Hacker News Reader

Comment by broknbottle | Hacker News Reader

I dealt with this guy at a previous role. There was always something off with the LOAs they provided. They came off as somebody that would just badger until they found somebody who’d do something to get them to go away.

View on HN

As the years go by, I have found that some of people who gave me a bad feeling later turn out to be even worse than I first suspected. In my book "How To Destroy A Tech Startup" I describe this guy Milton, who is the villain of the story. He did many things that seemed vaguely creepy, most of which I didn't put in the book because it didn't seem relevant. But I just recently learned he was in prison on charges of child pornography. So, yes, wow, my instincts were right. There was something creepy about him and eventually his creepiness turned out be far worse than I first guessed. The story of Milton is the most extreme example I can give, but I've worked with others who I could tell milder stories about. I had a bad feeling about them, and 10 years later, when I learn even more, the facts justify the bad feeling I had about them.

Perhaps picking up on narcissistic personality disorder or something similar?

This is why I have a strong No Business With Bastards policy. When someone acts badly enough, they go on the Nope list. I'll work with them if I have no choice at all, but it's consistently worthwhile to avoid those I know I can't trust. For example, Norton were already incompetent, but installing cryptominers put them on the Nope list. See also Oracle. Similarly, in traffic, that guy who does something painfully dumb is likely to keep making poor decisions, so be prepared for that, and increase your space cushion.

I wonder if this is probability based... people who do a lot of creepy things are more likely to be noticed for at least one creepy thing. If you observe enough behavior in a short period of time to think they are creepy, they are probably doing creepy things all the time.

What does LOA stand for in this context?

Letter of Authorization

Not excusing his lying or fraud but this is an excellent way to get things done even in ethical contexts.

It’s a short sighted and poor long term strategy. Eventually no one wants to work with you regardless of whether you can get things done.

Much better to build relationships which enable you to get things done by virtue of others wanting to look after you.

Even further, it can be reasonably argued that there is no ethical context for such behaviour.

For those on the demanding side, it can be a badge of honour not to take "no" for an answer. While those on the other side, are being deliberately placed between a rock and a hard place. Just for another's benefit.

If not unethical, it is at least dishonourable.

with suspicious entities I encourage other ISPs to apply the same general principles as KYC/AML (know your client, anti money laundering) investigatory techniques to suspicious neighbor ASNs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com