fweespee_ch

Those are hardly antiquated and this management style should be considered an example to avoid rather than a foolish attempt to impress people with how "hard" the work was, honestly.

This sort of thing is for handling outages and true emergencies, not meeting arbitrary deadlines.

Honestly, I'd prefer that to the status quo. No solution is perfect but the current situation is an absurd caricature of a shitshow.

The ignorance displayed is terrifying because these people are professionals at gathering public support.

Yeah. I honestly don't care so much about the idiot father's claims but rather just the fact we are witnessing a rather painfully public collapse of a family.

> Preventing disease, including immunization services

This seems to fall under that. xD

You'd probably get more mileage at complaining to DO than you would to GitLab.

---

EDIT:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11529949

> @fweespee_ch: if they're not reading HN, they're doing it wrong anyway.

Fair enough. I just think trying to force a response out of GitLab employees is the wrong route to take when they have no power over the coupon.

> If you purchase GitLab.com Bronze Support you can email support directly for timely, personal and private answers. This costs $9.99 per user per year for next-business-day response time and is available in packs of 20 users.

Reducing the pack size to 10 and improving the rate limit for paid accounts?

I don't mind paying for GitLab.com, I just don't want to pay $200/year for it. ;)

GitLab & Gogs are my two favorite Git collaboration platforms.

Wow, I hope that doesn't get abused and taken away.

> We‘ll be giving out the prizes in several batches throughout 2016, so the final deadline is December, 31.

I was discussing the context of my comment, not the world in general.

So once again:

Please provide examples where homogeneity on both the gender and race axis occurs so frequently this could be considered a reasonable event?

And the boss is attracted to that gender?

EDIT:

> There are a bunch of places that hire out of whack to the natural distribution of the population.

That is what I was talking about xD

I wasn't expecting someone to argue that it was reasonable to have a homogeneous population of hires on a gender/race axis.

> There are a bunch of places that hire out of whack to the natural distribution of the population.

I've never encountered one IRL that was homogeneous of a female minority hired by a white male.

Can you provide examples of this happening on the scale you state?

You do understand the probability of the strongest hire in 12 separate rolls of the die being female and asian is absurdly small right?

We are talking thousandths of a percentage point here. The odds of that being a "natural" distribution is absurd.

Similarly, I know from one of them that he has engaged in the sort of sexual harassment behavior I'd expect from a guy who hired on a fetish.

> Would you have thought he had a fetish if all of his hires were black men?

If one of them mentioned sexual harassment and he was living in an area where they were a single digit percentage of the population? Yes.

1) He is clearly hiring based on a fetish he has.

2) They were hired to replace male, white, african-american, or hispanic members of his department over a period of ~2 years. The area is almost entirely a white and/or hispanic population so there is no way this is coincidence.

3) The odds of a guy rolling the same 20 sided die 12 times and always coming up with the same number is highly improbable. Roughly 5% of the applicants were female and Asian. I somehow doubt the most competent were always in that 5%.

4) Its a baker's dozen (13).

I think it may depend on the market you are in.

I think what the issue is when it comes to the male boss/female employee dynamic is those power trips frequently take on a sexual dynamic in private.

> What do you think? Or are there really nice bosses who are just complete assholes to women with zero crossover?

I know one manager I used to work with who seemed nice but literally every single hire he has made has been an asian female.

He also was the only one besides me with an office with essentially no windows. [i.e. You close the door, no one can see in.] However, I never close my door for that reason while he does so all the time.

I think that was a lawsuit waiting to happen and I've said as much. However, my concerns were basically ignored since the one who confided in me that he does that sort of thing was terrified of losing her job since this was the third job she has had in 2 years [She is extremely attractive and had a similar problem at the previous jobs she got out of college]. She started carrying pepper spray instead.

The original Forbes article didn't claim a constant failure rate and it stands to reason a business that fails in the first 18 months simply failed to find market fit. That being the case, the survival rate would likely go up each year rather than down. [i.e. 18 months? 80% of the original total 36 months? 90% of the original total. Obviously not real numbers but it gets the idea across.]

