Q: When people are huddled at a conference or professional event, the subject often turns to the value of failure and embracing feedback. "It is the key to self improvement!", many chant, channeling their inner self-help gurus, Sadly, many don't quite practice what they preach. Seeing the value in critical feedback and the lessons that failure can offer is a tough pill to swallow. For those confident in their capabilities, their social standing (in their companies/communities etc), and their abilities, the pill goes down a little easier. For those who experience imposter syndrome, feel insecure about their work, or are new in their careers, it is more difficult. Here's the thing: these are not binary personalities. While some people are overly confident about themselves, and some people are overly insecure about themselves, most people have a blend of both. As such, even the most confident people can feel the sting when they get critical feedback or screw something up. This is a guide with some things I have learned over the years about how to turn feedback and failure to your advantage. In my not-so-humble opinion, the perfect blend of a human being is confidence in their ability to execute and accomplish their goals, but with a healthy dose of awareness of their current limitations. Let's face it, overly confident people are often not just at risk of being swallowed up by ego, but can also lack the empathy to understand other folks they need to work with who don't share the same confidence. An understanding of our current limitations is healthy. When we understand we are not great at something, but we are eager to learn and improve, it opens us up to counsel and tuition. The confidence piece plays an important role in helping us to remember: "I might suck now, but I am going to learn and get better". When we have this in our heads it makes the journey more palatable: we know that our failure to succeed right now is temporary and it will improve. What is probably true about most people? - not enough information - most people want to be timid - most people want to be criticized - most people probably want to be confident
A: not enough information

Q: As many of you will have seen, unfortunately the Ubuntu Edge campaign did not reach our goal of $32million. The final total reached was $12,812,776. I am hugely proud and thankful to everyone who pledged, supported the campaign, wrote about it, and helped to spread the word. Some have described us not meeting the goal as a "failure". I don't see it that way. Let's be honest: $32million was always an incredibly ambitious target. We would have liked to have done it for less money, but building a F1 superphone doesn't come cheap (and remember that the $32million didn't include any costs for software engineering and project managementCanonical were providing that for free). It was an ambitious target, but disrupting an industry is ambitious in itself, and we gave the crowd-funding campaign our best shot. The story does not end here though. I am not surprised that we didn't hit this ambitious $32million target, but I am surprised at what we did achieve. We broke all the crowd-funding records, garnered media attention across CNBC, Engadget, The Independent, TechCrunch, the BBC, T3, Stuff, The Verge, The Guardian, Wired, pandodaily, Fast Company, Forbes, The Telegraph and more. Every single person who put their support into the Ubuntu Edge campaign should be proud of their achievements and we are all thankful for your tremendous and inspiring support. One thing to be critically clear about is that the Ubuntu convergence story does not end here. We are as voraciously excited and committed to bringing this Free Software convergence story to the world as ever before; our work with OEMs, Carriers, and ISVs continues apace. We have fantastic work going on across all fronts, and we are on track to have a 1.0 release of the Ubuntu Phone platform in October. What probably happens after the story? - the company probably raises the remaining money - the company probably stops fund raising - the company probably raises some more but not enough to meet the target - not enough information
A: the company probably raises the remaining money

Q: The battle lines are drawn once again. U.S. law enforcement agencies and Silicon Valley are getting ready to face off on the issue of privacy. This latest battle is focused on a 30-year-old law on government access to electronic communications and associated data. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was a forward-looking statute when enacted in 1986, but technology has dramatically outpaced the ECPA. The U.S. Congress has been looking into ways to revise the law in order to preserve the privacy of internet users while also preserving the legal tools necessary for government agencies to enforce the law and protect the public. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called privacy "the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people." The Senate Judiciary Committee this week is considering an amendment to the ECPA that would expand the government's ability to collect data using a National Security Letter, which doesn't require a court order. The amendment would authorize the FBI to demand a person's internet browser history and internet protocol address, enabling investigators to see what websites a person visits, how much time is spent on a particular site and the location of the internet user all without judicial oversight. The FBI contends that such data is covered implicitly under current statute, which was written years ago and only explicitly covers data normally associated with telephone records. FBI Director James Comey has said the amendment is needed to fix "a typo" in the ECPA that has hindered the bureau's ability to work in "a very, very big and practical way." But a letter sent earlier this week warned Congress that such an amendment is opposed by tech giants and civil liberties organizations. "This expansion of the NSL statute has been characterized by some government officials as merely fixing 'a typo' in the law," the letter said. "In reality, however, it would dramatically expand the ability of the FBI to get sensitive information about users' online... What does Google think of James Comey's position? - They disagree with his position - They agree with his position - They like his position - not enough information
A: They disagree with his position