basseq

I'm trying to differentiate between "there has been evidence of a breach" and "there are less-desirable security practices". As I understand it, the phpBB / master password practices—which are indeed, not good, but also not fully understood exactly how they did it—are also not evidence that the masters have been compromised.

Again, that it could be an attack vector is interesting and relevant, but different from "has been breached" per OP.

Note that master passwords were not compromised, the the warnings were triggered in error[1]. That's not to say that other concerns around security aren't valid.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/28/22857485/lastpass-compro...

Another vote for LastPass, though I haven't cross-shopped in a while. It generally "works", including on iOS. (You can enable auto-fill directly in Mobile Safari in Setting > Passwords > AutoFill, so I rarely have to open the app anymore.) Chrome extension experience on desktop is similarly "fine".

The LastPass app itself is just "ok" from a UI perspective, but again, I use that part rarely.

Lots of material out there on on using WS2811/2 LEDS for Christmas lights. A Raspberry Pi is a little overkill; a ESP8266 / NodeMCU running WLED will do you just fine. Reddit's r/led is filled with these projects, or check our DrZzs on YouTube who has a ton of detailed guidance.

I've used OctoberCMS[1] for a smaller project, and this looks similar on first glance. (Might just be the Lavarel underpinnings.)

What I really like about October is the ability to quickly spin up small CRUD database functionality (index + detail pages and simple backend updates for "custom" objects like staff members, white papers, etc.) using their Builder plugin. Any idea if Statamic offers something similar without diving into custom code?

However, October seems to be a little stagnant: you search, and most of the forum discussions are from 2016, and many plugins are no longer maintained well.

[1] https://octobercms.com/

5, 4, and almost 2.

TV – They'll watch Netfix in the morning if they're up early (0–30m) and for 20-30m to "wind down" before bedtime. We haven't done any parental controls or anything, and it hasn't been an issue. They know what they want to watch, and know how to navigate to it (Xbox or Apple TV).

Tablets/Laptops – The older two have Fire tablets and play educational apps/games: PBS or Starfall. No Netflix or "TV" apps. This is sort of "on-demand", mostly during their quiet time mid-afternoon. Maybe an hour? I enabled the "kid mode" on one tablet, but it is a giant PITA to manage, and really isn't an issue. They don't have the knowledge of the internet yet, do haven't really communicated that.

To clarify, if you were paid in gold, that's still income and you would still be taxed on the fair market value of that gold. It's income that's taxed, not USD.

Same as stock grants: if you're paid in stock, you pay income taxes when that stock is granted, at the market value of that stock.

You aren't taxed on the FMV increase of that stock until you sell it (at which point you're taxed on capital gains).

There's the apocryphal[1] story about the (Trappist? Belgian?) brewer-monk who, when asked about his favorite beer, answered "Budweiser" because of the consistency over millions of gallons.

The linked[1] article below also highlights that "quality light beers are incredibly difficult to brew". So here you have Budweiser/AB excelling on two fronts: a difficult brew and incredible consistency.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/11/light-bee...

Depending on the organization, a VP title may not have "a seat at the table", which can lead to HR taking a back seat. This can include being overshadowed by Finance or Operations if HR rolls into the CFO or COO, respectively.

So the "title inflation" is a recognition that people is a tier-1 function, and needs airtime and visibility at the most senior levels.

As an aside, "Human Resources" is falling out of favor given the Dilbert-esque implications around HR. And "People Ops" always struck me as overly operations-focused and tactical vs. strategic.

Apparently I need to look at Gaggenau, which has both knobs on some induction models and a series of models that are designed to be combined together. So I can actually have an integrated workspace with gas and induction options!

> And law enforcement is a thing!

More than that, there's a minority perspective in DeFi that the code is the law. If the code allows it (e.g., withdrawals under an unintended circumstance), it's therefore legal. If it were illegal, the code wouldn't allow it.

My ideal range is 2 induction burners + 4 gas. Induction has a lot of the benefits of gas (e.g., instant temperature control), but gas is still superior for sautéing and continuous temperature control.

Whenever I cook on gas, I miss the fast-heating of induction for things like pasta or potatoes.

I also don't understand why all induction ranges have to be "high-tech" touchscreen crap. I'd love an induction stove with big, substantial, tactile knobs. Cooking on a Wolf range is such a pleasure for that experience alone.

Habit, mostly: I tend to use VLOOKUP for exact matches and MATCH for relative ones.

