docker_up

They are lying because you've never made money daytrading? As per my other comment, this is absurd. Being a profitable daytrader is very hard, and it's not probable, but definitely possible.

This is absurd. You don't know my friends, and you say they are lying?

Daytrading for a single account and managing a multi-billion dollar fund are completely different strategies and need completely different skillsets. You should educate yourself before talking authoritatively on subjects you don't know very much about.

You only need one example to disprove that something is "impossible".

My friend recently got his sons a smartphone and he says their relationship has been irrevocably damaged because of it. Not because they are rude, etc. But when they used to talk, now it's complete silence and them looking at their phones, chatting with their friends or girlfriends. He hates the phones now because there is no socialization whatsoever with his kids. The power of the phone is that strong, and he had such a close relationship with his sons.

$20,000 per year is livable in many areas of the US, especially if you have a lot of savings to back that up. The point is that saying it's "impossible" is a lie.

Impossible? Lol I have a handful of friends that do this. It's hard work but they make 5 to 6 figures consistently per year.

It's very very hard, and not everyone can do it. I tried and lost a lot of money. But it's definitely not impossible, that is simply a lie.

Yes. If there was some uniform standard on how support workers were trained, what data they have access to, then social engineering attacks would drop dramatically. The leaking of data would not be as prevalent and it would be standardized.

Until about 30 years ago, California voted Republican and Texas voted Democrat.

California voted against gay marriage AND legalization of marijuana. So it's not nearly as progressive as you think. It took a court case to bring gay marriage to California and a second attempt for pot.

There MUST be some sort of ISO certification for support people.

Giving first line, poorly trained support people access to people's PII and the ability to change passwords is something that needs to be stopped. Social engineers are completely exploiting poorly trained, minimum wage workers for huge gains.

We need to have some sort of ISO certification so that front line support people must hand over any security information to highly trained second-tier staff. If EVERY company used the same subset of information to verify, under the guidance of well-trained staff with a consistent methodology across all companies, and didn't expose various bits and pieces of info (some use last for of SSN, some use credit card info, address, date of birth, etc) then it would extremely hard for social engineers to do hacks like this.

Last I heard from some friends in YC when considering a position there, Wepay was handling less than 10^6 payments per day. Is that still the case and is something with such low requirements a good replacement for Kafka in the wild?

You misunderstand basic law terminology.

A preliminary injunction is considered very strong. So it's not that "nothing is final here", it's actually almost pretty much final unless something comes out of left field.

One of the most important questions:

What is the attrition rate for the manager and for the company in general. If a manager has high attrition rate, that's definitely a red flag.

Thank you, this is exactly the point I'm making.

And in this specific case, it sounds like the MIT director attempted to conceal donations from someone he knew was banned, so his resignation is just.

The question isn't about legality. It's about morality. Is it morally wrong to judge people who decide to associate with criminals after they have served their sentence? That to me is the crux of the issue here.

What it sounds like is that criminals are not absolved by serving their sentence. Or maybe some are but it depends on the crime? And sometimes it's okay to ostracize those that believe that criminals are absolved by serving their sentence, depending on the crime?

I believe in your right to do so.

But what about people who feel otherwise and think that by serving out his sentence he has paid for their sins? If those people associate with criminals who have served their sentence, are those people worse in your eyes? It seems like not only is redemption for criminals no longer allowed, but you're not allowed to believe in redemption for others as well.

I'm perfectly okay with executing rapists, sex traffickers, etc, if that were the sentence imposed.

But if you don't impose a life sentence, but then believe a person should continue to pay for their crimes after the amount determined by a court of law, isn't that hypocrisy? Having someone serve their sentence in jail but then making them never able to interact in society again because of outrage over their crime is fundamentally unfair. If you're going to do that, then just execute them or throw them in jail forever, because that's effectively what they're doing. And as I said, I'm perfectly okay with making execution for crimes the punishment for a large swathe of crimes, including everything that Epstein did.

And even worse, if someone believes that a person deserves the right to be forgiven for their sins, and they are thrown into the same bucket for even associating with them, is that even fair?

Apparently Bill Gates met with Epstein several times after his conviction. Should he be punished as well?

I don't understand the outrage.

He was convicted of a crime, and he served his time. In hindsight, the sentence was too light, but as regular people are we really supposed to understand all the details? If I met someone who went to jail, should she be exiled forever after serving her sentence? I just don't understand. And people get lenient sentences all the time, am I as a non-lawyer supposed to understand this and then give my own sentence on top of that? Or should some people who commit crimes should never, ever be allowed to interact with other humans again?

As far as I can tell, from the perspective of those around him in 2014, Epstein was convicted of a crime, and served his time. By 2014, he had committed no further crimes from what people knew at the time, so why exactly is this an outrage. Obviously in 2019, we know that he committed further crimes and he rightly went to jail, and it's sad that he won't face justice. But in 2014, did anyone know this and should they be treated so harshly if they didn't?

The only real problem was covering up the donation, which Ito definitely should have been fired for, but I don't understand why Epstein at that time should have been considered a persona non grata.

The biggest question is: should criminals never ever be forgiven for their crimes? And should anyone who decides to forgive them and associate with them also be considered despicable as well? Or is it just some criminals depending on their crime? Who judges which crimes should never be forgiven and which should?

I guess OP's point is that beautiful women couldn't possibly be anything more than sex trafficked women.

Even worse. You are likely in this database if even a single one of your contacts uploaded their contacts to Facebook.

The probability of your phone number not being uploaded to Facebook is basically 0.

I specifically mentioned GDPR not something nebulous or not well defined. It's a level field. It appears Google has violated the GDPR, willfully even. I have no problem with execs going to jail over that.

Yep. Privacy violations and leaks should be punished with fines and jail time. Period. End of sentence.

Just like execs have to personally sign for and are accountable for their financial statements, they should do the same thing with privacy. GDPR sets a very common leveling of the field so it's completely fair now.

The executives should face jail time. That would certainly light a fire under Google's ass to finally "do no evil".

Why would they want to pay people who aren't actually doing work? That's the point if they are forced to take full-time employees, those employees should be working all the time, instead of at their leisure the way it currently is. There is no requirement to take a ride if you don't want to right now, but if there's surge, drivers will be encouraged to work. If they are full-time employees, they just work for a flat rate and at the places and times that the employer requires them to be, in order for them to be maximally used.

Hiring people to just sit around and do nothing doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

No one forces anyone to drive for Uber or Lyft. If they don't like the money they're making, they can go work at a regular job. With sub-4% unemployment there are PLENTY of jobs out there.

Because part of the equation for Uber is having enough workers out there to fill demand by random chance.

If they have to pay a full-time employee, they can schedule the employee and force them to drive to a certain location, and do a certain number of trips, otherwise they would just fire them. They can squeeze out more efficiency from a single driver rather than hope that there's enough random drivers to fulfill all the demand.

Can there not be a law that states that Google can't just say "Your account is suspended, and the decision is final, and we won't tell you why." This sounds like the type of monopolistic action that we need to break by petitioning our politicians.

Google, Facebook, etc need to be regulated.

Yeah I don't know how much more people expect to be paid. It's a completely unskilled job that almost anyone can do. Complaining that $21/hr isn't enough would be insane at this point.

2015 MBP was the last best laptop.

I've been suffering with a 2018 MBP as well, and I'm done. The Touchbar and the arrow keys are killing me.

I'm giving them one more chance to fix their mistake with the 2019 MBP which should be announced in the next few weeks, otherwise I'm, going to a Vaio.

One criticism I've heard from former Stripe employees is that many of the people in high positions are Stripe are young with no management training, especially in the non-engineering parts of the company. So it sets up for a lot of problems, and cultural problems because they don't know how to manage people or large organizations well.