Nonsense. By 2007 it was already a settled matter. There had been decades of attempts to tease out environmental influences. We’d seen that no amount of education funding, government employment, government schools, adoption by white parents, or any other way of approaching the matter would boost black test scores close to whites’ in America. Nor could blacks find a way themselves to do it, not in any locality. It was also clear by that time that serious environmental influences on individuals were small relative to the observed performance differences between blacks and whites, which meant the theory that its environment would imply insane levels of deprivation that weren’t happening. Social scientists had already given up.
Banks are a specific situation where employees can get one-sided rewards for increasing exposure to tail risks with other people’s money. It’s to avoid misaligned incentives with delayed (by years) feedback.
Engineers (or at least engineering firms) also get rewards for exposure to tail risks. As do many other professions. I'm not convinced bankers are special in that regard.
I think the OP argues -- and I agree -- that Engineers and their Managers -- especially their Managers, given how decision making works in the Bay Area, should be punished too.
I don't see the issue: that is part of being an Engineer: lives and livelihood of people depend on your work "working." That is how it works in all Engineering fields. Somehow in software engineering we give the title and forget the responsibility.
On the other hand, in a lot of jobs, engineers are overruled and treated as monkey typists, so...
Example: At Boeing, Engineers were overruled on 737 Max, and passengers paid the price. Time someone pays for that, in this case FAA included.
tl;dr: "Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering," # Steve Jobs (note: Rubicon is VP for him)
On the other hand, engineers are ultimately the people who implement whatever the management wants to do, so if they absolutely refuse to do some shady shit, they can't be overruled.
It's sort of the same as the question of whether soldiers should be held responsible for wars. There wouldn't be any wars if they all refused to fight. On the other hand, they are just carrying out orders. On a third hand, why the hell is "just carrying out orders" a good excuse for killing people? Why would anyone just "carry out the orders" without thinking about it themselves? Why should we be able to outsource our ethics? These are all questions that anarchists (the serious, intellectual variety), like to ask.
Right, but through which mechanism does that maKe a difference? Does controller periodically rewrite all contents? In other words how, does being powered-on increase retention of static data?
Also all of these are minimum requirements. They don't actually imply much, except about the state of technology when the statement was written. Flash has been improving very quickly on all axes.
And yet there are still people who will post about the good old days and the evils of MLC, as if current SSDs were not demonstrably better in every way.
More precisely, endurance and retention become exponentially lower with each additional bit stored per cell, while capacity only increases multiplicatively.
They are better. SLC is improving as much as MLC. The ratio of speed, durability, and capacity is the same between SLC/MLC/TLC, but modern MLC is faster and more durable than 5-year-old SLC.
You are probably writing this from a computer using a TLC SSD. Outside of applications that need extreme latency, pure SLC has almost completely disappeared from the storage world. From materials science to management algorithms, a lot has advanced in flash technology in terms of durability.
It's true that TLC and MLC have for good reason displaced SLC. However, in no way are they even anywhere near the old SLC in durability. ~5 years old SLC literally had 100 times more write endurance (as in, how many times you can rewrite each bit, not total amount of writes in the drive) than typical modern TLC.
That is pretty much true, and it's pretty much the only stat that hasn't improved. However, write endurance isn't really a factor in terms of data durability. It has to do more with the drive's ability to continue being written than with the safety of data that has already been written. If your drive goes read-only or loses capacity, that has to do with write endurance. Neither of those involve data loss.
