2,052 karma · joined November 17, 2015
You are being (as I read and reply) down-voted but that is a valid point. The government will prosecute parents for what they do to their children but under another circumstance the government will not take child impact into account (in the sentence) that is what that sentence does harmfully to children. Irony.
I would not say he has any more or less respect for legal contracts than any other 'typical' company or business person (from my experience).
This is bulls... Sorry.
Who cares what you are accused of doing?
Why does it matter if people perceive that there is a star chamber. Even that reference. Sure the press cares and will make it an issue and tech types will care because well they have to make a fuss about everything and anything to remain relevant.
After all what are grand juries? (They are secret). Does the fact that people might think they are star chambers matters at all?
You see this is exactly the problem. Nobody wants to take any 'heat'. Sometimes you just have to do what you need to do and let the chips fall where they fall.
The number of people who might use twitter or might want to use twitter that would think anything at all about this issue is infinitesimal.
That is potentially a clue. But in itself would not answer to a legal certainty (that one fact) that a bill with a serial number in a nefarious transaction means the person who withdrew it (from the ATM) made the transaction.
1) I can withdraw $300 from an ATM and purchase a coffee (using $5 of that). That $5 might be refunded as change to someone who then uses it (to buy chinese food) and then as change to another person. And that person purchases something that they shouldn't.
2) Of course at scale with large amounts (say $300 withdrawn 10 times to equal $3000) used in a nefarious transaction yes they could trace back but they still wouldn't have proof that the person withdrawing it didn't pass it to someone else (who then used it). Further they can't require you (in the US) to disclose what you did with the money after you withdrew it. However they might try to convince you you have to answer and tell them.
3) That said of course like with anything again yes it would point them in some way to you and then might be able to find another way to then focus on you and get what they need (in order to get a warrant to do a search or get other records released).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33191603
The answers are short because of course how much can you give in this type of AMA when an attorney is involved?
People seem to love it. I see it as just a way to troll for business by keeping your name in front of a potential audience.
I mean the law is the law and details and specifics matter. As such the amount that you can convey by answering a question seems so limited to almost be of no help unless you then go forward and hire the attorney and get into specifics.
Also he has no FAQ on his website because of course that would open him up to liability for offering legal advice but he could easily take his years of AMA's and answers and offer that info (and build an audience that way).
Adding: He does not have a presence in Mountain View it's what appears to be a Regus Virtual office. He is actually in Wilton Connecticut.
True that they didn't get anything done and that they suck (I mean personally I hate twitter and almost everything about).
But in fairness a statement like 'what did you get done this week' is what would I believe be called 'parental'. Similar to a parent complaining that a child is not cleaning up their room or 'playing games' (back prior to video games).
Must doesn't want to actually have a conversation and understand what is going on he just wants to display his power in a stupid way. With a put down as if there is even going to be an answer to 'in a week'.
Then take a statement like this:
"many laypeople had a “working knowledge not only of electricity, but also of the buttons they pushed and the relationship between the two,” according to Plotnick"
What does 'many people' exactly mean? Nothing at all you wouldn't say 'many people got sick from the pandemic' you'd back it up with some type of figure or number.
Speaking specifically about .com/org/net/info I would not use either the word 'rent' or 'own' strictly but defacto you own the domain if you continue to pay the really nominal fees every year for renewal with the registrar you choose. That is an entire topic in itself because different registrars have different policies subject to (again for those tld's) ICANN rules.
As such you 'own' the rights to the domain name (same as google, amazon, tesla etc) in the sense that you can sell those rights to someone else if you want or transfer them.
You can think of domain ownership similar to physical real estate where there are property taxes you pay. There are a limited set of circumstances where you can lose the property (don't pay property tax, eminent domain etc) but you don't think you are renting (other than if you are renting).
Now for other things you own there is no annual fee you pay.
And it happens even with paid services at large companies.
