FilterSweep

In America they'd claim you're insider trading and pursue you legally while the very person who wrote the rule has a long term hold on BTC and some positions in ICO launches.

Are we sure we're clear over what is violating noncompetes / "insider trading" vs. I want to avoid my employees undergoing complete financial ruin if X-coin crashes

What tipped me off was this statement:

> which might expose them to a risk of financial loss and therefore impact their financial standing

The question isn't whether they can (they just did) but "why"? Their reasoning (unless article is cutting this out) doesn't go into insider trading.

This also precludes malicious actors are more incentivized to continue flagging posts while other users move on.

If true, this appears to be a calculated move to draw away blue electoral votes from the biggest state in the country. This is a historically large move of Gerrymandering.

> All labor, skilled or not, local or not, deserve basic dignity and respect.

I fully agree. I hope these rates increasing will help the talent in this entire industry price itself better.

I'll add that the threat of H1Bs have been used as a threatening tool to US employees by US companies.[0] Can't work longer hours for less pay? Reasonably expect your wages to increase with each year? Fine! We'll hire someone from outside.

And generally, when someone takes a criminally low level of pay for their high skill labor, all workers, domestic and international, suffer.

[0] This is the other side of the coin, career American engineers being fired and "forced"(for their severance) to train cheaper Replacements https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff... And Disney is just one example - tons of US companies "clean house" when they get frustrated at a high operating budget.

Yep, you two are correct. Like ct0 said, companies are currently saying "We are saying 'come in' to bots but we want to pursue them legally as well."

You didn't really address the point you quoted.

The problem isn't that someone is getting IN; it's that the company throws up their hands and says "tough sht."

Or in a worse case, when Equifax puts up a compromised site to find if you were hacked that requires a significant amount of your SSN and personal details.

(edit: format)

> LinkedIn argues that imposing criminal liability for automated access of publicly available LinkedIn data would protect the privacy interests of LinkedIn users who decide to publish their information publicly, but that’s just not true

Protect them from what, your unlocked front door? [0][1]

[0] "Hackers selling 117 million LinkedIn passwords" http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/19/technology/linkedin-hack/ind...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_LinkedIn_hack

I'd also note that these companies are barely (if ever) held liable for life-compromising hacks on their platforms.

any more details on this? been hearing from some of my bullish friends that the earlier they got into bitcoin the more likely something "odd" happened to them.

So, where are all the jobs for displaced people who happened to live in a gerrymandered, rigged state?

well, between neocons and bankers there's only one group that actively wants certain Americans out of their own country.

I didn't downvote you.

I fail to see a Betsy Devos type character in either the Bush or Obama admin. She even wrote in a tax benefit to her neocon college in the Northeast.

I'm guessing they will begin honeypotting devices connected to meshnet and ensuring that its users get persecuted (and prosecuted) for high crimes they didnt commit.

This is changing of the goalposts. A standard procedure these days.

I'll just add that sometimes threats come even before bribery in the form of careericide

Perhaps you could regionally serve up different content or throttle performance by the techniques you said.

> we got a plague of click-bait tabloids, echo chambers, walled gardens, algorithmic gatekeepers, and television that you don't need a cable subscription for.

Exactly. It was a decision made for Internet users, on behalf of Internet users, _but not BY Internet Users_.

It appears there was debate in the 90s/00s going on, far above our heads whether any given connection to the Internet is to be considered a highly-modularm, highly-democratized "Terminal" or the individual "Pseudonym". Where "Pseudonym" here is the ever-growing bag of personal data, fingerprinting, ISP info, History, Cookies, etc. etc. that distinguishes you from your twin brother/sister).

Instead of Advertising Industry crafting a better message that appeals to the User of any given Terminal, Advertising Industry instead decided to collect as much data on everyone as possible, and infect their pages with invasive malware peddling wares they (usually) don't even need.

Mark Z. made his stance absurdly clear with his identity talks, and generally the rest of the Big Players followed.

And analytic and advertising systems being built upon the "Pseudonym" approach creates a plethora of unsustainable clickbait drivel.

Dubious claim.

15 hr/week while unemployed working on your own app may be far more beneficial than 60 hr/week working on a trivial CRUD app.

> "Another person I know is in a similar situation because his group won’t talk to people who aren’t already employed."

This point alarms me a bit. It doesn't even have to be a family circumstance. What about departures for your own mental health, or sabbatical?

So if I take some time off to learn a new stack (I'm leaning toward Elixir), and build a few projects with it in my free time, I'm a lesser candidate?

This being said, I do have a friend who did take a year off to pursue music. However, he's what they'd call a "rockstar" and has freedoms most of us don't.

> A candidate comes along and promises changes to policies that may help reverse that economic slide and they win.

Hasn't that already been a conversation since way before 2008 ie: "Joe the Plumber"'s candidate?

There is something more going on here. My own opinion is that the current potus is an appeal to nationalist authoritarianism where other more conventional republicans were not.

We don't know if bots did take part in US elections or not. Electronic machines can be hacked. [0][1]

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/days-after-activ...

[1] http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532824432/if-voting-machines-w...

> Honestly I crack up when I think about twitter influencing the election.

What about physical rallies organized by Russia on Facebook? [0]. Or the failed "Miners for Trump" in Philly [1]

I guess it cracks you up when its your guy in the house :)

[0] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/20/russian_fa...

[1] http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/will_bunch/the-crazy...

Agree - but there's middle ground here.

I would prefer a "do not link" or archived post for certain domains to prevent clicks on their page.

This is where the danger occurs. When sinister people conflate a hoard of bots as their "silent majority."

I've only worked on a farm with a college roommate for a very brief period of time, but I would assume Monsanto does the exact same thing big pharma does with Doctors and Nurses -

Hire extremely attractive men and women to go to farms and sell some 'Santo Seed.

There are far too many assumptions in this comment, particularly in the second paragraph, to even begin to unpack.

Your entire Parent post is centered around a false equivalency between MSM outlets and Wikileaks.

Here's a similar assumption I'll throw your way: Parent personally slighted you and/or your belief system, and caused you to react this aggressively to my comment.

If I were to employ the same non-sequitur logic you used about myself further, I would reckon you are a shill.

> I do find it curious that WhatsApp was operating at a much larger scale in terms of users and messages processed when they were sold to Facebook

I recommend you search around HN before you make sweeping generalizations, there are numerous threads that explain how or why WhatsApp were capable of doing what they were. From a technical perspective, as a "core product", Twitter's business has more abstractions

To get you started[0]

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10225096

When Hacker News top threads does all the overinflation talk for you

2.Twitter says could turn first-ever profit, shares jump (reuters.com)

3.Twitter Says It Overstated Monthly-User Figures for 3 Years (nytimes.com)

> Do you think they would not submit this to other media outlets?

Other outlets are accepted [by general public] to have already been compromised wrt bias.

Up until the Trump campaign - Wikileaks was considered to be an unbiased leak of private and/or confidential information.

The name "Wiki" even intentionally evokes the name Wikipedia, the (slightly biased) generalist source of information that appears at the top of many of our search results.

In many cases, Wikileaks is actually worse. Seeing MSNBC or Fox News flash on the screen, we know the bias put forth by the company. We don't know Assange's bias. Correction, we do now.

To be honest, I'm curious to see how your logic even equated Wikileaks to other media outlets in the first place.