Tragedy of the Commons is what occurs then as well as an inability to defend oneself against those who use force.

Go move to some country with essentially a nonexistent government and see how this works out for you if you genuinely believe I am wrong.

> However, corruption at the local level affects a limited number of people, and since local politics are easy to influence, they can be changed. Local politicians get into criminal trouble all the time, so they are not immune to the law.

So your argument is to make it cheaper, easier, and dismantle the checks and balances by defunding the enforcement mechanism at the federal level?

Seriously? Do you not understand that logically plays out until the local politicians are unable to be held accountable to a higher authority?

You seem to be operating under the belief this is harder than corrupting State and/or local governments.

Hint: It is easier, not harder.

> b) able to out-perform the decentralized economic decision-making mechanism of the market (prices),

Corruption is done via the marketplace at market prices within an ideological range the constituency will accept. I'm uncertain why you think that isn't market-based.

> a) completely altruistic in allocating a pile of cash to the places that will produce the most economic benefit

If they were paid the market price to perform this function then, yes, they could do so. Nothing prevents that.

> Here's an alternate proposal: decentralize power back to the states and have groups of states work out arrangements among themselves to enhance their shared cross-border economies. Reduce the federal take of taxes, leaving the money in the hands of the people who actually innovate, employ, and make economic decisions.

Corruption at the local level is pervasive, extensive, and frequently impossible to fight due to the fact the only people with the financial resources are the ones who bought the local government in the first place [or nonprofits who cover a greater area, such as the ACLU, and able to bring in out of area money to compete against the corruption].

If you think this is a recipe for reducing corruption, I suggest you get involved in local politics and try to support a minority candidate in a heavily white area. Hell, they'll do all sorts of legal [but shady] shit like hire a guy with the same name [different middle initial] and put them both on the ballot to split the vote. You only need to pull of a few percentage points of support this way to win in many situations.

> The fantasies of central planners never end.

The fantasies of people who think decentralization reduces corruption never end either.

The same information many people hand out as part of loan applications when they are asked for their tax returns as well as the IRS and other places. Hell, I had to do it in March and my AGI for 2014 is in god knows how many people's hands.

Once again, that is a username and not a password.

1) Passwords are secret credentials possessed by one trusted party, yourself.

2) The hashed representation of which is stored by the opposing party for verification.

You keep listing publicly available authentication factors which are effectively usernames, just like a SSN.

If you need me to clarify further, I can. I'm just genuinely horrified people treat these things as confidential because they are not.

I feel this is alot like my conversation here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11447435

People, even IT professionals, seem genuinely ignorant of the fact this data is essentially public knowledge and it simply requires a small amount of [potentially illegal] effort to acquire. They then go and build authentication schemes based on this information on the assumption literally no one on the planet is a criminal.

That isn't "security" for anything that involving real money.

That isn't a password and its basically available based on public information, just like a SSN.

The IRS created a system that is literally another username and called it a PIN.

If it treated SSNs as a username and required everyone to generate some unique passwords...it would work.

I don't see how it gets there with such a narrow hardware selection.

2) I'm only pleased if it works. I suspect in this environment it is going to flop and is largely for PR.

It is basically a public admission that the Government is completely ineffective with anything vaguely resembling a competent criminal. It makes me question if we are allocating law enforcement resources correctly.

-----

Edit due to rate limit:

> I know that sounds far-fetched. Our government employs many smart, capable people in FBI and SEC that could certainly stop it.

I'm honestly not sure it is as far-fetched as it sounds. Resources appear to be allocated to "narcotics" and "terrorist" buckets very heavily with little regard to the impact on less glamorous investigations. My concern is this allocation may have opened very large holes around threats that are unlikely to create headlines.

Smart, capable people can only do so much if they lack the resources to investigate people with serious and competent OpSec.

