.png){kind=logo}
Google workers in Switzerland sent a letter this month to the company’s vice president of human resources, outlining their worries that a new employee evaluation system could be used to cull the workforce.
"The number and spread of reports that reached us indicate that at least some managers were aggressively pressured to apply a quota" on a process that could lead to employees getting negative ratings and potentially losing their jobs, five workers and employee representatives wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The New York Times.
The letter signalled how some Google employees increasingly interpret recent management decisions as warnings that the company may be angling to conduct broader layoffs. From the impending closure of a small office and the cancellation of a content-moderation project to various efforts to ease budgets during 2023 planning meetings, the Silicon Valley behemoth has become a tinderbox of anxiety, according to interviews with 14 current and former employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.
In some cases, Google employees have reacted to a program that the company began in July to simplify operations, cut red tape and make itself more productive. In other instances, they have had budget conversations, with some teams unable to hire more next year, the people said. And workers have also fretted over decisions made months ago that, to some, have taken on new meaning, they said. Read more...
Greenhushing is when a company doesn't publicize its environmental accomplishments. Unlike greenwashing, in which companies exaggerate their sustainable policies, greenhushers are hush-hush about sustainability policies even existing.
A 2022 report by climate consultancy South Pole found that of the 1200 private companies they surveyed that are considered global climate leaders, nearly a quarter did not publicize their eco achievements and milestones.
Most analysts agree greenhushing is happening more often than ever before. But there is some debate over why.
Nicola Stopps, CEO of consultancy company Simply Sustainable, believes it is due to fear of bad press.
"Because of social media and the speed of news, these days [a company's] reputation can be impacted dramatically very quickly," Stopps told Raconteur. "The public and stakeholders are definitely becoming more educated and aware and savvy… companies need to take this a lot more seriously."
In recent years, companies such as McDonald's and Volkswagen were raked over the coals by the media for greenwashing their sustainable policies. These companies would rather remain silent about the environment than incur the wrath of environmental watchdogs.Read more...
AI is going to be regulated in 2023.
This has been a dream and a nightmare for AI practitioners and leaders alike for years, but finally it seems, global jurisdictions are starting to move from policy formulation and stakeholder engagement to putting some teeth into drafting legal bills or acts.
Expect many new laws to pass in 2023, tightening up citizen privacy and creating risk frameworks and audit requirements for data bias, privacy and security risks.
At the same time, regulators are going to have to evolve an entire global ecosystem to ensure AI audits are effectively conducted and many questions loom as to who will validate certifications for AI audit practices and will we over burden AI innovations like we have done in so many other regulated operating practices that the risk and costs of non-conformance inhibit’s innovation?
Finding a balance will be key.
The challenges with AI have been well documented in the risks that AI poses for high risk applications in health care scoring as to who will receive treatment first, to systems that are making health recommendations on insufficient data sets creating bias and risks in critical access to resources or services. We have seen major AI risks in recruiting and hiring practices to even loan credit decisions reproduce existing unwanted inequities or embed new harmful bias and discrimination.Read more...
It's no secret that Alameda Wallets, the company behind the controversial exchange platform FixedFloat, has been in the news lately. And it's also no secret that they've been consolidating assets in their own wallets—but what is a secret? Why are they sending their money to ChangeNow and FixedFloat?
The answer: we don't know. But let's look at what we do know!
According to data journalist Martin Lee, there's been a lot of activity on Alameda wallets "in the last 6-7 hours." He says that there are several different wallets involved, most of which are sending money to ChangeNow or FixedFloat. It's possible that these transfers are just part of an effort to consolidate assets before sending them out again—or maybe something else entirely!
In general, altcoins and Tether as well as USDC were exchanged for ETH. What makes the transfers so striking is that ETH was then sent to multiple wallets and finally to the FixedFloat and Changenow mixers. Lee explained that the order of the transfers is "really strange" and went on to say:
Consolidating assets makes sense but distributing it into fresh wallets before sending it to ChangeNow / FixedFloat seems like they’re trying to hide their tracks. Could have just transferred directly after consolidating.Read more...
Mango Markets was a decentralized crypto exchange on Solana. It was hacked for $100m+ in October—and it wasn't a hack.
But here's the thing: it wasn't a hack either. Hackers didn't break into the system and risk capture or death by fiery explosion. They didn't do anything remotely cool like that.
Instead, it was a simple design failure. Mango Markets let users borrow & withdraw crypto based on the value of their assets held on the platform (important for later).
A trader set up a long position on Mango using MNGO perpetuals (a bet that the MNGO price would go up). Separately, they bought a ton of MNGO tokens to force the price to go up. The price shot up 1300% in 20 minutes! As the price of MNGO shot up, so did the value of the trader's perpetual position on Mango (double profit). And since Mango let you borrow against the value of your positions, they were able to borrow & withdraw $100m+ worth of crypto (aka all the money on the platform). Just like that, Mango Markets went insolvent and users on the platform lost all their funds.
So who was behind the crime? Avraham Eisenberg - a guy who runs “highly profitable trading strategies
According to Avraham, everything he did was completely legal & by the books. He blamed it on Mango Markets being poorly designed and leaving the bank vault wide open.
But just in case, he offered a deal to the MangoDAO. He’d return some of the funds if Mango users didn’t try to put him in jail. Read more...
If you’re interested in learning more or you’d like to stay updated in field of tech and entrepreneurship, join our newsletter.
%401x.svg){kind=icon}
