LA_Banker

Yes, OP seems to think the blockchain somehow solves the (extremely subjective) issue of valuation, as opposed to simply "did this transaction occur between counterparties?

The automated clearing house system, our current means of settling payments, is pretty secure. The bigger threats are someone getting ahold of your credit card or checking account info, which is the same threat level whenever you want to convert your Coinbase balance back into your local currency (or someone getting ahold of your public key).

The blockchain, rather, represents a better clearinghouse merely by being a decentralized platform to account for payments rather than a centralized one.

OP says this prevents accounting fraud. Not one iota.

Precisely.

No. I support the blockchain and think it will be revolutionary. However, Enron's issues weren't attributable to some discrepancy between credits and debits.

Accounting, surprisingly to folks who've never studied it and think it's simple arithmetic, requires judgment, based on rules that are sometimes grey and subjective. When you add in legal complexities, it becomes... well, more complex and therefore open to manipulation.

For instance, Enron was able to hide many liabilities by marking it (in hindsight) below market, since... there was no market for said liabilities. So it was impossible to value them. Furthermore, it hid other debt in obscure subsidiaries that were only tangentially, legally and fiscally speaking, connected to Enron.

The blockchain confirms, with better accuracy than existing systems, "X transaction occurred between Y and Z partners." It does not confirm "X's assets were appropriately valued and marked as such to a non-existent market, and X is most definitely a legal subsidiary and is overseen by the fiduciary duty of A Holdings, Corp."

The blockchain has the potential to be a far more efficient settlement system. But saying it prevents Enron or Madoff is simply not true at all.

Which only further demonstrates the gap between a 4-yr Comp Sci degree and software development.

Which, don't get me wrong, I'm a university snob and think software engineers should understand things all the way down to the machine level, but the snobbery in reaction to JS* being taught in 4-yr curricula (which I wouldn't doubt as a widely held reaction) is saddening.

*JS wouldn't be my first choice for an actual university course on real-world coding; but I do resent the the chasm between applicable and theoretical software engineering skills... though this problem isn't confined to Comp Sci.

University CS courses tend to be heavy on varyingly useful theory, light on practical knowledge. Which, fine, that's like most university degrees even in the most vocational of fields.

So while this dude's "degree" might be substandard (MIT-OCW vs. MIT-MIT), I'd argue their education – at least in terms of applicability and self-direction – is equal, if not superior.

I'm ceaselessly amused by the folks fearing Amazon Echos or Google Homes as though they're constantly listening microphones sent to the NSA. As though we don't already carry devices on our person everywhere we go that have mics (smartphones).

Also, while we trade our privacy to Google (or Amazon, or whomever) in exchange for customization and convenience (a social contract I'm generally happy to sign off on), those companies have even more incentive to keep our data safe.

Google is one of the most valuable companies in the world precisely because it, and only it, has the AdSense knowledge (and whatever other knowledge Google collects about me) to target me.

Insurance companies go to Google and say "show our ads to people Googling insurance companies" – that's how Google makes money. It's not as though Google says "here you go State Farm, here's everyone who's been looking up car insurance." It's business model is based on proprietary customer knowledge. It can't give away this data; it's incentivized to limit it to its own ad-targeting tech.

Are there still problems with this model? Sure. If the government decides to subpoena Google on me, they'll turn over my Gmail. But is it a hell of a lot easier getting access to Google services (e.g. Google Maps knowing where I generally go and what the traffic is like) versus using, say, Duck Duck Go on a VPN (let alone Tor or Tails)? For me, and I'd assume most people, yes.

EDIT: I would also point out that we've long been facing the privacy vs. convenience issue. It used to be that merely signing up for a landline meant getting your phone # listed in the White Pages. Paying utility bills makes your name and home address a matter of public record (unless you choose to shield them via owning and paying through a corporate shell). Ditto real estate transactions involving your name/address. All public records, unless you choose to hire attorneys to setup shell corps for the sake of privacy. Not so expensive to do this now in the age of LegalZoom, etc., but this used to cost quite the pretty penny.

This debate is nothing new; it's merely evolving.

This is interesting because while Apple's (comparative) dedication to privacy is endearing, it's a long-term existential threat.

Google knows all about me and its assistant is, usually, great. Amazon has troves of data on what I buy, and I get to yell at Alexa to order more TP as soon as I see we're on the last roll.

