I think a latent embedding is almost equivalent to the article's hypernetwork, which I assume as y = (Wh + c)v + b, where h is a dataset-specific trainable vector. (The article uses multiple layers ...)
> because EU throws regulatory obstacles at every step.
No, the gatekeeping is done by local banks and governments to protect their oligopolies/cartels.
There are many instant-pay apps across Europe and they are intentionally not interoperable outside of local markets. Each local banking oligopoly is trying to fence off competition. The main fear is from smaller neo-banks.
>>No, the gatekeeping is done by local banks and governments to protect their oligopolies/cartels.
If you are pointing the distinction between gatekeeping at the EU level and country level I am not contesting that. It's clear though that the gatekeeping is the problem here (and in many other industries in EU).
While the environment is changing. That's the key.
If you already know the requirements, and they aren't going to change for the duration of the project, then you don't need agile.
And if you have the time. I recently was on a project with a compressed timeline. The general requirements were known, but not in perfect detail. We began implementation anyway, because the schedule did not permit a fully phased waterfall. We had to adjust somewhat to things not being as we expected, but only a little - say, 10%. We got our last change of requirements 3 or 4 weeks before the completion of implementation. The key to making this work was regular, detailed, technical conversations between the customer's engineers, the requirements writers, and our implementers.
Email-marketing tools present these numbers as if they were ground truth.
Arguing with non-tech users means you are challenging the legitimacy of their tool, and they typically can't let go of faith in the tool. It's like Trueman trying to convince the actors that everything is somehow fake. There's no "script" for that.
"Law of Jante" (jantelagen) is a double edged sword and can work in favour of innovation. In good cases, it means both subordinates and bosses intuitively understand that titles are theatre, and anyone can present new ideas and challenge old ideas.
Yup, that's my experience after 10+ years in Sweden. It's a double-edged sword in case its tenets are used to shut diverging opinions but overall, and again in my experience, I've seen it much more as a pervasive culture of listening to others, considering their opinions even if they are below in the totem pole, and even the "consensus building" culture that many despise I've experienced in the form of convincing others why your opinion is sound.
It feels to me a decent approach for equalising anything that could devolve into hierarchical thinking. As you mention it also has another edge which can indeed be a hindrance but I haven't experienced that side (at least not yet).
> bureaucracy and stagnation while the same staff ends up flourishing and producing top notch tech when under a US company like Apple
Apple orders a widget from them which can be sold in an established product with existing customers. The magic was creating the Apple brand and iPhone product.
I think the problem with old European "conglomerates" is that no one has the mandate/legitimacy to make a multi-year/decade tech investment equivalent to the iphone. "Decision makers" are likely to have been promoted from other professions than engineering/products, and people promoted through management/sales lack competence and legitimacy. Their job is to apply old and approved templates for decision-making, while paying dues and respect to appropriate people.
It fails when templates for decision-making don't exist. Spin-offs or acquisitions based on new tech, rather than existing products/markets, can't work with this type of management.
I have also gotten the sense that management positions are given as rewards for "long and loyal service". It is effectively an incentives program, with the implicit assumption that management decisions don't really matter. This is not far from the the truth in old industrial companies with few but huge returning "captive" customers, which is typical in Europe eg Siemens, or high value luxury brands in fashion/jewellery/liquor/etc.
The meaning of the word "verwaltung" is different from the American "management". Verwaltung implies "preservation of stability" whereas "business management" implies something like "figure out how to sell more stuff".
> It fails when templates for decision-making don't exist.
I've noticed a strong signal throughout my career - a sure-fire way to abandon ship - when a company focuses most of its energy on branding and treats selling and building as a nuisance!
Pro tip: when a company cares more about changing its company logo rather than finding Product Market Fit, it's time to update your LinkedIn profile and reach out to hiring managers.
You are assuming there is meaningful work for them in the federal government. There might be more productive work for them in industry. Their contribution to the workforce could put pressure on inflated salaries, if that is the case.
If their credentials exceed their defacto responsibilities in the government, they might be blocking someone else from being promoted or otherwise "growing" or whatever.
reply