Train horses, perhaps at a reclaimed monastery that runs silent and teaching retreats for guests who study math, classical philosophy, and martial arts.
Their best hope is to get their assets acquired by a big defense contractor like MOT, BAE, etc, to supply the niche of north american public sector mobile devices.
Like a Canadian hockey team Blackberry insists they invented the game, but every time they get to the playoffs they choke because they're just so overwhelmed at being invited.
Any interesting engineering they might have done in the past is dwarfed by their farcical inability to turn it into something people actually wanted.
If you want to see staff withdraw, check out, or blow up at random, remove the consistency they use to self-assess their performance. A lot of tech companies are too young to understand that a meritocracy is more about leadership than trivia.
Flat organizations (as distinct from BDFLs) reward bullies and manipulators, consistently with the "star system" in the article, while punishing pro-social people who align based on principles and reasoned consent to rules.
Surveillance only works when people believe their communications are private and secure.
The 3rd party was probably NSA and they did not intervene up until because it would reveal the existence of a cracking technique.
What changed is that weighed against a possible court verdict that would tell every terrorist that no U.S. made device or encryption could possibly be secure, (causing targets to avoid using broken crypto) revealing the existence of a possible forensic technique was low risk.
The belief that it is possible to communicate securely is the most important thing for spies to maintain. The FBI wants to discourage people from believing it because they think it will make people less likely to commit crimes. The spies want to encourage the belief because it ensures they can collect the intelligence they need to maintain the status quo.
Let's look at what someone would believe to also believe that sharing their salary is a good idea.
1. that if enough people share their salaries, it will cause salaries to revert to the mean, increasing the equality of outcome, independent of inputs.
2. that the data will be real, and not sabotaged or cherry picked.
3. that employers are somehow obligated to pay more than people are willing to work for, presumably just as you make up the difference from shopping at whole foods by paying the ethnic grocer an extra few bucks, because justice, and they're just so grateful, amirite?
4. People with poor negotiation skills, aka those who have less to offer, will make more money.
Yay, sample bias. Now I get to know what people stupid enough to share their salaries earn, which is useless, because if I wanted cogs with minimal value add, I could offshore the work for less.
Seriously, if an HR person ever used that site as a data point for why they made a crappy offer I would say, "yes, I can see that's what you would pay someone with a misunderstanding of how the world works for this job."
Put another way, if you have any doubt about whether someone is overpaid, don't worry, they'll tell you.
So he's saying that decades of poor public education based on creating docile worker drones is creating an underclass that is increasingly separate from the people who had access to better, rebelled against, or beat it.
People are poor because they are lied to about how the world works. They are lied to by the true believers whose paychecks depend on them repeating the same tired post-modern bunk. Poor kids drop out of school because they know they are being lied to, but don't have the tools to manage the cognitive dissonance - because they point of most public education these days is to indoctrinate kids into accepting and submitting to dissonance instead of reasoning about it.
I will help anyone who wants out, but anyone who wants me back in can drop dead.
Main argument according to reviews is the gap between aspiration and achievement that occurs when engineers' expectations of success are not met is what drives many of us, apparently, to join extremist groups.
The explanatory and predictive power of, "just sore losers" seems weak.
A review of the book (FT, paywalled) summarized other arguments about polarized, binary thinking, and an inability to accept culture, ambiguity, and a lot of what I see as sanctimonious bullshit the way non-STEM students do.
Defense of any principles (right, left, or religious) is considered extremist and dangerously reactionary these days.
One would hope that before laying the critical foundations to discredit educated conservatives (who largely take STEM degrees), academia might dedicate some thought to resolving why there are people with debt-funded $100k+ graduate degrees who read horoscopes, Piketty, and can't calculate a tip.
"Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry." — Charles Sanders Peirce, "First Rule of Logic"
What does studying people who "can't calculate a tip" has to do with understanding extremism/intolerance? Seems the cap fits.
Edit: I'll also add that I'm STEM and I don't agree that "binary thinking", "intolerance of ambiguity", etc are bullshit things, so watch out when you put a whole category of people in your camp. I'm rigorous in rationality and I've come to this stuff through my own questioning, watch out because the non-conservative can also put an aggressive rethoric to use.
So an AI can learn to generate music that compels people to become more receptive to suggestion, in particular the suggestion that they should act as proxies for the will of an AI.
Intelligence is disruptive to the way people organize. Any trait that is disproportionately out of balance is in effect, a deformity. We used to say about gifted special education classes, "we're not retards, we're more like super-retards."
So we have a bunch of intellectually unbalanced kids whose deformity happens to be a mystical trait that modern society irrationally worships. Kids who have no control over the thing they are rewarded for learn to balance out their intellectual difference with new psychological defects.
You can see how this gets stupid really fast.
Like that comic character in the movie, I realized early on that gifted classes were not there to insulate me from the other kids, but rather to insulate them from me.
Do your gifted kids a favor and keep them out of special programs that isolate them from peers, and teach your kids to take their rightful place leading them.
My wife and son are Aspergers. I put a lot of effort into teaching social skills to my son (via myself and through courses) and by proxy, my wife has benefitted too. We also put my son into a regular and high performing school, despite his gifted ability (WISC tested).
I've had several friends tell me that I saved my son, which I think means that focussing on socialisation and behaviour was of more benefit to him than solely driving his academic performance.
He went from a troubled boy to reasonably accepted in a few years. While it's feigned behaviour (eg. He mimics being like others), it helps him socially. I've seen other Aspergers kids be broken by their peers because they don't try to (or can't) conform.
I spoke with his teacher last week and said "I expect the same respect and treatment for my son where possible" and highlighted a bad example where my son was singled out in front of the class "you can't treat an Aspergers like that".
Maybe start a barbell gym.