There could be something shady going on but I've seen this message occasionally with my OEM cable. Realistically, what could a secret device in your cable do?
I don't have a link to the form, but it would be good to verify that this is legit (if that's something you would be able to do). It's an unusual workflow imo so I just wanted to double check
imo Google >>>> Microsoft > Amazon in terms of privacy
They all collect a lot of data, but Google offers very easy ways to manage that data and pause any data collection unlike Microsoft and Amazon. Microsoft puts ads in your start menu. Amazon (at least AWS) monitors all their clients' data and copies the most successful ones.
If this isn't a real apology then what would you say a real apology looks like?
Of the many public apologies I've read in the past this reads like an honest, genuine one. He admitted guilt, explained what he did wrong and did not try to justify it, and clearly stated that he apologizes. What's missing?
Expression of regret. "I am truly sorry." - Check.
Explanation of what went wrong. "I must have directed angry words at you, who clearly had nothing to do with how the day had gone." - This is weaselly. "I must have...", not "I did".
Acknowledgment of responsibility. " I clearly forget that I am the oldest and most experienced—and I should act this way in a post-mortem conversation." - Weaselly. Whether he was oldest and most experienced or not, no one should behave this way. And rather than taking the responsibility, it's chalked up to forgetfulness.
Declaration of repentance. - Nothing here. No commitment to change. No stated intention for better emotional management.
Offer of repair. - "Finally, as you surely recall, I encouraged you throughout 2019, in person and in email, to join the Racket leadership;" In the absence of any kind of effort or commitment to change, this would not be received as a positive offer. But rather an extension of exposure to an abusive individual. Not much of a repair.
Well, I personally think asking for forgiveness is manipulative and shitty behavior. An apology should be about doing right by someone you wronged, not closing with "And last but not least: What's in it for me?!"
If they forgive you, coolios. Though it might take them more than five minutes just like it took apparently months for this apology to happen, so they don't need to promptly give you a fucking pat on the head like we give five year olds a cookie to reward desired behavior or some crap.
The request for forgiveness is indicative of the desire to restore the relationship, as the other steps can be fulfilled in the absence of that desire.
The capacity of such a request to be manipulative is dependent on first, the sincerity of the desire, and second, on the degree to which the injured party feels compelled to forgive. We do a disservice in the extent that we inculcate an expectation that a request for forgiveness must be granted, as coerced or compelled forgiveness is not meaningful as it does not represent a restoration of the relationship that was damaged.
Maybe in a private apology between two people, that works. In a public apology, it's typically performative BS that puts the person on the spot and imposes on them to find some socially acceptable response rather than giving them room to sort their feelings and draw their own conclusions.
I think it also depends on the severity of the offense. I think if someone murdered someone beloved by the person to whom they are apologizing or raped someone or ruined their career, it would also be gauche to impose and ask forgiveness.
Forgiveness is a gift. I don't think it is appropriate to demand a gift, especially if you have done someone egregious harm.
"I don't think it is appropriate to demand a gift," -- I agree completely, hence the use of the term "request".
But I would suggest that rather than making the effort to hinder what may be a genuine attempt at the restoration of a relationship, we should instead seek to help people recognize that forgiveness is voluntary, and that they have every right to decline extending forgiveness if harmed.
To use your phrase, we need to make it a socially acceptable response to deny forgiveness.
Better that forgiveness be rare and sincere, than common and meaningless.
The problem is that navigating all that in a public setting is compounded by the fact that it is public. When you make it public, for whatever reason, you must navigate not only your side as an individual and their side as an individual but the reactions of a large number of other people.
If they denied forgiveness in the first five minutes because they were hurt, many other people will reinforce their choice and actively make it difficult for them to sincerely change their mind.
At best, we can suggest that it should be socially acceptable to neither accept nor deny the apology and to not comment at all on the matter of forgiveness. But I think a public apology implicitly is a request for forgiveness and can be understood as such without a public request for forgiveness.
That's how I would handle it.
I used to write a lot of very sincere, public apologies on a small email list of a few hundred people because I was very ill and on a lot of medication and in a lot of pain and frequently not sleeping well. I certainly did not mean to offend anyone.
I wrote my apology. I explained what I had been trying to say if I felt it had been misinterpreted. I took responsibility for hurting them. I tried to write in a way that remedied that hurt.
The result was that I became the list scapegoat. If someone actively picked on me and I gave push back, then other people were all "There she goes again!"
I have probably more experience than average writing sincere and heartfelt public apologies. This is an informed opinion and it isn't going to change.
I always hated seeing on list apologies that ended with a request for forgiveness. They were consistently shitty behavior that boiled down to trying to save face and demand that the person they had wronged should make them feel okay about their sense of embarrassment. It was always an awful thing to witness.
