Sig's response to this clusterfuck will be studied in PR classes for years to come. They started with a wildly overagressive social media campaign and have generally refused to admit there is a problem, and are banning, suing and generally trying to cover the whole thing up.
Independent testing at the local, state and federal level acknowledge you can fire a P320 without pulling the trigger. Making sure the gun only fires when the trigger is pulled is requirement #1, #2 and #3 for any gun.
And you know what? I still doubt they're gonna face any serious penalties, both to the company and to the execs.
We need laws to actually protect normal working people, not corporations and execs. Trying to silence people with lawsuits should be punished according to the severity of what they're trying to hide.
Since their shitty gun literally kills people randomly, this harassment campaign should be treated as cover up for murder and punished accordingly.
> I still doubt they're gonna face any serious penalties
Having to fix all P320 fire control units they've sold so far will put them out of business. You don't even need any additional penalties on top of that. I just hope they can spin off Optics division before that happens.
And that's why it won't happen. One of the reasons huge companies don't get punished in full is that destroying them could be destabilizing to the economy and therefore hurt's the ability of the people with power to get reelected.
Wouldn't someone buy their capital equipment and IP for pennies on the dollar if they went bankrupt though? So I don't know how much it would destabilize the economy, it would just shift around who runs the company. 'Sig' would cease to exist but 'this mass of capital that makes guns' and possibly even the employees, would still be around.
This is not the first time there has been a gun that is known to go off uncommanded. It happens more often than you think. The thing that made this situation unique is the PR response, which has completely killed Sig's reputation in the opinion of many people.
SIG USA didn't have much of a reputation to begin with, to be honest. Some of us still remember the SIG 556R debacle, and that wasn't the first time they shipped a broken gun either.
The only real surprise here is that they managed to sell this broken gun to the US government, despite Glock of all things being in the running. And that it took so long for the issue to even register.
I largely plan for misfires and accidents when handling a firearm. It happens, though not usually from mechanical failure. But to know the company is so acticely malicious and shady makes me never want to purchase another gun from them again.
I’m a huge Sig fan, I think they build a quality firearm. But I am not so blind to see they’ve made an insane mistake here. Recalling all P320s would’ve been better than this disaster.
What stops anyone from just mining it? Cryptocurrency mining may or may not be profitable at any given time, but it doesn't matter that you're spending $7 to mine $5 worth of cryptocurrency if you're willing to pay the $7 to get the VPN.
Meh, perhaps now, but there is an easy pipeline of work (mostly menial, Turk type tasks) for crypto that runs right past KYC. Cash for crypto is also surprisingly easy to find, again bypassing most KYC.
I'm not sure most kids would jump through this many hoops. I don't know what will happen in the future, but I'm having trouble foreseeing a future where a sizeable majority of kids have cryptocurrency wallets. They'll probably just find a friend who has a VPN from parents who don't care or who don't know what it's being used for.
Unfortunately, dismissing ideas based on who supports them is pretty common and used by people who are unwilling or unable to discuss the ideas directly. This is mostly used incompetently, but occasionally used maliciously.
I think I see this most commonly in politics, where if <obviously bad> person supports an idea, then that idea must be also bad.
> This is mostly used incompetently, but occasionally used maliciously.
It can also just be a good heuristic. If a person or group/org with a reputation for dishonesty tells you an "idea", it's reasonable to throw shade.
> I think I see this most commonly in politics, where if <obviously bad> person supports an idea, then that idea must be also bad.
The conclusion is not always this direct, but it is completely reasonable to question ~why~ the obviously bad person holds that idea. What do they gain from pushing the agenda? Some people are so intellectually dishonest that everything they say is suspect.
I am surprised they are starting with Laptops. IMO, it makes more sense to start with servers. They are car-priced assets, and stand much more to gain from a multi-point inspection versus a laptop. They are also less likely to suffer from long term damage damage, such as water damage.
Slap another 5 years of hardware support on it and resell for 20% above the used market. Many small and medium size enterprises will happily take you up on that offer. For example, typical dell hardware support is 5-7 years, the systems are still usable for several years after hardware support ends.
HPE is very happy with off-lease server HW only being sold on ebay and appearing as sketchy as possible. The margins are really high on server HW - offering HW support on systems sold at 20% above the used market under their brand name would cannibalize their core business so it will never happen.