> I'm just... paranoid... that the Le Roux case means bigger things might be going on that would do way more damage than addicts getting drugs reliably.

Honestly, I don't think you are paranoid. I think if something like that happened the current investigatory capability of the various agencies appears to be unable to do much if such a plot was competently executed.

That said, I think it is unlikely anyone would attempt to execute an action on such a scale because he clearly had to flee to another country.

I think legal means are more effective on a risk-adjusted basis in terms of financial costs. The critical slice of people whose opinions can be shifted between candidates seem vulnerable to advertising and rhetoric. Truth remains malleable enough that sufficient funds expended can create it during the election cycle and that is the only real control that matters.

> You'd think that with this level of incompetence a few banks could straight up foreclose on millions of mortgages cooked up Enron style. Hell, they might one-up Paul Le Roux by buying or installing a Treasury head. At this rate, you'd think they'd cut a deal for immunity while keeping lots of money due to less recklessness. They might even use the complexity of their operations to negotiate for more money to prevent fall-out coming back on everyone else. Might cost $1-6 trillion dollars in such a scenario.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure our system has largely legalized bribery via campaign contributions and the fact they can keep them on retirement.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/campaign-finance-senators-hou...

> Turns out that despite strict Federal Election Commission rules, Bayh and other exiting elected officials do have ways to keep unspent political contributions.

So I'm not sure I'm the best person to talk to about this. I'd just reinforce your paranoia since I think you are largely correct on the political side.

On the commercial side, I think that is honestly why we have so many problems like LIBOR fixing that go unnoticed:

http://archive.is/vMZV5

> Simply put, then, it seems the misreporting of Libor rates may have been common practice since at least 1991. Although the difference between the reported rate and the actual rate might seem small, the total amount of money involved is material, given that Libor rates affect contracts worth hundreds of trillions. Also important is what such misreporting says about the culture.

I think this misallocation has led to alot of the recent banking scandals, honestly, and its disturbing to see further evidence in a secret-now-public criminal case that is unrelated.

Sure, I don't think Obama is going to throw me in jail and I have nothing to hide now...but that doesn't mean in 20 years there won't be some Nationalist/Authoritarian type in control of the country like we saw with countless fallen democracies in the 20th century.

Similarly, the Government has shown it incapable of keeping a secret with the sheer number of security failures they've experienced. So anything they have, we can assume is both public and indefensible. They use this capability and they might as well hand the information to criminals on a silver platter.

Yeah, it is amazing how much his arrogance and pride seemed to play into his behavior. He could have exited this whole situation in Brazil [Retiring] a wealthy man and would have been largely immune since they didn't have the ability to get their hands on him.

> His OPSEC sucks. I mean, I'm amazed that he didn't get caught earlier in some unrelated investigation using his real name and emails on all kinds of shady stuff. Many I know are too paranoid to do that thinking someone would connect dots. He did it and nobody connected dots until piles of high risk crimes added up with benefit of easy tracing. Even police said a little more obfuscation would've thrown them. This means we've overestimated the police's ability to connect dots on suspicious items. Just don't know how much.

I found that amazing as well but I think it has to do with the fact he was basically a black market profiteer dealing in low level stuff.

> Le Roux couldn’t have known that this new venture had made him a narco-terrorist in the eyes of the U.S. government. Until he had fled for Brazil, his case had been the province of the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Division, the federal prosecutors that handle pill-mill cases, and the Minnesota investigation team anchored by Kim Brill.

The Consumer Protection Division likely doesn't have the resources to break even a criminal with essentially no OPSEC based on this.

My guess is if he stayed out of hard drugs, arms, etc. he might have also stayed completely safe because it sounds like they simply couldn't handle him until it got kicked to the FBI/DEA/etc.

This does seem to be a common thread with highly skilled and intelligent criminals. Their pride convinces them they can keep going when the truth is it is time to pull the ripcord years before they got caught and walk away with all the wealth a person would ever need to live happily ever after.