Thank you for a well-reasoned response. I respect the depth of your experience and find much of what you say to be persuasive. I will endeavor to factor it into my viewpoint on the topic going forward.
I have no doubt it is honest, but it's not a good apology. He barely remembers the specific incident (by his own admission). That's not his fault, but it makes the apology pretty much meaningless. He seems to assume he was a bit of a grumpy-puss that day, and that "jaded" their subsequent interactions. This is incredibly glib and diminishes the specific incident.
But more importantly, he never admits to being a bully. The original post gives this incident as an example of a pattern of abusive behavior. He sidesteps that entirely.
What's a bully? Someone who loses their temper? Someone who's scary and makes enemies more easily than friends? I think a bully is someone who uses intimidation to get their way, if someone intimidates random bystanders what they have is a need to work on their emotional self-control.
The point is if you're in power it's more important to not behave badly than if you're not in power.
It's also easier in some ways, because you can get help from experienced outsiders who have a stake in your success and you can afford to experiment with improvement methods without getting fired. There are ways in which it's harder, such as if employees are too scared to tell you when you're being nasty.
It's missing the forest for the trees. The original complaint was about a pattern of abuse whereas this post addresses a single instance of abuse.
If someone hits you 100 times and issues you an apology for 1 of the times because somebody else saw him do it and thought it looked mean, does that absolve him of the other 99, which weren't mentioned in the apology?
Taking real responsibility for a pattern of abuse looks a lot different and will require some self-reflection and real steps toward justice.
the blog post that apology is linking to says that it’s only one of many incidents that the victim doesn’t want to enumerate, but the apology sounded like it only considered that one incident, like it’s the only one that the bully could recall (and not without help). felt pretty shallow.
"Fifty-six subjects were recruited (32 CD and 24 NCD). One participant from the CD group was excluded due to imaging artifacts, rendering a final sample of 31 CD and 24 NCD."
Feels too small of a sample size to make any strong conclusions
Not necessarily. Suppose, for simplicity, that we have equal number N of coffee drinkers and non coffee drinkers, for total of 2N. Suppose you try your model on them, and tell which is which based on their MRI 80% of the time. Let’s assume the null hypothesis is that you model doesn’t work, and you just were randomly lucky. If N = 5, that’s 8 successes in 10 Bernoulli trials, that’s already p value of 0.01. With N=25 (close to the study), that’s p-value of 0.002, much better than random chance.
Whether N = 50 is too small sample really depends on the strength of the effect you are trying to detect. For strong effects it’s plenty enough.
Thank you for this. It's annoying to see people dismiss studies based some general idea of "not enough people" without being backed by the numbers. Great to see someone back it up!
The commenter isn't saying that there's a 1% chance of getting 8/10 coin flips. One way that we can test whether a procedure is better than random chance is to use a binomial test. This helps understand whether a proposed rate of success is feasible or not, assuming that every attempt has equal probability. Here, success would be that the procedure distinguishes between coffee and non-coffee drinkers using an MRI. To evaluate "better than random chance" (vs "different than random chance"), we can use the binomial test to understand the probability that the rate of success is greater than 50%.
In R, we can do this with: binom.test(8, 10, p=0.50, alternative="greater") which returns a p-value of 0.05469 and a 95% confidence interval of 0.4930987, 1 [see note below]. This doesn't meet the traditional threshold of 95% confidence, which (in a simplified way) says that we're ok with a 5% chance of a false positive if we repeated this testing procedure many times. So yes, this isn't a p-value of 1%.
If we expand this to 20/25 successes, we have a lot more evidence. The p-value shrinks to 0.002039 and a 95% CI becomes 0.6245949, 1 [see note below]. So we're almost certain that the procedure has a success rate greater than 0.5, but without going deeply into the confusing aspects of how to correctly interpret confidence intervals and instead interpreting them as they are generally used, anywhere from 62% to 100% is reasonable if we're ok with a 5% false positive rate, which is still a wide range (the width is what I'd say is important, ignoring the way people use CIs in practice).
Another way to do this would be to get a p-value as to how feasible a less-than 80% success rate is for 20/25 successes. That has a p-value of 0.5793, which isn't significant at any commonly used level.
In the end, you'd probably use something more sophisticated than a binomial test so that you can account / control for other factors, but hopefully this illustrates what you can do with small sample sizes.
Note: The upper range is always 1 because of details around calculating a one-sided binomial confidence interval (we're doing "greater than" rather than "different than").
"How I Made $2B By Doing Almost Nothing", on sale now for a limited time. Only $19.99! Order today. And don't forget to like and subscribe. That would really help me out.
The better title would be "How I made $2B on an educated $300k bet" because even the best startup investors will tell you that investing that early is essentially betting.
And early-stage help and intros are crucial for startups - between YC and Garry's network I'm sure a ton of that contributed to their success as well. At the end of the day still a bet, but just saying.
