I didn't laugh until I looked at the diff in the commit. Then I couldn't stop laughing.

I can't imagine a guy like The Woz allowing his name to be associated with something sub-par which he has no control over. He understands the importance and weight of his personal brand.

He has a big heart. A few years ago Steve gave an interview with Patrick Bet-David, which was simply a marketing piece for Patrick's company, PHP Agency. PHP Agency is a financial firm founded on the power of "network marketing". The idea behind network marketing is to turn your social network into pyramid, positioning yourself at the top of the pyramid. I don't like network marketing companies, and I believe they are all sub-par. In this interview, which you can find on YouTube, Steve Wozniak described PHP Agency as a hit.

Patronage [1] is the idea behind Patreon.

Viewed as a pyramid it's one that goes only one level deep and markets only yourself as a worthy cause to support ;-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

He's an idealist and "too good" of a person and believes in people too readily to be a cutthroat business guy. I can see a situation where he'd be talked into a situation you describe, because he doesn't have a personality that first questions others' motives and agendas.

It's odd we've allowed our society to accept cut-throat business as the norm.

So Woz’ strengths are marketing etc.? Always seemed that was precisely the part he didn’t play too well.

Can't announce it without taking a bit of a leap of faith, because there can't be a track record before announcement. Intentions are easy, execution is hard. Few bad schools started off with "bad" as a founding principle.

Trump University

There is a pretty long history of The Woz being taken advantage of, starting prior to Apple when his best friend ripped him off.

Somehow the Android version looks far less complicated (and far more polished) than the PC version. Not really what I expect out of most open source ports.

It looks like they've followed Google's design guidelines fairly closely. That might be the reason.

I'm a Security Engineer and there's no way in heck I would work for Equifax for $110k. Not after their disaster.

The problem at a lot of businesses is security has no tangible ROI. You're not going to make a million bucks because you implemented a new SIEM.

The value of security is hidden. It prevents you from having loss. It's hard to quantify the value when your job is, essentially, preventing bad things from happening.

I wonder if there would be value in preventing bad things happening to people and institutions which are trying to decide if they should give credit to someone. As in, if a certain individual is credit-worthy. Maybe a score could be calculated by an entity which has access to the outcome of every person’s relationship with credit in the past.

But it would be beyond ironic if such an institution, selling a sense of security as their main product, could not see the value in protecting the security of their own assets.

It would be also sad that in a myopic attempt to squeeze every single penny in profit, such a company would underpay the very people who run the machinery it is built on.

Negative reviews can be removed from Glassdoor if the company works hard enough. I know of a local employer who has tons of terrible feedback on Glassdoor and devoted someone full time for several weeks to comb through the reviews and get the most inflammatory removed.

I would take Glassdoor with a few grains of salt.