I'm considering developing email related tools (NLP, auto-writing) related.
I'm wondering if there deeper context or wisdom behind this phrase pessimistic phrase. Such advice would inform my development and help me avoid pitfalls.
Does anyone have any comments?
In a deep sense, I believe I understand the role of most positions, from the C-level down to junior employees.
However, I don't understand what VPs do, or rather, what goes on at upper management. This is odd, considering I believe what goes on at the CEO level. So, what do VPs do? To help give context, here is a bestiary with a description of the roles:
---------------------------------------------------
Worker (SWE, Developers, and the many other kinds of white collared staff, HR, sales, CSR, etc.)
- Do the work.
- Although "lowest" in the hierarchy, workers do not necessarily have low status. Star employees (i.e. Senior Staff Engineers at Google) can have comp and influence greater than directors.
Line Managers (Manager, Senior Manager, Project Manager, Product Manager): - The conventional manager who supervises, reviews employees.
- Importantly, they do not determine strategic direction (even though they often desire to or represent themselves as such).
- Their value is making sure workers are productive, providing a smooth interface from upper decisions to worker day to day.
- Sometimes have considerable value as ICs.
Senior Manager (Director):
- Handling execution and related politics from above.
- Has sense of actual business but performs no IC work. Furthermore, work that is performed done is managed by line managers.
- Vice President: ???
CEO or equivalent top officer(s):
- Set vision and goals for the company. Instill these goals in senior management.
- Often the CEO's value is far removed from the ostensible company operations. For example, some companies have 'charismatic' CEOs or CEOs whose value is in bizdev or raising money.
Honorary mention (CTO/CFO/other C officers): Basically senior managers under the CEO with domain specialties.
Obviously, it's wrong to sell stolen information or exploit it to harm other people. It's also wrong to release personally identifiable information that could harm an individual.
However, wouldn't it be reasonable to use the stolen info to say, use the dataset to get aggregate statistics, and figure out how many migrants there were in a metropolitan area? Couldn't this be used in the public interest?
If this is not reasonable, here's a list of questions:
- Why isn't this reasonable? - When the NYTimes releases emails from leakers or hackers, why is it reasonable? It doesn't seem like anyone goes to jail for this.
Some of the research I am doing may have very important applications. One project may be to create novel data ex-filtration strategies involving deep learning and linguistics that allow the concealment of important messages in plain text. Another project may involve the creation of a way of profiling computers users using special measures of their interactions with standard human computer interfaces.
Both of these applications have pro-social uses, such in the first case supporting whistle blowers who are restricted to locked down systems, or in the second case helping to filter out state-sponsored bad actors on social media in a way that fundamentally cannot be concealed. These can also be used in negative ways, that I'll leave to the imagination.
In the full academic spirit, I want to be able to communicate with the best researchers in my fields, which may include Chinese scholars. Separately, everyone here should know that if I'm in a Five Eyes country, which I am a citizen of, my emails to anyone in these countries will be picked up and read.
My question is: Should I be worried about contacting or building relationships with Chinese scholars for the purposes of furthering my research?
I'm worried I'll basically be put on a list that affects my future travel or employment. This is despite no bad actions or intentions on my part and the various nominal freedoms and rights I have. Is there any precedent for what I'm saying and does this interact with my profile in my field?
Shouldn't we expect to see crypto mining of cryptocurrencies (yes crypto-crypto mining) to become prevalent in Venezuela at a scale to influence the economy?
Basically, my argument is that we should expect to see a massive amount of mining from small to moderate scale rigs in the economy. Using the efficient market framework, crypto mining can be seen as conversion of electricity (and the amortized value of hardware) into cryptocurrency.
Because of Venezuela's currency collapse (as well as standard issues of the government propping up electricity prices), there's a huge gulf between electricity prices and the value of USD. My guess is that if you look at the figures, the incentives are truly enormous. This is being exploited by the authorities, but separate to this, but I would expect to see lower-middle class and up to get into mining in a huge way (albeit individually at a low scale).
This is because if I can stash a small rig somewhere, then I can produce currency.This seems like a viable way to save funds at a personal/family level.
If any of the above logic is true, the following questions are interesting:
- Is anyone seeing evidence of this?
- Will this occur on a massive-enough scale influence the provision of electricity?
- Is this one actual use case of crypto currency that can affect history in a benevolent (or at least neutral) way by "democratizing" wealth?
I google to find out how to do something and I come up with answers some fractional value. Each time I then tweak my google search and look for the answer again.
These iterations feel like swings on a golf course.
Is this healthy and productive?