The "$9,000 to keep" figure is the cost to keep a disengaged worker on top of their salary. This is the 18% of lost productivity against a $50k average salary. (Which suggests $50k of value creation in a given year dropping to $41k.)

The article doesn't address pay as a way to increase engagement—and thus decrease attrition. Indirectly, the article suggests that increasing pay wouldn't actually have that much effect, with the real benefit coming from managers "who give workers a sense of purpose, inspiration and motivation to perform".

Mathematically, you would need every 2% of average "retention" raise to yield a 1% drop in retention rate to break even, notwithstanding that 18% productivity drop.

Put another way, it's not about employees being commodities. It's about (generally) pay-for-retention programs NOT ONLY failing, but in the worst case negatively affecting those people who are engaged by forcing them to continue to interact with disengaged people who decided to stick around a little longer.

And yet[1]:

75% of unvaccinated adults are "not worried about getting seriously sick"...

50%+ are not worried "about the Delta variant worsening the pandemic"...

50%+ say "getting vaccinated is a bigger risk than getting infected", and...

75% don't think the vaccines are effective.

So definitely a "PR problem" is those figures differ from reality. But you read these figures, and the outcome is obvious: "I'm not going to get seriously sick, the long-term effects of the vaccine are unknown, and the vaccine doesn't work anyway... so why should I get it?"

[1] https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-co...

You could do it with a bunch of INDEX-MATCH formulas and pre-calculating base tax per bracket:

  =(income-INDEX(bracket_min,match(income,bracket_min,1)))*
    INDEX(bracket_tax,match(income,bracket_min,1))+
    INDEX(bracket_base_tax,match(income,bracket_min,1))

This is great! Thanks for the info.

Because I like a challenge:

  =SUMPRODUCT(
    (bracket_min<income)*
    (
      ((income<=bracket_max)*(income-bracket_min))
      +
      ((income>bracket_max)*(bracket_max-bracket_min))
    )
    *bracket_rate
  )

Where income is your income, bracket_min is the range of bracket minimums, bracket_max is the range of bracket maximums, and bracket_rate is the range of bracket tax rates.

Demo on Google Sheets:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z0vx8TJeWr-hbJ3q6E7r...

I like XIRR to get an actual sense of what my annualized portfolio performance looks like.

Pretty much every bank, brokerage, or financial software I've used is "dumb" and will a) count deposits as growth, b) show total lifetime growth, and/or c) ignore deposits.

XIRR allows me to better benchmark portfolio performance by accounting for when I deposit (or withdraw) money so I can clearly say, "I'm earning X% per year."

Schwab is terrible at this. "You gained 5% today!" No, I didn't, I deposited $1,000 into my brokerage account.

We're all playing armchair strategist here, but I really don't understand the thinking or the decision here.

I mean, they kind of thought about CX! They didn't want to go with locked containers because they "don't want to affect the 99.5% of our customers who are just there to pick up their hammers and nails". Those 99.5% of customers who would see (not interact with—just see!) said locked container.

Then they go with this complex supply chain solutions that requires additional complexity (e.g., bluetooth technology) to be incorporated at the design step with vendors to make it all work.

That has to be multitudes more expensive than security tags and gates.

What's the error rate on that process? How many legitimate customers are going to be negatively affected by a miss in the "tool activation" step? And think about it: you're not going to figure out that they missed a step until you get home. Not like the alarm going off when you try to walk out the door before they forgot to remove it. Annoying, but at least you're still at the store!

All this in the name of deterrence. Those "silly alarm systems" aren't designed to catch shoplifters... they're to discourage people from shoplifting. Same thing here.

After all, it's not like the shoplifters are going to return the tools that don't work!

For anyone else wondering about "the controversy from Fall 2020": https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/sep/21/twitter-a...

I can hear the 8-bit flapping sounds in my head, even though I haven't heard them in at least 2 decades.

But only Uber (allegedly) had access to the private entitlement. So how did other apps do it, and why couldn't Uber?

That said, this is certainly a "special relationship" with big partners like Uber to get their apps working at Apple Watch launch in 2015[1].

That the access "wasn't removed already if it was no longer required", well... I think we can all understand legacy code.

[1] "It is likely that the Cupertino tech giant had to give this access after it gave app developers a four-month window to develop apps for its Watch before the unveiling of the product."

