0goel0

I am truly amazed that the world's (top, second?) richest man runs a company that cleared $7.2 billion during a global pandemic year, but had to steal $62m to make its books look clean.

Whoever participated this should lose their jobs, and be prosecuted. Really scummy move!

How else would you justify constantly raising new money at inflated valuations?

I don't understand why the author continues to get their FB account back while at the same time asking everyone else to quit theirs.

> It’s a specialized Google

...used to kill innocent people

Stealing property is not a victimless crime.

I know. I'm saying that the friction to conviction is high enough.

What's not serious about stealing and selling trade secrets, jeopardizing life-saving R&D, blatantly disrespecting the law, and walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars expecting not to be caught?

This is by design. White collar crime is rarely prosecuted and convicted.

https://www.huffpost.com/highline/article/white-collar-crime...

> His conviction is based on being a fall guy for Uber’s corporate espionage

Do you have any evidence that he didn't commit the crimes he is convicted of? Because his lawyers would've loved to talk to you last year.

Meanwhile https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/us/politics/trump-pardons...

"The brisk market for pardons reflects the access peddling that has defined Mr. Trump’s presidency as well as his unorthodox approach to exercising unchecked presidential clemency powers. Pardons and commutations are intended to show mercy to deserving recipients, but Mr. Trump has used many of them to reward personal or political allies."

Electric utility can shut off your data centers power if you don't pay the bills or break the contract. Same for your ISP.

Before calling the person "stupid", read the article. He has bipolar disorder, and it's agony trying to live with it so people will be desperate to take measures to ease the pain.

$1 is "less than" $100M

> We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the population out of public debate

They are not debating. They are yelling and screaming mindlessly.

Compare that to Trump's 12-hour ban after causing real-world violence and sedition.

Beat the dead horse - news sites need money and show ads.

That's not money laundering. The gift card in that scenario is still "dirty".

Unless some high-level execs are convicted and put in jail, and the company is given a high-enough file[1], this is the cost of doing business.

[1] 2 years of net profits? 50% of gross revenue? IDK. It has to be meaningful amount to truly deter criminal acts.

I like how some people in this thread are calling some transparency in adtech space "take down".

A part of that could be that no one wants to accept they paid a lot for a broken product. It hurts the ego.

Outstanding is a bad metric. "Float" is a better one.

SWI has 53 million floating shares, resulting in 53m*23= $1.2 billion today.

So a quarter of float traded. That is crazy movement.

Why should pointing out problems come with solutions? If some corporation causes me or my community harm, I'm gonna point it out. If they pay me to, I'll come up with solutions.

The analogy I like to use is shoes. We wear shoes and walk in muddy patches. Your feet are fine. But wherever you go, you shed the mud.

Now imagine the mud is the virus. Shoes are antibodies (vaccine).

Not an exact comparison, but helps explain.

If you want to add a site but don't use github, feel free to email me.

It's the technology arguably more than the people.

People started using invasive trackers not because the trackers are innate, but because someone built them.

"Javascript is good in some cases" is the point of this club. You can build great websites without the cruft.

Secondly, JS abuse is now built into browsers, so yes no JS is a decent goal for privacy, security, and speed.

I also wrote about building those club: https://goel.io/nojs-club

Someone might find it useful, and hopefully someone from GH takes the constructive criticism.

Bosses pay for lobbyists that fight regulation to keep shit like this in check

> We know for a fact that this is a much smaller problem on iOS than Android. I am happy that Android exists as a choice for users but let us not pretend there are no trade offs.

Android is not a choice for iOS users, it's not a seamless switch. The solution as I see it is that apple could still very well protect users from "trojans" but have an opt-in for 3p app installation. A button that says "I want to install apps from anywhere, I know the risks".

If I pay for the hardware, as a customer, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. With the iPhone, it feels like I'm renting rather than owning. I worry that's the direction apple is taking Macs in with the M1.

Good.