You can offer shares to employees to supplement salary, its very common. It could be used to attract or retain staff by offering less salary but a larger overall package than their rivals and tie in the employees for a period of time till the shares vest.
Only downside with teams is that you can’t accept direct teams calls while in a meeting and they can see you are in a meeting. You always get the odd person who dials before asking via chat if you are available so you don’t get the chance to close your meeting first.
UK you have the concept of black box car insurance that offered a substantial discount for having either a dedicated device installed into the car or an app on your phone that tracks a bunch of stats as you drive. It’s as shit as it sounds as it marks you down for every little infringement such as driving at peak times because that’s more dangerous. Get enough points and you can have your policy cancelled. In the UK there are knock on effects for ever having an insurance policy cancelled and you have to legally declare you did when asked.
While you can uninstall the app good luck making a claim if you don’t have it installed with data for that journey. They’d also be pretty suss with no data over an extended period of a few months.
Worst part of these is that it’s expensive to switch to a non black box policy when you can afford to as you get older and more experienced.
Musk banning Apple devices with how popular iPhones are to use twitter would hurt Musk more than it would hurt either Apple or OpenAI so it just sounds like a win win.
However with their examples you don’t need to write a script, you can solve them that way but you really don’t need to for these examples. This is some basic search refinement skills (Outlook would even help you build this unlike say a Google search with refinement filters) and either a small spreadsheet or a calculator app to max out at their level 3.
Scripting this I would put at a level 4, but I would be interested where the authors of the paper would fit that in as its their research and what sort of percentage would fit into that skill set.
Not the OP but having got rid of my Flair as it was too painful to get great coffee out of at 6am every morning, the learning curve is very steep unless you are already familiar with making espresso.
Its bound by Solas regulations that are legally enforceable. Ships must have two way AIS and its logged, so they know if you were in range similar to the tracking for planes. Boats under a certain size do not need AIS and often only have one way AIS, but I expect thats not the case with DiCaprios boat.
Solas was bought in because of the Titanic sinking as other boats declined the help due to the risk of Icebergs, so thats a further link to DiCaprio.
Is this the UK? As (company) private schemes in the UK allow you to jump the queue, pushing people who cant or wont pay further back down the queue.
Its also significantly cheaper than the actual cost of a fully privatised solution because its subsidised by the NHS.
Majority of Doctors and Nurses who do private work spend the bulk of their working week for the NHS, and a large percentage of them were trained by the NHS.
Do I blame people who go private because they do not want to wait? No, but its also not a good argument for further privatisation as further expansion of this system reduces capacity of the NHS.
And again, I don’t see that it applies at all to what is a parts tracking system, its not a maintenance plan, a direct safety system, operational guidelines for engineers or anything else you are falsely trying to make it.
You keep describing the maintenance schedule, which is again, irrelevant to tracking the history of parts. Age of the system is also irrelevant to the problem here, a system outside or inside its operational life span can still have shitty black market parts fitted to it making it more unsafe than using the correct part.
The airline industry in particular has been hit with a number of planes being fitted with bogus parts, this is despite all of the things you talk about, they have not worked for tracking parts and proving their provenance. Hence, a more robust system is needed.
I am intentionally not accounting for it, as its irrelevant to an end to end parts tracking system.
Your difference is only really relevant to the standards that the part is made, the safety systems the vehicle needs to have including redundancy, and the frequency and depth of the maintenance schedule.
Both need to be able to prove that shoddy third party parts haven’t been fitted, that the parts have been replaced on schedule, even if the quality of the parts and the frequency of replacement is completely different.
While parts don’t need to be made to the same standard nor do you need the same depth of safety components, I completely disagree that we should not be applying the same hygiene to part province and maintenance schedules. Obviously this should apply to track side components such as signalling, the track etc. as well, just like it should for the parts of an airport that a plane will interact with.
Avoiding utter maintenance shit shows like the train crash in India that killed 300 people seem just as attractive to fix as they do with planes. Or the toxic spills that America has had that may not have killed as many people but are still expensive and hugely disrupting.
Part of getting maintenance schedules followed properly and using quality parts is right to repair, part availability, and being able to prove part provenance and quality. A method to audit a part is essential for this, if we do whats needed by allowing 3rd parties to make parts to original spec for a reasonable cost, like we should to lower cost. Lower cost, more chance companies will avoid cutting corners, particularly if there is a proper audit trail for the part and you can actually prove that it is the *part *as well.
The article is about right to repair, third party parts, and systems designed to block both of them, which I applied to an existing problem that applies to planes for certain and almost certainly other forms of public transport. Even a shit idea can be repurposed to improving the common good.
Agree with you about the level of standards, there needs to be some for train and bus parts but not to aircraft standards.
I also agree any part manufacturer to be audited to which level they are working at and prove a chain of custody for that part. They grey and black markets need to be squeezed out as much as possible, obviously you have to give the end customer, airlines, rolling stock owners, etc. a cost incentive with right to repair to honor the system. As any system can be hacked or broken with enough of a cash incentive.
I think the OEM having to license, at a reasonable cost, the exact spec and design for a part to third parties is an important part of any right to repair. You cannot self repair if you cannot get replacement parts for a reasonable cost.
Its not hypothetical, its a widespread issue for aircraft: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/airline-scandal-fake-parts-scandal-b2459534.html
and did you even read what I wrote?
Dont get me wrong, I want a full right to repair enshrined in law and using a system like this just to prevent it is clearly wrong,
With the fake parts scandal for airplanes I wonder if this should be mandatory for parts that impact public safety for public transport like trains, buses, planes and so on.
Dont get me wrong, I want a full right to repair enshrined in law and using a system like this just to prevent it is clearly wrong, but if it could be adapted to allow for critical parts to be made under license by third parties and helped prevent fake parts then may be a small amount of good can come from this shitty practice.
There is a significant scalp market for the limited release Porsche and other premium cars in the UK. Its not uncommon to double your money on some cars just for sitting in the queue for the car for 12 months or so from using a small deposit of say £5k.
Hard part is getting on the list to buy one, you need to be in good standing with the dealer from purchasing a lot of cars, which most scalpers are. You can then sell the place on the waiting list, or finance the car, run it for a short period if you want, then sell it for a big profit.
Its also a terrible way of reducing charging time for anything that doesn’t have an enormous battery like an electric Lorry/Semi. Even then its like 30 minutes for 70% charge for the Tesla Semi, which is roughly the same as a mandated break anyway for the driver.
What is more useful is making sure all EV batteries are easily swappable by third parties as this will massively extend the lifespan of EVs if you do not need to go back to the main dealer for a much marked up battery replacement when the cars battery stops holding a useful amount of charge past the 10 year mark.
They would just exempt themselves from it as they did with both reporting on people accessing porn using the HoP network and with the investigatory powers bill.
When they did report on it, it was a shockingly high number for a place of work: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/09/04/mps_binge_on_smut_theyre_trying_to_ban/
They wont have anything but a minimal budget to even research this properly, let alone employ the staff or setup the systems to manage it properly.
I realise China monitors a lot more than porn and their population is much much larger however they have between 20 and 50k working on it. Even if you cut down the scope you are still looking at thousands of employees to do this properly.
Rather Corbyn than the asshat Labour fielded against him. If they’d picked someone who didn’t have a hard on for privatisation they might have won…