Apple knows much less about me and, while I'm still an Apple fan and am tied to iPhones/Macs thanks to iMessage, Siri stinks as a result.

If voice assistants based on machine learning (specifically, personalized voice assistants) are the next big thing, Apple's privacy ethos will separate it from its major tech competitors – either in a great way, or a very negative way.

I'm presupposing the contact card has their job position/title, and therefore still answers the question – also presupposing the original (odd) premise of wondering who someone already saved in your phone is.

The Venn overlap between the set of "contacts in your phone" and "people with Wikipedia bios" is likely rather small. Hence why I think it's a faulty premise to complain about Siri defaulting to contact card when these two sets do intersect.

I don't see it as humblebragging (any of us could create a Cook contact / ReCode readers likely know Walt Mossberg's relationship to Apple) but, worse, a faulty premise.

Odds are, if you have them in your contact database, you already know them; you're not going to want Siri to give you their Wikipedia bio.

Siri has myriad faults, and thankfully someone of Mossberg's stature might push Apple to address them, but this is not one of them.

a16z is getting punished (at least, in the article) for marking their paper gains more conservatively than other funds.

Their LPs are likely smart enough to realize this.

I mentioned this to someone else who made the same point (albeit with the ACLU instead of the EFF): Hm, that's an interesting point that I'll have to noodle over. Thanks for pointing it out.

Hm, that's an interesting point that I'll have to noodle over. Thanks for pointing it out.

I'm not defending Gawker; I'm saying there's a better way to have this debate.

We don’t have to accept or excuse Gawker’s worst stories to protest Thiel’s dangerous playbook for attacks on institutions of civil society.

I don't think one needs to necessarily choose a side. I'm of the opinion that what Gawker did is wrong, but surreptitiously funding lawsuits to bankrupt the company is a perversion of the justice system.

The tension between privacy and speech is a discussion that needs to be had. Litigating it in a Pinellas County courtroom is an odd way to go about having that debate.

Thiel has now demonstrated that those with deep enough pockets can now use the courts to exact revenge in a roundabout way. Yes, Gawker is tawdry but one can't help pondering a chilling effect here on more worthy stories. Were I a journalist, I'd certainly think twice now of pursuing an investigative piece that might offend a billionaire, given that my own financial livelihood could become fair game.

My mistake, I misread. I edited my post to address this.

There's a certain, perverse form of cognitive dissonance in thinking what Gawker did to Hogan was wrong, but ViolentAcrez and his posting of creepshots of underage girls was somehow unimpeachable free speech – and therefore his freedom to continue doing such ought to be protected.

Do not the girls and women whose privacy he was invading not deserve the same right to privacy?

>and in fact was illegal for a long time

Yeah, no. NYTimes v. Sullivan determined that public figures sacrifice a good deal of their privacy when they when they enter the public sphere. For instance, the same such video of, say, a governor would certainly be newsworthy. Where it's unclear is to what degree is Hogan a public figure and whether the actual publishing of it, as opposed to just reporting on it, is constitutes newsworthiness.

In terms of lawsuit financing, it's perfectly legal. There's an entire industry devoted to third-party lawsuit financing – otherwise, poor victims of car attacks (or other consequences which injured their ability to work and earn) wouldn't be able to pursue personal injury claims.

Without it, only those with means could pursue legal recourse.

An LBO of a home is called "getting a mortgage." And yet, one's car or home isn't exactly a share-issuing company. You can form a company to own it – but that's not private equity.

Are you familiar with what "private equity" is? Note that "private equity" is distinct from "private" "equity."

One doesn't exactly "start [their] own private equity firm." Tens of (more often: hundreds of) millions of dollars must be raised and even then, they must bid (or acquire by other means) on companies.

Anyone with a net worth above $1mm can become a venture capitalist, given that VCs deal with earlier stage companies which, as a result of their youth, are happy to take small checks for minority investments.

Private equity, because it deals with mature companies and (more often than not) involves controlling stakes, requires very, very large checks. And because investors don't like an undiversified portfolio, the PE firm must have the means to write many very, very large checks.

This isn't an undertaking that just anyone can do. Of course, if someone has the means to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, has a nose for investing, is experienced in both buy-side mergers & acquisitions as well as the operations of a company in a given domain, then co-sign your advice.

Though index funds or an advisor would be much less risky for someone with those means.

>At least they will do everything possible to maximize profits.

