Alternatively, companies will just go back to corporate cards with very strict vendor rules. When vendor rules are not enough, they will go back to extremely tight per diem and simply not care of the expense was strictly real or not. I can't see any advantage to using a whole new currency and exchange that every vendor in the world is now going to have to support for this to be useful vs these simple measures.
I'm not sure either, it's mostly a guess I guess, more than a prediction. But if companies/governments can get more tracking, usually that's the way they move.
So if the companies that are complaining in the article implements your simple measures, does that mean the fraud problem they're talking about have been solved already? That begs the question, why aren't they just doing that then?
The problem isn't "spending above/below per diem" as I understand the article. The problem is that whatever spending is happening, might be fake, that's why they're complaining about "faking expense receipts".
So it does seem like the companies themselves do worry about if what you spend it on is legit or not, it's almost the entire purpose of the article unless I misunderstand something?
In my experience, this form of expense management is a relatively new development. Not so long ago, I had a company linked corporate card. Credit card transactions are already labeled with the type of purchase. You have to submit a report that corresponds to the actual charged amount. Additionally, they get all the bills with their hotel partner to cross reference the transactions with the credit card and the submitted expense. Flights etc worked the same way. Those are now additionally tracked in the company travel relationship portals which accomplish the block chain without the block chain. None of this requires a global immutable currency ledger or anything like that to accomplish their goal: just get some reasonable transaction validation long enough to process the expense then never look at it past an audit. Later, they also made people eat from the same hotel and negate the issue for meal expenses. It's just not a technology problem. If it were, they would just demand more granularity from the credit card company and the employee and reject things out of policy.
I get where you are coming from. However, language like this matters when it comes to legislation. People outside there space will be guided by the sideload language to think it's just "something extra on the side so why should I care?"
I understand what sideloading means, as I'm sure the rest of HN knows. But to the layman non-techie, it has indeed been marketed as a boogeyman.
Even in the Android developers blog post:
> We’ve seen how malicious actors hide behind anonymity to harm users by impersonating developers and using their brand image to create convincing fake apps. The scale of this threat is significant: our recent analysis found over 50 times more malware from internet-sideloaded sources than on apps available through Google Play.
The research paper that shows their methodology for discovering these results AHS not been published by Google, to my knowledge. Just a mere "trust me, bro".
But even if they used the term installing apps instead of sideload, what other word would they use? If they said "50 times more malware from internet sources than on apps through Play Store" people will still come up with their own wording.
If they use the word install apps, they would need to say installing apps from outside of the play store, in which case people are going to automatically try to come up with a different word to associate that with. Any word we come up with is going to be subject to being used for the good and the bad.
I’m giving the Asus Proart P16 a try, if I was trying for maximum battery life I’d probably avoid the discrete gpu (e.g. a zenbook or similar). I am not a full time road warrior so battery life is important, but not absolutely critical. There may be some options out with better battery life, but I haven’t been focused on this metric too closely.
I just don’t want to be sidetracked by overly aggressive and pushy decisions by my OS vendor anymore. I’ve been happy with the stability of my Debian/Ubuntu systems for getting work done. I have been using apple laptops for 10+ years, and I still like their build quality, but I don’t like the direction macOS (or Windows) is heading.
I have extreme doubts that there is any meaningful number of windows users holding out on trying macos based on such a thing.
The users are much more simple than this. Most have never even tried Mac. If they want to, they will just buy one the next time they need a computer and accept the new experience as being the new norm.
I got stuck in a fullscreen YouTube video the first time I tried an iPhone. Simplicity is relative. For years, the lack of a back button resulted in this weird behavior of having to learn how each app wants you to navigate it. Even now that everyone has settled into the same list of 5ish methodologies, it can be cumbersome to figure out.
I can see how these things are convenient, if it succeeds. I struggle because my personal workflow is to always keep two copies of a repo up at once. One is deep thought vs drone work. I have always just done these kinds of background tasks whenever I am in meetings, compiling etc. I haver not seen much productivity boost due to this. oddly, you would think being able to further offload during that time would help, but reviewing the agent output ends up being far more costly (and makes the context switch significantly harder, for some reason). It's just not proving to be useful consistently, for me.
I wish I shared this experience. There are virtually no filter features for me to work on. When things feel like filler on my team, it's generally a sign of tech debt and we wouldn't want to have it generate all the code it would take. What are some examples of filler features for you?
On the other hand, it does cost me about 8 hours a week debugging issues created by bad autocompletes from my team. The last 6 months have gotten really bad with that. But that is a different issue.
The vast majority of buildings do follow the same regional templates though.
The reason they’re not specifically concrete cubes is more to do with the relative unpopularity of brutalist design than it is to do with the artistic flair of architects.
In fact I’m sure most architects would love to stamp more of their creative personality into their work but they have to dial it back for cost and practicality reasons.
Here in my area of Belgium it's become very popular to build modern cube buildings. Flat roof, featureless. No longer brick but a flat white, grey or black outside.
i find it absolutely disgusting.
We're really just reinventing brutalism but without much of the commendable outcrops like the barbican or whatever.
The only reason The Barbican (London) works is because wealthy people moved in. In my opinion, it's still a very ugly estate but it is a well maintained estate. So people can still admire its design.
Whereas other examples were left to deteriorate because wealthy people moved elsewhere. And thus all people see is dilapidated, ugly concrete.
While we are on the topic of brutalism, one of my most disliked Sci-Fi tropes is concrete buildings used as "futuristic" buildings. I honestly think the only reason they do this is because concrete is featureless so it could be from any era. If they used Victorian-style architecture or Germanic Gothic buildings then all you'd see is historic-looking architecture which would pull you out of the moment. But I, personally, cannot "unsee" concrete buildings in Sci-Fi. Everytime I see that I just see lazy set design. Plus I'd hope in a few hundred years we'd have found a better building material than concrete.
I understand that it’s easy as analogy but I also could compare to shopping carts around the world. When it’s a tool the design converge to something similar for the job at hand. For corporate businesses a website is a tool. I won’t expect an artist or museum website to look like a corporate one
I am not so sure shopping carts are that great of a counter example. There are plastic ones like target, heavier duty ones, the weird ones at microcenter, lumberyard style, hand baskets, short ones, drag behinds, ones with kids car toys built in, tiny ones for kids to yeah along, ergonomic hand baskets, etc.
Then there are the innovations people had tried over the years like different styles of kid seats, calculators built into the handle, coupon scanners built in, security boots on the wheel, Aldi store coin lock connectors, motorized baskets, Ikea escalator locking wheels.
Thinking further, the designs change across the various countries I have visited over the years.
On top of this, I can visually picture all the different styles the groceries and department stores use near me to "brand" their carts and experience directly(Target's specific branded plastic carts and baskets). The very much see the shopping cart as part of their customer experience and have experimented with different setups. One could argue that the scope of utility for a shipping cart is miniscule compared to many websites. And yet, there is actually a lot of variety.
Given how there are people dedicated to so many seemingly insignificant corporate details(email signatures and other branding activities), it seems custom "website experience rules" would slot right into that line of thinking.
Yes but in itself it’s not meant to be artistic, what you describe is to me variants of the tool. Creative variant yes, but not for art purpose. Just like a website. Maybe somewhere in the world there might be an artistic version of a shopping cart but it’s not a tool anymore and it’s not found where it belongs, in a supermarket
