roundandround

I think that is what is so hilarious about the situation. The US is forever creating situations where companies want to be first in and fastest scaling at any cost, offering free everything to begin.

If they were a bank they would realize their growth is beyond their competence and bring in boring big bank security experts with some of the huge profits on the even more massive holdings.. But there were no legal profits on holding all these assets because they promised to be something better than a bank, making its money from risking your assets, so that was just done illegally leaving no above the table accounts for legitimate operation costs. (A friend of SBF with an illegal loan will obviously keep your keys safe.)

How could an honest company that takes negligence seriously compete? It is like the opposite of regulations as barrier to entry. How do you sell things for less than the Mafia's laundering operation?

I think that's exactly the criticism. They are good at raising money that will be thrown away because it is acceptable to choose the technically incompetent to run a company and hope technical people they hire will somehow steer them from bellow.

Even if they have good market timing they usually eventually stop listening to anyone competent in the skills the company requires and start jumping techs as quickly as possible to keep their hiring and excuse generating skills as priorities for the CEO.

So at what point did immigration become unacceptable instead of part of our system with natural political consequences? Do we need to take the vote away from Irish Americans and re-examine whether the Know Nothings should have won elections and controlled the shape of America so that it might please the majority of white rural Americans? Of course not the portion that would be dragged behind pickups for seeming too queer or having a possibly black grandfather.. But the majority.

I don't see how it is a criticism of a rainbow coalition that they are able to redirect people away from intolerance even if the only motivator is self interest.

This is in fact why the republic is structured as it is, should we pretend people are inherently good and switch to a simple democracy that can vote for its first genocide next week?

It sounds to me like you've got some kind of self loathing thing going on. Political arguments are mostly about whether illegal immigrants should get at best a gradual path to citizenship which doesn't mean they will be a tool to win the electoral college.

Green teas are really quite safe and pretty low in caffeine, but even black tea with Bergamot is apparently pretty safe until you are drinking 4L a day.

Immigrants can't vote so this logic is bizarre. The people who make the most money off illegal immigrants in the US are rural land owners, meat packing plant owners, etc. They don't want illegal immigration to stop they just want to keep those laborers cheap which wouldn't happen with a reform that makes them comfortable seeking a new employer.

No it's been trivial to make cracked unsigned binaries via disassembly for a long time. Only a 1 bit change is often needed to disable something important. It's unclear that anyone making malicious binaries with their keys will bother to setup a proper compilation environment.

With similar systems that intentionally support open source one can just switch to trusting some hobbyists keys instead of the compromised vendor. There's very little incentive for vendors to set that up correctly though.

I wouldn't consider that distortion. Its a significant problem that firearms are highly successful suicide on the first impulse. Children who try another means are much more likely to have a chance to contemplate if they really want to kill themselves.

I think no tech support is the only real defense against SIM swap.. Then you need other redundancies that are equally impervious to social attack to be able to withstand a lock out from one of them. Actual security is a real pain, pretending you have it while having a tech support that can bypass it isn't nearly as painful and gives the same sense of security until it is tested.

Yeah, from the article I get the sense that he is often agreeing to add his name to papers for network affect, perhaps even as the main author.. So his own criteria for what he writes may be factual, but seems a bit off topic for what a reader should expect on seeing his name.

I don't miss restrictions when writing code, I miss them when reviewing code.

I hope Andrew Ng was correct that a great many methods end up largely equivalent given the same amount of input because the current methods deliver a rather useless result.

With a google search you are getting citations and stuck finding the truly good ones that truly match, with chatgpt you are getting an answer from someone who read all those citations and treats them all as equally good.

I think the real problem was to get the most perfect citations given your specific question. We can forgive the error since it took the web a few years to discover that best is rarely a fresh bit of blog spam by a moron who has read everything and refuses to cite sources. So GPT is convincingly as good as a human blogger yet not as useful as a less human emulating tool.

The people this manager leads will also not be coders. Governments make virtually no software and any of that would be in a group that is still not connected to the group overseeing overall security.

If he has a windows machine he is familiar with what it does on Tuesdays.. From there its learning about CVEs, etc..

These kinds of arguments seem very similar to the Israelis arguments with their occupation of Palestine.. The numbers on one side are 10-100 times higher than the other, with one group having losses so high it is mere statistics while every loss by the other is mourned individually.

As for religious artifacts, I find the whole concept of institutional Christianity a mockery of the Jesus from the bible. It is hard to imagine Jesus in a world where Rome remade it's coins with his picture accepting his new role and mocking the downtrodden while crying if they take revenge on the boots of the establishment.

I don't know if that's it. The old joke was if you get caught its time to expand your business since it will need to support a legal team for decades.

