Spotify?

If you don't mind including companies that offer multiple things: Accenture, Amadeus, Capgemini, Mistral, SAP

I'm also assuming there that you're only referring to tech products and services, otherwise you probably want to look at the long, long, long list of pharmaceuticals, cars and other products.

I think the issue is more that you don't have a good understanding of which products and services aren't American.

> There is far more leverage with the country exporting goods

True leverage comes from import, not export of goods and materials. The thing that grows GDP is buying materials cheaper from elsewhere, turning them into something and selling on at a healthy margin (whether domestic or as an export).

> then nanny-stating them into a form they think is better.

I'm no fan of nanny-stating, but I don't think that that's the case here.

There certainly are examples of that, but then the ones that I can think of (age verification in particular) are also getting pushed hard in the US. In fact, by all accounts, a lot of that pushing is being driven/funded by Meta

That's not without its own issues though - creating external deps is more or less what they did the first time they tried to mandate age verification.

Although their plans fell through, they created an industry who'd expected a captive market and started lobbying heavily. Eventually, it worked and we've ended up with mandatory age verification.

All Musk actually needed to say was "oh fuck, we'll fix that". Instead, he responded with laughing emojiis and nothing's changed.

> is not technically illegal in the US

Bully for you.

X is operating in the UK and it *is* illegal here (and not just here). X can either comply with our laws (and the associated moral standards) or it can cease operating here.

There's weird nerd diving in front of Musk to defend him and then there's defending his AI generating CSAM. Neither's a good look, but one is much worse than the other

This particular example is in the UK though.

It's even easier here!

You can issue a Statutory Demand (https://www.gov.uk/statutory-demands) which gives the receiver 21 days to either pay or reach an agreement to pay. Failing to do that can lead to them being wound up.

If, for some reason, you wanted to go the small claims route instead, there's an (ageing) online service (https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome).

Unlike the US, the fee isn't a flat fee, and is tiered depending on the amount being claimed (still cheap though).

I've had to use both in the past.

The developer in this case really has no excuse for airing dirty laundry in public. If they're hosting and not being paid, by all means suspend the site, but don't deface it so there's a message about not being paid carrying the customer's branding.

Worse than that, that post misunderstands it's own statement:

"Sure, you will see fewer attacks than before, but most of the attackers are no longer just stupid bots"

That's a *good* thing, because the move has reduced the signal to noise ratio. By getting rid of most of the crufty noise of the internet, you now know that anything hitting your logs now is more likely to be an actual threat than the poorly automated dictionary attack bots.

Moving SSH to a different port doesn't make the system much more secure (and definitely shouldn't be the only thing you do), but it does generally enable you to be more responsive.

In fairness, the date on the post is 2018 - when Firefox first launched this, Cloudflare was the only option

DoH requests go to /dns-query so you only need that path to proxy onto your DoH handler.

Some DoH clients will also allow you to specify a custom path, so you can also obfuscate the path by configuring client and server to use /foobar instead.

But, re-using an existing site does come at the cost of generating a bunch of extra log noise (fine if it's just you, not so fine if it isn't). If you don't have some kind of auth in place, you might also find that you suddenly come under a lot of load (when I ran a public DoH service, I eventually started getting a lot of traffic from users in an authoritarian country)

If I format the page size, Libreoffice does offer "Letter" and "Legal". GIMP shows them as "US Letter" and "US Legal" but again they're not the default.

It wouldn't surprise me if most non-US users hadn't seen them at all, and certainly not that they don't realise the US uses a different size.

That's true, but it also works both ways.

If the "problem" person is impacting others on your team, you owe it to them to address rather than ignore the issue. After all, why would _they_ follow you into the trenches if you've shown that you don't care enough to deal with an issue that they're saying is making their lives difficult.

(Good) management is about striking a balance - between the business's needs (otherwise you're all out of a job anyway) and the welfare of everyone on the team (which IMO, should always benefit from a bit of priority over the other).

Sometimes that does mean making a hard decision about someone who's very technically capable, but damages the wellbeing or efficiency of the rest of the team.

As an extreme example - I once worked with someone who was a pretty good engineer and knew where a lot of the bodies were buried in the codebase (i.e. keeping him around would be beneficial), but one day he started regularly talking, quite inappropriately about schoolgirls in the team skype group (and even defended doing so). Good engineer or not, sometimes things have to change.

All of that being said, I think the article is too hardline, at least if those are intended to be the opening gambit. There's a ton of people engineering that you can do before you need to reach the point of making it sound like a PIP.

It applies _by design_ to anyone or anywhere processing the data of an EU or UK citizen.

I suspect that you and I would agree about the wrongs of any law being extra-territorial, but it's where things on both sides of the pond have landed us.

You already linked to the relevant part of the ICO's guidance but *appear* to have misunderstood it: you've inserted an extra requirement - that it requires taking payment.

That's not the case, it applies just as much to free services.

Wordpress.org (and more so the associated services - slack etc) being available and (more importantly) *collecting and processing data* is offering a service.

> Fun fact, in the UK data protection laws will still cover cameras and whatnot taken from a household

They do indeed. In fact, it's not just cameras: as soon as you publicly share information you can't rely on the exemption because it doesn't cover it.

> Yea, but there is no standing for the UK to apply its laws on Matt.

