When would you say you are "done" for a given period with "not having a catastrophic data breach", regardless of OKR? I know some tasks, such as this, is never really done. But for a given period (such as a month or a quarter), it does not help to have a task that just says "Don't have a catastrophic data breach" - you have to turn that into something you can actually do, within a given timespan, and that works fine with OKRs (and should be done without OKRs as well)
My objection to or misunderstanding of OKRs lies exactly here where there are no satisfying answers to this question.
If a sizable chunk of work can't be covered by OKRs then why are you using them or how do you use them with the understanding that they cover partially and inconsistently work and achievements.
I can understand the dilemma if you intend to go to Melbourne and "test the waters" and potentially want to move back again. But if you move to Melbourne permanently, I would expect you to sell your house in the EU.
As Apple says in the article, they put quite a few resources into making the whole App store platform, including in-app payments. The issue is that there is no opt-out for the end user - you cannot use a different app store to install applications for your phone, and jailbreaking is getting harder while at the same time border-line illegal in some jurisdictions, not to mention being quite technically challenging.
Imagine buying a car sold by a gas station chain saying "We made the BEST gas stations you can imagine, but you can ONLY buy gas here. It's a fair marketplace, everyone who wants to sell gas at our stations can do so equally, and we'll take the same cut from everyone!".
You can track the money going from the cold storage wallet into an account that the mixer service owns. Say it's 10.000 coins.
The mixer then transfers 37, 185, 205, 1002, and other random amounts to other accounts, which in turn transfers it to other accounts, and at some point they get funneled to one or more accounts owned by the person who originally transferred the money into the mixer.
Couple this with a lot of other people doing the same at the same time for the same mixer service, and you cannot say who owns the coins being transferred between the accounts. It is public what money was transferred back and forth, but without some serious analysis it's practically impossible to track who is likely to own the accounts where the money end up.
I am sure if someone really, REALLY wanted to give money to the government it would be possible with some effort. But it is actually fairly difficult to just give money (at least, in quite a few western countries) to the state that it does not ask for - everything has to fit within a system and match a budget, tax reason, invoice, etc., and you can't just have "EXTRA - From Bill Gates" somewhere in there for 10 billion dollars.
But it is actually fairly difficult to just give money (at least, in quite a few western countries) to the state that it does not ask for - everything has to fit within a system and match a budget, tax reason, invoice, etc., and you can't just have "EXTRA - From Bill Gates" somewhere in there for 10 billion dollars.
My accountant says otherwise. She was the one who told me all that rich people have to do is break out their checkbooks to put their money where their mouths are.
The same goes for Azure. Set up the wrong country / VAT / thing? Better migrate all your cloud services to a new account. No dropdown, no changes, no nothing.
Jurisdiction is a tricky concept in cases like these where we are dealing with digital content.
AggregateIQ could have ignored the GDPR-request, ignored any rulings and keep chugging along as long as they stuck to Canada (assuming Canada was not going to side with the EU).
In short, if you're not in the EU, do not care about EU and never will, you can largely ignore the GDPR. Same as if some banana republic dictator declares you persona non grata - if you never intend to visit and otherwise have no business in that country, who cares?
The difference is that the EU is not a banana republic (opinions may vary), and so many choose to respect and accept this their judgement in cases like this to stay on good terms.
>In short, if you're not in the EU, do not care about EU and never will, you can largely ignore the GDPR.
That's not entirely true. You can go to a Canadian court to enforce an EU judgement against assets in Canada. So for example, if you cause a car accident in Germany, the plaintiff can sue you in Germany to get a judgement and then sue you in Canada to enforce that judgement. How Canadian (or US or otherwise) courts will treat a GDPR judgement remains to be seen, but it's not a guarantee that it won't be enforced.
We had our first child ~3 months ago. We had a room to ourselves and nurses/midwifes would only come in once or twice a day unless they were paged (which we did, they were a godsend). This made the stay as comfortable as could be, and we could get all the quiet time alone we wanted, although sleep was in short supply for other reasons.
This was in Copenhagen, Denmark, so the entire stay was free. Sadly, the central hospital is removing this practice and kicking out patients after 4 hours.
Similar situation in Finland; we had a baby over Christmas two years ago. We spent a few days in a private room with a checkup on the baby/mother around noon and 6pm.
We paid €250 or so for 3 or 4 days (genuinely can't remember I guess my sleeping wasn't so great. Oops!) for the three of us, so it wasn't free, but it was pretty cheap.
Is it free to walk down the sidewalk in your country? Under your definition it's not, since ultimately taxes likely paid for that sidewalk, but I think most people would describe it as free.
That's a little different in as much as there's negligible marginal cost to walking down the sidewalk, once it is constructed. The same is not true of a marginal hospital stay.
Subsidization is when the costs of a product or service are hidden from you (Universal healthcare, a supplier takes you out to lunch, an employer pays for a worker cafeteria)
Free is when there are no costs (watching a sunrise, receiving a hug)
Depends on if you think in purely capitalistic terms (most but not all Americans) or not (again, most Europeans). I mean one way to think about it is the sidewalk is exploitable by businesses as a potential source of revenue for people who want to ride electric scooters (and other businesses that directly grow the economy) and they can pay lobbyists who drive the engine of American economic growth (lol), whereas you as a pedestrian is hardly doing an activity on that sidewalk that directly contributes to economic growth, so yeah, in a way you are getting your walk down the “free” sidewalk subsidized.
Walking on the way to the bank, to get a loan, to start a business qualifies as economic activity.
As does going to the store, and a whole bunch of other things.
The USA built the Interstate Highway System for exactly the reason of economic growth. The ideas behind it are no different from the ones that justified sidewalks.
Should any small town evaluate their sidewalk projects, like we have the Interestate Highway Project, assuming they have the records and they probably don't, they would find those sidewalks probably returned a couple times their cost already, and will continue to deliver that, easily funding their upkeep.
(something we seem to have forgotten about roads, which has allowed tolls to encroach on and marginalize said growth and value)
A Tesla is much more expensive than a Prius, but I think the Tesla is set at a rational price point, even if I could never afford it. Being able to afford an item does not necessarily correlate with whether you think it's priced fairly or not.
