stock is losing 40% of its value, and still keep it in order to avoid capital gains, ended up losing even more.
I remember watching Tao's video on the IOI (or math olympiad, I don't recall), and I couldn't understand anything he said :D
But maybe I'm just not his target audience :shrug: