usecontainers's comments

agree - this is a clever approach to solving the problem facing a whole group of applications where the "field of dreams" strategy is not going to work. Thanks for sharing.

The top firms all recruit heavily from biz schools with the #1 criteria of billing a crazy amount of hours. I'm not surprised they're trying to market themselves as "less ridiculous" than the competition but don't really believe it. We would work until 7 or 8, go eat dinner and drink on the company dime (purposely with only other consulting team members) then go back to work, drag ourselves to (most likely) a hotel room for a few hours of sleep (because they prefer to keep you on the road) then back to work and repeat. Low utilization was 2200-2400 hours annually with many (most?) billing substantially more. It's hard to believe that a business built on taking a piece of every hour worked would be serious about cutting back the number of hours.

They treat young workers like oranges, squeeze out all the juice and pitch the rinds. The math says not everyone can make partner so don't worry about keeping people happy, just load the funnel with new grads.

>> Someone whose core business is losing money

What, oil? Go look up the average barrel cost for Saudi oil (hint: it's less than 2 lattes). Demand needs to drop to essentially zero before renewables are competitive with their oil. They are not losing money.

There was an interesting article[1] a while back about the social/community roles that McDonalds plays for a large variety of groups. They are usually pretty good about "loitering" if you (a) buy something and (b) are non-disruptive.

1: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/08/mcdonalds-c...

except you agreed and authorized when you installed the software. Take your position to the logical extreme - software can't make any changes without explicit, interactive approval; and you thought UAC was bad.

I look forward to joining your class-action lawsuit.

So that's pretty unfair. 1) They state they are working on a fix for normal, release channel users who don't want to run studies 2) they tell you to temporarily run studies to get the fix within up to 6 six hours (could be faster; set expectation) 3) You can explicitly install nightly or 66.4 before it's pushed if you want a fix now

Yes, it's unfortunate, I'd expect them to meet it head on, push a tested fix in a timely matter, admit a mistake was made, explain publicly how/why and apply learning moving forward. Beyond that, what's your expectation?