But in consumer space, margins are very low, and so there is money to be made reselling used HW at a premium, so they will try.
How many enterprises want to use two or three generation old second-hand leased servers?
As a homelabber I can see the sense, but as the IT guy at a small company it doesn't sound like a great deal.
If I were in a situation where I needed some physical machines, didn't care how old they are, and budget was an issue, I'd just go to eBay. Just get something cheap and own it outright without some corporation sticking their nose into the process.
I imagine the market segment willing to accept old and refurbed servers, yet requires some SLA from the vendor is not terribly large. Almost all businesses would be better served by owning last generation servers outright or simply using AWS.
Then again, we are talking about an industry that's happy paying tens of thousands of dollars in AWS bills for an application that can reasonably run on a single server from 2016. So there's no inherent logic at play.
There is difference of usage patterns between servers and laptops. Servers are most likely run nearly entire duration they are used or leased. Maybe not loaded, but is not massive difference.
On other hand laptops might spend significant time being turned off. Or their usage patterns might affect batteries. Like how deep they were drawn. In that sense getting more telemetry on laptops is much more useful.
IMO, they should be going after the hardwood flooring market. LVP, engineered hardwood and laminate are all OK, but you could sell this as real wood that is just as durable as LVP. Especially given some of the samples look like teak, ipe, walnut etc, and those species make beautiful but expensive floors.
No pricing mentioned though, perhaps it is too expensive.
Yes, the pricing is what I'm curious about. If they were saying "we can make this for half the price of steel," then the world steel market becomes their growth target.
If they can't get cheaper than steel, if they can't compete with steel, they'll probably never be more than a niche product.
You can make a product that is resistant to indentation and scratches while still providing give under your foot. LVP achieves this with various underlayments, the same technique could be used here.
This kind of fundamental research though is absolutely worth it. For a fairly small amount of money (on the nation-state scale) you can literally change the world order. Same deal with fusion or other long-term research programs.
Quantum computers are still in a hype bubble right now, but having a "real" functional one (nothing right now is close IMO) is a big a shift as nuclear energy or the transistor.
Even if we don't get a direct result, ancillary research products can still be useful, as you mentioned with fusion.
As far as MBA schemes go, this is pretty benign. Realistically,they are putting consoles into the hands of the most vocal, most dedicated, and most enthusiastic customers first. This makes a ton of sense, and if gets around scalping, I'm all for it.
At least you are getting "something" for having telemetry turned on, usually you get zilch.
Here's my problems with MWAA (amazon hosted airflow.) I have about 100 dags which maxes out the scheduler thread. Airflow parses all the files every minute so it's always parsing around 94% cpu. I could run a second scheduler thread if I coordinate with my SRE team and get the terraform deployed...it's really tedious.
Related possibly, my dags get kill -9 for no apparent reason. The RAM usage is not that high, maybe 2gb out of 8gb system RAM in use. No reason is given in the logs.
I am trying to switch to dagster, not because it's awesome, but because it hasn't crashed randomly on me.
You're right, it doesn't happen when developing locally, only in MWAA. This was the answer given by the Airflow team as well and I figured they would punt before I asked.
I realize Amazon is taking an open source project and making a ton of money on it (the instance prices are ridiculous for what you get) and the incentives are misaligned for the Airflow team to help AWS make it better unless AWS paid them to help fix it.
It's crap all around, and Airflow gets a bad rap from AWS's terrible MWAA product based on it.
Their operational perspective is catastrophic; how does one view the logs for a dag through the UI[1]? Why can't it store the python in the database they have attached to their deployment, versus making me jump through 80,000 hoops to put the files in the right magic directory on disk of every worker[2]?
We deploy on K8s in OpenStack from a scheduled GitHub Actions pipeline which aggregates DAGs into a new container build based on hashes of hashes. This works well with almost no intervention.
WRT your 1, above any DAG output to stdout/err is available via the logs tab from the graph view of the individual tasks. Almost all our DAGs leverage on the PythonOperator though, not sure if that standardises this for us and your experience is muddied by more complexity than we currently have?
WRT 2. we generate an uber requirements.txt running pyreqs from the pipeline and install everything in the container automatically. Again no issues currently - although we do need to manually add the installation of test libraries to the pipeline job as for some reason auto-discovery is flakier for unit-tests frameworks.
reply