This is true, but it's philosophical. The IRS has finite resources, so it has a fundamental choice:

1. Maximize collections. This is what they're doing: spending their resources on cases with the best expected ROI. If you have $1T in net tax misses, chase the easiest 75% and expect a 90% collection rate.

2. Deter high absolute tax avoidance. This is what you're suggesting: spend their resources to make a statement, even if the ROI isn't there. If you have $1T in net tax misses, chase the hardest 25% and expect a 5% collection rate.

I don't think you're wrong, as there's value in deterrence (i.e., sue the hell out of rich tax evaders, and even if you lose, maybe the next one will be less likely to push it).

The overwhelming sentiments of comments on this is negative, but as a fairly non-technical audience far removed from ML, I find this pretty fascinating.

> GME exposed how undercapitalized they were...

Or, more accurately, the extreme volatility of GME led to increased collateral requirements that Robinhood couldn't meet. (It was like billions of dollars, iirc.) Or, otherwise, it's not that Robinhood was undercapitalized (or even is undercapitalized!)—just that the goalposts moved suddenly and unexpectedly.

PFOF is still a little squirrel-y. Ditto on Levine and others, and tied up in all that T+2 settlement issue, too.

Now it's my turn to claim uncharitibility.

Indeed, my context here is that people who wear the data scientist title come from multiple backgrounds, and are often asked to wear too many hats. They are non morons—they may be darn good report-builders, but haven't been trained in insights, for instance.

If you're reacting to my word choice in that last sentence, know that I am frustrated with people who claim to be data scientists but can't derive insight. (And we can argue about "many".) But that's not a broad denouncement against all data scientists, either.

The problem that I've seen is often "data scientists" are expected to be the equivalent of full-stack engineers (or maybe more accurately: one-man CTO shops)—to understand data architecture, understand business architecture, ensure data quality, build data into product, build dashboards, derive insights, posit hypotheses, set strategy, and drive business value.

Thus many "data scientists" are juiced-up report-builders who can't analyze their way out of a paper bag.

Since you have a 1-year cliff and have only been there 11 months, sounds like as of today you have 0% equity. So the immediate question may be whether your co-founder can fire you.

In 1 month, you've vested 25% of your grant, or 10% of the company. So I would try to get to that mark to strengthen your negotiating position. Any references to 40% are red herrings at this point.

Unless there's a specific buyback clause in your stakeholder agreement, they're under no obligation to buy you out at any time. (They may have the right to do so. That's not uncommon.)

Of course, you're under no obligation to resign, either. So this is a negotiation.

So the way I see it, you have a few options:

1. You take your 10% and leave. You "don't want any equity", but better something you don't want than nothing.

2. You agree to a buyback, potentially at a discount to FMV. If you don't know what FMV is, it's hard to negotiate one way or another. It's v. likely not $1M. Sounds like this is a no-go.

2B. You agree to a non-cash buyback, e.g., in IP. You spent 11 months building the tech: what if you took that with you?

3. You flip the script and buy your co-founder out.

In any case, your relationship is over. You might walk away with nothing.

Aggregate price for talent probably doesn't change. Demand for talent in key markets goes down (as companies in those markets start looking for non-local talent[1]), but demand for talent in any market goes up (as non-local companies seek local talent).

So it would follow that overpriced talent in high-demand markets would see a decrease, where underpriced talent in low-demand markets would see an increase.

This would be the same concerns with offshoring as well, but that hasn't led to massive salary drops. Because there's still a big cost to switching people. If you could fire all your SF SWEs today and replace them with identical, knowledgable, fully-ramped, culture-carried SWEs in $secondary_market for half price, you would. You can't, so you threaten and you try to convince your SF SWE that you could just enough to keep their expectations low, but not so much that they actually quit.

I see a lot of companies still trying the "CoLA trick" on employees moving to secondary markets. "We can hire your position in $market for cheaper," so the argument goes. The best move there is to call their bluff: "go do it then". Most people won't do it because a) conflict is hard and b) finding a new job on top of moving is annoying. So they'll take it on the chin and just resign 6-12 months later after they're settled.

[1] In the old world, there's still a premium to convince talent to relocate. So companies in high-demand markets (e.g., SF) either have to pay +x% to tap non-local talent and get them to move to the high-demand market (where they become local talent).

Even in the new world, non-local talent isn't going to sit by and let themselves be underpaid. "I'm doing the exact same thing, delivering the exact same value, but someone is getting paid 30% more to sit in the office? Oh, and you don't even pay for my home office?"