DORA has been investigating the capabilities, practices, and measures of high-performing technology-driven teams and organizations for over a decade. This is our tenth DORA report. We have heard from more than 39,000 professionals working at organizations of every size and across many different industries globally.
This report highlights the significant impact of AI on software development, explores platform engineering’s promises and challenges, and emphasizes user-centricity and stable priorities for organizational success.
X's new terms of service, effective November 15, 2024, now allow the platform to use public posts to train its AI models. Users' content can be collected and adapted for various uses, which has raised privacy concerns.
Is it only for public posts, or also private ones ?
I wouldn't post private information in a public area, but I happen to exchange adresses or account numbers in private messages, as I would do in emails. Not on X since I'm not on the platform, but any other one will do the same if not already done (e.g. Reddit).
Is it really an abuse? Oh no, he used meal credits to buy toothpaste and tea instead of food, so... what? It really irks me that this level of pettiness comes from the corporation that itself uses every single tax "optimization" scheme on earth (and also probably invented a couple). Apparently, quod licet Metae non licet famulo. This really is just a small monetary enhancement to one's wage, not a "we ration out your approved caloric intake separately; do not mess with its accounting — or else" system (although it seems Meta really would like to treat it like that).
> This really is just a small monetary enhancement to one's wage
The IRS doesn’t view it that way — if people were just given an extra $70 a day for expenses not related to their job, it would typically to be taxed as compensation.
If they allowed this to happen unchecked and lots of people started doing it, the headline would be “Meta facilitates tax avoidance scheme for employees making $400k”
This is my feeling as well. I've gone through a lot of grief on expense reports at my company for things like not reporting the tax on a hotel room or tip on a meal receipt separately from everything else. It's not as simple as $25, at least from an accounting perspective.
The expense report minefield is real. It's why I developed the habit decades ago of not expensing anything unless it's actually expensive. It's too much hassle and risk.
So then it must be a better outcome if you buy the maximum allowed amount of food, 70 dollars, and then throw it away? Better yet, buy that food, attempt to pawn it off, and then buy toothpaste.
To me, that feels like a much worse outcome, not a better one. I think this demonstrates you need some leniency in these things. Because pettiness breeds pettiness.
I'm not speaking to the point - I'm speaking to right and wrong.
If it's wrong to use it on a tube of toothpaste because that's stealing, then it must surely be right to instead buy the maximum food and throw it away. Therefore, people should do that.
If that sounds wrong to you, then the initial assumption might not be correct. Maybe it's not so bad to buy the tube of toothpaste.
Constraining yourself to extremely hard and fast rules seems like a good idea on the surface. But it's all about incentives. I can easily make the company bleed much more money while being within their rules. So why even bother?
A touch of leniency and common sense goes a long way.
>If it's wrong to use it on a tube of toothpaste because that's stealing, then it must surely be right to instead buy the maximum food and throw it away.
That makes no sense, One does not imply the other
I have a business card with a limit of $5k for buying work materials.
I might get forgiveness if the materials ended up being wasted.
That doesn't mean it acceptable to use my business card to go to Disneyland, or that it is "Right" to use it for wasteful purchases.
People's supposed issue, and Meta's, is that this was not spent on food. We can fix that.
> Zero sympathy for thieves
I often find that those who process information in such absolute ways are typically simple-minded. I can come up with infinite examples where thievery is not only excused, but the most moral choice.
There are much better ways Meta should have gone through this. And, ultimately, I put the blame on them for coming up with an exploitable and naive policy.
Right, and clear lines are reactionary and emotional, in my opinion.
> I dont see how Meta has any moral obligation to prevent exploit
They don't, companies have no moral obligations to do anything because it's impossible for them to have morals, because they aren't people. Which is why I never give companies the benefit of the doubt - that's reserved for entities capable of morality, in my mind.
> Can you explain the moral justification for someone with a 400k salary to steal from their employer
Sure. There's a young boy dying of a rare illness. The employee cannot make or buy the drug, but he knows a company has access to it. They refuse to give it up. So he steals the drug, saving the young boys life. Saving a life is more important than keeping the drug, therefore the situation is moral.
Or imagine a company is evil in some way, and theft might prevent them from doing something evil. Again, moral. This is also the rationale behind why killing is sometimes moral. If I'm about to get killed and I defend myself, I therefore killed to prevent something evil happening.
If a bunch of members of the Nazi party stole and fled the country, we wouldn't have had a holocaust. If Oppenheimer stole the secrets to the atomic bomb, hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians wouldn't have been killed. If someone stole the guns from the Columbian killers, that tragedy would've never happened.
I'm not saying that theft is morally justified in this particular circumstance. What I am saying is that generally it could be. And Meta handled this in a piss poor way that hurts them much more than the employees.
Really, I'm looking out for Meta. So, you're welcome Mr. Zuckerburg.
>I'm not saying that theft is morally justified in this particular circumstance. What I am saying is that generally it could be.
I was asking about this circumstance. It seemed like you were making the case that in this case it isn't bad, sorry if I was confused, and you agree it is bad.
In what way the mega corp X is defrauded here, exactly? The sibling comment explains that arguably the IRS can be considered defrauded in this case, but the mega corp itself?
DORA has been investigating the capabilities, practices, and measures of high-performing technology-driven teams and organizations for over a decade. This is our tenth DORA report. We have heard from more than 39,000 professionals working at organizations of every size and across many different industries globally.
This report highlights the significant impact of AI on software development, explores platform engineering’s promises and challenges, and emphasizes user-centricity and stable priorities for organizational success.