That is not 'just business' and has never been the way business operated pre-internet except in a few super rare (and perhaps rare monopoly) situations.
I think 'utter scum' is an extreme reaction. And it's not necessary to make your point.
And what does 'large holdings' even mean anyway? Large to Fred what's large to Fred?
This doesn't sound right for a few reasons.
First Godaddy manages a massive amount of domains. For them to be doing anything like this would really defy common sense. They'd be hit with tons of complaints and importantly so would ICANN. AND ICANN (from our experience) will send out a notice (which creates paperwork for us) on any complaint literally for any reason. You have to respond to it so they clear the complaint. It's a pain and separate from any other reason a big incentive to not have people complain to ICANN (which can happen even if you are not at fault). ICANN also audits from time to time and they will pick a number of domains and make you show logs that you have sent out notices. (But my initial point is the more important issue).
Further ICANN requires that registrars send out multiple email notifications. They specify a number (I think it's about 4 or 5). So it doesn't make sense (especially for Godaddy) that this could have happened '1 notice 2 hours to respond'. And only a single notice.
As far as the cost, registrars are charged by the underlying registry (.com/.net .org .info) to bring a domain out of redemption. That charge is about 4x roughly what a .com domain costs for a year so it's not trivial. Then that charge is marked up by most if not all registrars. Our fee is less than what is stated here but it's not nominal either.
Separate I have a few of my own domains at Godaddy (and some other registrars) 'just because'. I always get plenty of notices from them it's almost annoying.
One last point. ICANN requires a domain to be put on hold prior to going into redemption. There is no doubt that Godaddy is doing this. As such your first notice of domain not working would be it's on hold not it's in redemption (and set to delete). Seems that this domain was not being used by the OP and they didn't pay (which they acknowledged) and it was deleted and they didn't notice it was on hold (specifically to get domain owners attention). I don't know what the 'off hold' fee is that godaddy charges my guess is it's less than the redemption fee.
I think there is a misunderstanding of what an 'audit' means. It can be as simple as a letter from the IRS (after their analysis alerts them) asking that certain documents be provided to support a deduction or otherwise. The IRS is not conducting large scale audits on people with low incomes it would not be feasible there is not enough to even dig into.
What the government (in this particular case for the EITC) should be easy for the taxpayer to reply with info needed to dispute the claim.
And by posting (that type of suggestion) and not following the rule HN gets to also review what others think in terms of an idea.
And DANG or any mod can then reply if they want and others can see the reply. Instead of either ignoring or having a conversation or engaging with only one person.
As a general rule in business - my personal belief - born out over a very long time in business - is that you should not limit people when they are giving you free advice or suggestions using their own time. [1]
[1] If someone writes to the CEO of a business or an organization the proper response is not "Please send that to 'suggests@companyname.com" it's "thank you very much for the input we appreciate it".
"[Investigating] Our Technical Operations team is currently investigating connectivity issues affecting one of our shared web servers (iad1-shared-d12-02). We are closely monitoring the situation and will be posting periodic updates as further information becomes available."
(So the subject 'Dreamhost Shared Hosting Has Been Down for 3 Days' is overstated.
Impossible to believe with the ubiquity that they haven't decreased crime. Or at least certain types of crimes.
Prior to this type of video only a small amount of people had security cameras and generally they were easily spotted.
Today anyone committing (again a certain type of) crime knows that if they drive into a neighborhood or walk around they will be on a camera somewhere and multiple times. That has to have an impact even if there isn't data to prove it.
I understand fully PG thanking him publicly for his effort and the pats on the back (by others here) but let's face it it's a job in the end and he is doing his job.
True. But OP's reply misses the point which is 'causes pain'.
Who is the product when a musician plays at an arena? Great you quoted a saying that came up post internet but that in no way absolves them of any behavior they might do. I can't believe in all seriousness you will compare people humans to either animals or 'products'. Absurd.
> They have a massive pile of money in no small part because they do not build massive service centers staffed with thousands of people who each need health care and computers.
