Всё-таки гений - исключительное дело. Обратите внимание на лаконичность и ясность мысли.
Для тех, кому лень: 2005 год, Adobe нанимает людей из Apple, одного уже наняли, ещё многих переманивают. Стив Джобс пишет об этом письмо директору Adobe, где говорит, что у него политика - не нанимать из Adobe (высшая степень дружбы между компаниями). Но, раз у Adobe подход другой, один из них политику должен поменять.
К такому надо стремиться: сколько стиля и власти в скромном "please let me know who".
Upd. Против Adobe и Apple было дело по этому поводу - наверное, так и стало доступным письмо, потому что document production.
And in the past few years, the DOJ brought three civil enforcement actions against technology companies (eBay and Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, and Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar) that entered into “no poach” agreements with competitors. In all three cases, the competitors agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. In two cases, at least one company also agreed to limit its hiring of employees who currently worked at a competitor.
All three cases ended in consent judgments against the technology companies.
Всё-таки гений - исключительное дело. Обратите внимание на лаконичность и ясность мысли.
Для тех, кому лень: 2005 год, Adobe нанимает людей из Apple, одного уже наняли, ещё многих переманивают. Стив Джобс пишет об этом письмо директору Adobe, где говорит, что у него политика - не нанимать из Adobe (высшая степень дружбы между компаниями). Но, раз у Adobe подход другой, один из них политику должен поменять.
К такому надо стремиться: сколько стиля и власти в скромном "please let me know who".
Upd. Против Adobe и Apple было дело по этому поводу - наверное, так и стало доступным письмо, потому что document production.
And in the past few years, the DOJ brought three civil enforcement actions against technology companies (eBay and Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, and Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar) that entered into “no poach” agreements with competitors. In all three cases, the competitors agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. In two cases, at least one company also agreed to limit its hiring of employees who currently worked at a competitor.
All three cases ended in consent judgments against the technology companies.
Asked about its stance on disinformation, Telegram spokesperson Remi Vaughn told AFP: "As noted by our CEO, the sheer volume of information being shared on channels makes it extremely difficult to verify, so it's important that users double-check what they read." Given the pro-privacy stance of the platform, it’s taken as a given that it’ll be used for a number of reasons, not all of them good. And Telegram has been attached to a fair few scandals related to terrorism, sexual exploitation and crime. Back in 2015, Vox described Telegram as “ISIS’ app of choice,” saying that the platform’s real use is the ability to use channels to distribute material to large groups at once. Telegram has acted to remove public channels affiliated with terrorism, but Pavel Durov reiterated that he had no business snooping on private conversations. If you initiate a Secret Chat, however, then these communications are end-to-end encrypted and are tied to the device you are using. That means it’s less convenient to access them across multiple platforms, but you are at far less risk of snooping. Back in the day, Secret Chats received some praise from the EFF, but the fact that its standard system isn’t as secure earned it some criticism. If you’re looking for something that is considered more reliable by privacy advocates, then Signal is the EFF’s preferred platform, although that too is not without some caveats. Individual messages can be fully encrypted. But the user has to turn on that function. It's not automatic, as it is on Signal and WhatsApp. Telegram users are able to send files of any type up to 2GB each and access them from any device, with no limit on cloud storage, which has made downloading files more popular on the platform.
from kr