You keep using the word standing, which is very much as US-centric term. I'm not, for a second, suggesting that anyone would try and enforce this in a US court.

Being able to enforce is (as I've already said) an entirely different kettle of fish.

> Their entire claim would be to apply UK law to someone not operating within the country.

Yes. Welcome to the intended design of GDPR.

Although you're right that EU GDPR and UK GDPR are now two seperate things, they're not actually particularly different things: we didn't really amend it after leaving the EU - the two are seperate since Brexit, but the way that they work is the same, albeit absent a few years of caselaw.

In fact, it's not GDPR that's extra-territorial (or intended to be). Have you seen the stuff they've been trying to bring it to make the internet "safe"? That's extra-territorial in nature too.

Ever since the US passed the CLOUD act, politicians on this side of the pond seem to have decided that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

There _is_ an exemption for household processing (recital 18) - which means that I don't need to worry about taking a neighbour's contact number etc - but wordpress.org wouldn't fall under that.

Given Matt's actions (and statements made by his own team so far in the case), I think he'd struggle to claim that wordpress.org is not linked to "professional or commercial activity".

It might be quite difficult to enforce against a private citizen, but that's not the same as it not applying.

No, you just act and screw everyone else.

There's no justification for this whatsoever - it was your actions which meant that the ACF team couldn't manage the plugin on dotorg, and the issue you fixed was unbelievably minor.

IF you even had a point in the beginning, you've fatally undermined it. Hell, WPE's motion for a preliminary injunction even now notes that your actions here have potentially fallen into CFAA territory - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...

Given you've been banning dissenters from Slack, I wonder "why" people might not be reporting issues where you can see them?

Because I write about technical things a lot, it's often been viewed as "evidence" that I'm an experienced technical writer as well as an engineer.

But, it (and my github account) have also been flagged as "risks" by a recruitment agency though: I can be a bit sweary at times and they felt that having a project called F*ckAMP might put off potential employers. No-one else has cared though.

But, to echo the advice that others are giving you - the "power" of my blog lies more in it being stuff that I want to write, rather than stuff that I'm writing because I think that it'll help my career.

Deciding what to write about can be hard, and sometimes you'll find you hit a block and don't write about anything at all. Those are both fine, just write about stuff when you want to and don't pressure yourself to write "just because".

Internal interviews within the department were conducted using something that mixed STAR with a set of core competencies (external candidates were given a bit more leeway).

So as the interviewee, you had to reply in the style of STAR but also ensure that your answers tied back into those competences. To have a chance of success, you'd need to demonstrate as many competences as possible.

As a methodology it makes it extremely easy for the interviewer to assess suitability (especially for candidates trying to move up the chain - there used to be a qualification assessment for that too) and to do so in a way that can easily be explained/defended if a decision is challenged.

As an interviewee, though, it really was the most awful experience. The questions themselves weren't codified, so the interviewer could ask whatever they liked and you had to find a way to tie it back to a relevant competence in order for your answer to "count" and then explain using STAR.

The problem, in my view, is that there's a huge difference between what works for interviewers and what's likely to work for an interviewee. STAR makes it easy for an interviewer, but it's not the way that engineers normally communicate - just as coding challenges are often quite unnatural (like everyone else, I've had some awful technical interviews).

> It’s impossible to fire an employee for performance reason after the probation period in Germany.

This is untrue.

It's true that Kündigungsschutzgesetz does set a really high bar.

You can get rid of them if they aren't delivering on assigned tasks, but you need to show that they are able (and are therefore simply unwilling). There's also the possibility of doing it if there are personal reasons (i.e. something in their life has impacted their suitability for the role) but that's more complex.

That's why you see people get assigned easier tasks - they're being given tasks that are so noddy that anyone could do them (a failure to do so showing that they're not really trying).

But it's hard. The level they have to achieve is really low - something like 65% of a "normal" employee.

But Germany is just one country in Europe. Have a look at France, Italy, Belgium or even the UK - it's *nothing* like the level of stringency that Germany applies.

As a full-time employee of the company you're working for (i.e. not simply contracted in), you still have an employment contract (it's a right/required) which'll lay out the employment expectations (salary, hours per week, whether you can be required to work additional hours etc).

We do also have contractors - i.e. those who work for an external company who are brought in for a specific project (or to provide easy-to-get-rid-of headcount).

In my experience, working as a contractor isn't all that much more common than in the US. But people having some form of contract is, because basically all employees have one.

If someone's under-performing whilst in their probation period getting rid of them is incredibly easy. Outside of the probation period there's a bit more of a process, but it's still not particularly hard - all you actually need to be doing is documenting.

For starters:

* Because it's been confirmed and demonstrated by other people too?

* Because Total Recall (https://github.com/xaitax/TotalRecall) is a thing that you can try yourself?

* Because Microsoft's entire response to concerns has basically been "oh it's fine, _trust us_"

In fact, I'd go further and say it's exactly the use-case that should be being encouraged. As well as avoiding the issue of clip-board watchers, it also reduces friction and increases the likelihood of ordinary users being willing and able to use it.

Using a hardware key to unlock the database arguably is more of an edge-case, but conversely I'd argue that it's not acceptable to simply break that workflow.

So, IMO, Klode was very much the "computer says no" part of the analogy. He changed the process so the default was to turn away live use-cases.