I think the Oxycontin/Purdue scam is pretty typical of how corruptions that were once targeted by the government to intentionally victimize minorities in ways not large enough to wash away other gains in overall life expectancy have spread to a difficulty in limiting industries victimizing larger more diverse groups in ways that undermine the stats the US was protecting.

That just seems to feed the point to me. Google was competing with organizations particularly created for a new tech market that didn't exist before them. NYC library was maybe the largest player available to consumers? (Before the emergent search tech like alta vista and yahoo that Google disrupted.)

Stripe is a payment processor with the most disruptive automation, competing with other payment processors older than the web. Every industry will be shrinking in people per net work, few industries are new things (at least for the public) enabled by automation.

If we want to call all disruptors tech companies, why not also call the old companies that transform to compete with them tech companies too? Then every industry is tech. But really it is the opposite, tech as it ages becomes regular business that is more dependent on trademarks, relationships, etc, so some things we consider tech from recent decades are less so now and companies that stay primarily in them are more like old industry than tech companies that compete for the newly emerging fields.

I would interpret the Apache Licenses terms on breaking the license to apply to patents and there it is pretty clear that the party who starts litigation loses their own license. I don't think any open source license writer would intentionally want the situation where a middle-man causes a license to never be valid, and in this case it makes no sense as attribution is meant to be optional information.

>New< jobless claims

> One potential red flag: The number of raw or actual claims — before seasonal adjustments — was much higher last week compared to the same week a year earlier. But so far there’s little sign of a trend.

Even if the market consisted only of companies that were consistently laying off 10% of remaining employees a month the number of new claims would be decreasing.

> I wonder why this effect was not discovered when screens were first invented and entered the home back in the early 20th century

I wonder why I was required to sit 1.5 meters away from the screen a generation after TV entered the home. Do modern kids sit this far away from tablets?

Sure most people who use brokers are actually interested in wider arrays of risk and we can't really find anyway to lower the corrupt advisor incentive as that tends to go straight into a complexity trade off.

I don't think there's still good reasons to use banks for savings now that anyone could buy whatever assets they like with a very similar broker account.. I think anyone accepting lower than government bond rates is basically in a corrupt financial advisor situation where the government is providing everything and someone other than the saver is siphoning money out in the good years.

Industries once formed tend to lobby to prevent things that would remove their negative role. I.e. the ability to independently buy savings bonds has not really been kept up with the baseline utility of any other financial account.

Normally banks had much more of a role in lending, etc, which is a bit more complicated than letting them leach between people and well defined bonds so I wouldn't say they can't have a function only that I would like them removed from this one.

She did what she was ordered to do which is not something she could claim she was going to do as the powers of her office are not wildly out of control.

I think bonds themselves when bought through a normal broker's normal account are usually true investments in your name that can't be "pledged and re-pledged"..

I generally accept the argument that people are having trouble running the gauntlet to true government backed low risk investment and that is basically by design (well inherent capitalist evolution).. Anyone who fails to get there or gets talked out of that position by an army of telemarketers in turn fuels those telemarketers getting more people to take inherently worse risk/benefit options that pay for sign ups.

Of course to show them to you we would have to shut them off.

Seems like fair warning to me. If you have a few million in a bank you may lose it. That's the law.

Pretending you are going to break the law by issuing fire insurance on houses that are on fire and then not doing it wouldn't really be more ethical would it?

Defamation that questions someone's ability to do their profession is in a special class. You don't want to be the slightest bit wrong about anything in that, i.e. were they misquoted or overheard instead of talking directly to a reporter? Might some employer somewhere who would hire them view any such distinction as different?

Similarly, they leaked data but didn't or he lied and they were entering the phone market? Details wrong could be a long civil case, all the details right could still be a long case.. The only reason to engage in that kind of behavior is to sabotage yourself.

The Treasury is selling bonds for the US' interests and should provide adequate accounts to manage your funds within the context of US savings bonds and transfers. People who put a million in bonds through an opaque account at an intermediary are then still at their own risk.

Why subsidize and encourage middlemen? It's like building the scam opportunity for privatized social security insurance management, as if honesty will be the most profitable choice in managing that.. It's inappropriate for the government to design systems that reward scamming in the middle.

I think depositors who are happy with low interest should be able to use accounts directly from the treasury to work with US bonds.. I don't want to bail out companies that try to eek out small profits in the middle and help them drive the average consumers interest to well bellow the bond rates.

I don't actually agree. SQL did replace the need for programmers, especially for complex questions. We sabotaged its interfaces to existing GUIs for mundane questions and made CRUD a limitless profession.

The funny/sad part about computer science is that people don't want to understand the costs of customization and sales/management/marketing forever want it as a differentiator.

SQL could have eliminated us from the flow of many niches as easily as the spreadsheet did from business operations. I think why it didn't has more to do with market timing.