Yes, sometimes this involves slower ambulances or slow internet. This is especially the case when there is no/few alternatives. What are you going to do... not have a water supply? Walk to the hospital mid-heart attack?

One need only to look at Comcast/Time Warner Cable data speeds in markets before and after Google Fiber entered the fray.

Sometimes, maximizing profits involves maximizing consumer satisfaction. More often, it does not. And it's a phenomenon that isn't unique to the private or public sphere.

>However, conflating private equity with wall st., and making a distinction between how firms under private equity ownership behave vs. public equity or closely held (no financial sponsor) seems pointless other than to further some other purpose (which i won't speculate about).

Agreed, and I say this as someone who's generally a fan of the New York Times' journalism. Here they simply seem to be trotting out the "look, it's Wall Street!" trope without offering deeper analysis (at least in this piece). Which is a shame because there are industries where private equity has a laudable record and others where the record is rather checkered.

And this notion, of course, oversimplifies "private equity" into one monolithic actor. As though a competent private equity firm which seeks to maximize value through improving quality wouldn't operate a company differently from one which seeks to extract value solely through levered financial engineering.

The scrolling art is nice though.

>Fair enough. But since when was the DNC officially a part of the US Federal Government?

U.S. Law (U.S. Code or "U.S.C.") doesn't just cover the government. It covers, well, the U.S. Were you thinking Constitutional Law, which limits the powers of the government?

The issue here is that the hackers are foreign. Had you compromised DNC (or RNC! or Goldman Sachs') servers and were an American, you can rest assured there'd be some not-so-friendly men in suits at your door.

It's one among a body of laws that makes black hat hacking and theft of private information illegal. That doesn't strike me as overreaching. I'd prefer that my computer (or my bank's servers) not be hacked – and that there be criminal laws in place to deter it. Just like how I should protect myself such that I'm not a victim of homicide... but I still appreciate homicide laws in place.

Sure, both I and the bank should have proper security protocols in place, but there should also be some criminal recourse for those who decide to commit such crimes.

>Everybody that has spent more than 3 hours on the internet already knows that everyone is out there to get you.

Yes, just like every adult knows thieves are out there to get to your valuables. It means you should secure them, sure, but that doesn't absolve them of guilt if/when they successfully steal based on your failure to store everything in an underground vault.

That's fair. The comparison was a little unexpected, stark, and a detour from normal HN fare, but I still thought it was apt. (YMMV)

Indeed.

Moreover, this is what political parties do! They try to influence elections; they don't rig them such that votes aren't counted, like some banana republic. (Sanders supporters will no doubt point out some voting anomalies, which ought to be clarified, though Sanders was still trounced in every measure of support; from delegates to popular votes, etc. etc.)

Just look at the RNC and their attempts to interdict Trump's rise. Now that he's the nominee, they have no choice but to throw their money behind him (though support-wise, many other prominent Republicans are still holding out).

The DNC has largely treated Bernie the same way the RNC has treated Trump. If you're the DNC, responsible for electing Democrats up and down the ticket, who are you going to support: someone who's spent a few decades raising money on behalf of/campaigning with other democrats (not out of altruism, of course, but still)? Or someone who joined the party a year ago for the sake of having a major party's megaphone during election season?

The situation is even more stark on the other side. Trump wrote checks to Democrats before "coming out" as a birther in 2012.

And yet, in the case of the Republican party, the primary voters chose Trump. In the Democrats' case, Hillary. Both attempted to throw their weight around – because that's their job. And it's very distinct from "throwing" or "rigging" an election.

Ah, that makes much more sense.

The metaphor strikes me as somewhat self-explanatory. They could have done more to prevent it, sure, (just like a woman could avoid situations where rape is possible [I guess? I don't even think that's feasible]), but since the crime was committed against them, blaming the victim is just that: victim blaming.

It implies the only actor with agency in this scenario is the injured party. As though somehow the perpetrator was naturally bound to commit such an act – and is therefore absolved of guilt.

>throw an election

[thinking face emoji]

It's not Wikileaks' job to save the DNC, but they could claim more moral authority if they didn't so brazenly also play a role in disseminating donor financial information.

That's essentially what Snowden is saying. Go ahead and expose things worthy of exposure (by all means!), but doing so in a way that puts others at risk is irresponsible.

If your home gets broken into because the door was left unlocked, is the thief innocent because "you are to blame"? No. Sure, you bear some responsibility for not being more responsible and exercising better judgment; but you're not the one who committed the theft.