No issue with people making money. And as I said doesn't matter if they make money or not anyway. The fact is you should not have a service free or otherwise that people use that causes as much anxiety and pain.
In part I want to agree with you because I get the same version of random calls but for different reasons. But the truth is the difference between what we (or anyone) is doing and what google is doing is google makes plenty of money that they can use to throw at the problem.
The fact that you give something away at no charge (but actually make money or even if you don't make money) is not a reason you can then walk away and not have any responsibility at all for anything and everything. (Or shouldn't be).
> 3) The solution for Google is really easy though: charge some fee for human support that keeps customer service requests to a manageable level. When it's a genuine issue, people will pay some fee to get an actual trained person to pay attention to and hopefully resolve.
So you have to wonder then what is the reason they don't do this as many probably (including myself) have thought of the same thing. Sure they do have that with business email (google workspace).
> 4) I'm sure people have committed suicide and lost jobs because of the consequences from Google blocking their account without any recourse. This is definitely not an acceptable state of affairs, and I'd suggest avoiding using Google products whenever possible until this reprehensible behavior is changed.
This is most likely true and was also true with certain other products of companies let's even say Microsoft. Imagine the amount of frustration (falling short of suicide I mean) that people have as a result of using product that don't work or offer little or no support.
Also another point (that you didn't make) is the behavior by google then enables all sorts of other companies who would never act that way (and have no reason to) to act the same way (similar again to what happened when the first PC's came out). In many cases the end users became the beta testers for products (and they still are) that are released to early.
I am challenging how someone arrives at that conclusion if they are the judge (which seems implied). Sivers gives nothing at all to indicate - not even anecdotes - as backup for the improvement. His statement is general and broad.
Let's say he was instead describing writing he did for school or for work. So before he applied his technique he was rated or judged a certain way (grades, reviews). Then he started to use the technique he describes. He then gets better grades or reviews. In that case he concludes 'it improved my writing more than anything else' (and I might still ask 'what are the other things you tried that did not work'. But in this case all he says (again) is a very broad and not in any way backed up 'it improved my writing'. And he claims 'advice to anyone who writes' he can't be serious using 'anyone' in that 'polished' sentence other than to get people worked up over a blog post and talking about it (which to be clear is a technique that bloggers use)
> Would you give him permission to describe one practice he adopted while writing without describing every single step he's made in learning how to write since he was a child?
People read what others have written and critique. My guess is that if he read my comment he might think that someone thought a certain thing and wonder and then maybe he would learn and/or make an adjustment. Not the reason I made my comment but there is nothing that indicates he should not be criticized or that others can't learn from the statements that I made whether they agree or not with what I said.
> It's suggesting that you write one sentence per line, polish the individual sentences
Again he is not even indicating when his technique matters. I write every day (for sales) I get very good results (judged by replies and results). In my case I don't have to polish every sentence I write enough and have enough feedback that I find that sometimes you don't even want to care that much because that in itself (in certain situations) telegraphs something.
You don't think starting a post with this is a bit to broad:
"My advice to anyone who writes: Try writing one sentence per line."
Seems very clear to me 'advice to anyone who writes' seriously 'anyone'?
Who is the judge of 'it improved my writing more than anything else'? What was the 'anything else' for that matter.
This is a particular writing style just like Aaron Sorkin has a particular style. Some people like that style to others it's annoying.
https://thescriptlab.com/features/10569-5-secrets-to-aaron-s...
> We sometimes write sentences that don’t need to exist. Hidden in a paragraph, we might not notice. Standing on their own, we notice. Delete any sentence not worthy of its own line.
If you proofread and review what you write why would you not notice?
I just ordered a 911. It's a July build scheduled to be in September (let's hope it actually arrives). I had a Macan S that got held up in port in 2019 for months (once it arrived).
I am curious what was the 'above MSRP' that you paid when you ordered?