I was wondering whether Target Subjects whose names aren't capitalized in the FBI complaint had cooperated. But then, the complaint states that most of them are defendants in the Massachusetts case.
The one big thing I see missing here is the ability to increase your luck by networking and personal branding. You absolutely have to build your personal network. More exposure, more potential opportunity. Plain and simple - no matter what field you are in.
For people who are already networking as much as they can, working hard on their personal brand, etc. and still finding it doesn't seem to be working out for them (probably most people), you're telling them to do what they are already doing and that it will make them more successful.
That's isn't useful. It's non-actionable advice, and empirically wrong in their experience.
For people in that situation, your advice is pointing them in the wrong direction, and that's what I read into "misinformation" in the GP comment.
As I've followed OpenAI, the recurring theme is that the subject/company goals opens messy politics and philosophies rather than focusing on the research. In some ways I can appreciate their retraction and controlling visibility so they can focus on the research. However, this only further exposes more politics and philosophical questions. They have to decide what "they want to be when they grow up" and filter out anything else that gets in the way, even the criticism.
I can appreciate the problem here, but right now, the majority of the layoffs seem to be furloughs in the service industry and I'm betting they already weren't getting health insurance besides what they received from ACA.
An important distinction (as I mentioned in another comment) is that you have no idea how much "aggregate customer feedback" Gartner really has, they don't disclose their research methodologies at all. That's a real problem. 451 research does... and sincere congrats on your award.
Yes, very familiar with it... unfortunately there's a bit of vendor gamesmanship with these and they don't inform the MQ. Sorry, I've had too many years working with these tools, I'm cynical.
"Enterprise buyers use third parties to buy software. They consult Gartner, Forrester, and others to establish trust in vendors. These research agencies diligence software products directly and through surveys. This is the reason analyst relations are so important. Presence on the magic quadrant confers trustworthiness."
Strongly disagree on this point. With the exception of 451 Research, the major analyst firms do not share any of their research methodologies. Did they interview/research 10 orgs or 1,000? You don't know. The biases of the research analysts is also suspect. At Gartner, many of their analysts haven't actually used the software they are covering. As a consequence, we have no idea about the depth of their research at all.
The role of these analysts is to give C-level executives a "cover your a$$" excuse if things go wrong with the software. From my experience, most technical level decision makers rely more on their peers to develop trust than on analysts.
Everything is ass-covering. The "trust" tech marketing builds is to say "I trust these guys won't lose me my job", not "I trust their software works exactly as advertised".
This is exactly right. I have worked for Japanese companies, do not underestimate the weight cultural pride had in how they prosecuted this case. It's not like the US at all.
Totally disagree as someone who has done both a few times: Try working remotely or from home with a small company or startup. In those environments you typically wear more than one hat and it requires face time. You'll also often work longer hours which throws any chance at a work/life balance out the window.
Have to agree, and the stakes are higher. My recent experience was with a bunch of ex-corporate types that had worked together for quite a while then spawned a new startup, but obviously had lost the passion for work, so new hires were bought on to revitalize the small team (and do the lions share of the work).
The only thing I'd say that counts is get any promises/sweeteners said in the hiring phase in writing. Every C-level I've met to date has promised great things, and been a stingy, greedy bastard at the end of the day.
I'm sure that's common, but by no means universal. I work at a 5 person startup, and do wear a lot of hats, but remote is flexible (2 or more days a week) and I maintain reasonable work hours. Just saying it does exist.
One reason I think it works is all of us are very autonomous in day to day tasks, and only meet occasionally to verify priority and align expectations.
Just as a counterbalance, my experience is the exact opposite. No client yet succeeded at making me work more than 20 hours a week (and even that I agreed to after heavy negotiation).
