scolson

I think the idea is any s3 compatible api endpoint can be used. The code also clearly supports both backblaze, and more importantly, local blob storage

Buyback programs are at the then-current publicly traded rates. They aren't generally at some magical premium, or else the whole trading price of the stock would go up even more.

Most people selling their shares in a company do not know who is on the buying side, and that is generally the case here. This goes for retail and institutional investors. And the buy-back programs are done slowly to avoid slippage, which can make it even harder to track down in the moment.

Someone who wanted to sell was selling anyway. They don't profit any more than their gains (or losses) already covered. The people who get "value" are the ones who did NOT sell their shares, and their "value" is only realized down the road when they do eventually sell.

A stock buy-back increases the stock's value through scarcity. It does not actually "return cash" in any immediate sense. Any value increase is completely on paper. The holder of the stock is still taxed when they sell their shares.

This is the same concept as you owning a home and someone builds a nicer home next to you. Your home value just went up. But you don't have a cent of that money until you sell your home, and then you are taxed on the gains (unless you roll it into another home, but that's a separate discussion).

There seems to be an "expenses" column missing from this. I don't care what their gross is. What's their net?

Edit: And carryover losses, etc

The Chicxulub crater off the top of the Yucatan peninsula is attributed for that particular event. It wasn't really known until the early/mid 90s I don't think.

coughlinuxcough

Worth pointing out that postwoman is free and opensource. It is not quite as full-featured as postman, but for quick mocking without requiring registration, it is a great option. https://postwoman.io/

https://github.com/liyasthomas/postwoman

There have been instances where the power spot price has gone negative, too. They have not had major outages. I don't see why they would reconsider.

The Texas power grid is isolated and cannot routinely import power. It can in very temporary and emergency situations, but they do not as a matter of course to avoid federal oversight.

So while the US Western grid can time shift one hour in the way you describe, Texas is isolated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Interconnection

https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/08/texplainer-why-does-...

FWIW, I think the concern with "doesn't bother updating the passwords" was with respect to recovering from a hacked joomla install, not about an aging password management scheme.

Nice try, CPS

I feel like this point should be much higher than it is, and should be highlighted more clearly in the article. And the article doesn't even make it clear if this is a 5/1 or a 5/5, but it also absolutely leaves out the point that the rate won't just change after the initial 5 year period.

Non-conforming and no-doc loans weren't the only problem in the 2007s. ARMs were a big issue too because everyone thought they could refi before the initial period was up and that ended up not being true.

One of these things is not like the other...

Personally, I would not sell access to my data.

Re friends opting out, no, you would just need the system to exclude individuals who have the opt-out attribute from the graph search. But I do also have timeline review turned on and have for years.

I get that I am probably a minority user of Facebook, in that I have very customized security and privacy settings. To me, there has always been value in choosing with whom to share certain information. It isn't a global binary function.

To the best of my understanding, you can opt out of personalized ads with google, but not all ads. At least for the search product.

For email, one can pay for their google apps tier, which doesn't have ads, but it is obviously targeted to business users, so the value prop is completely different anyway.

I get many/most prefer to be the product than the customer. I, however, would love the option to switch.

So wait... In the US, my "value" to facebook is about $100 a year? (~24/q rounded up)

Can I subscribe to facebook and opt out of all advertising and any data sharing exposure with third-parties? That is totally worth $8-10/mo to me.

Edit: I get it. You don't like this idea, or you don't think it will work, or you don't think facebook's investors will like it (full disclosure: I am one). Why on earth should that stop me from putting my obviously flawed opinion out there that I am sick of being the product and I'd love to opt out of that process?

Wow, I haven't seen this repost since like 2009

Step 1: Do everything until you can't.

Step 2: Pick the one thing you do the worst. Hire one person (probably a part-time contractor) to do that.

Step 3: Do everything else until you can't.

Step 4: Goto "Step 2"

... Said the COBOL developers.

To some degree, you may be correct, that there will be companies that refuse to upgrade for many years. By and large, I think most people will start to switch:

* Small orgs will begin to see costs of maintaining legacy code skyrocket as it becomes harder and harder to get 2.7 interpreter support for newer kernels. Those that aren't already transitioning now will eventually bite the bullet.

* Medium orgs will probably be the laggards. They have enough funds to pay someone else to make compatible interpreters for them. Your observation about manager authorization very likely applies here so many probably won't bother to upgrade without an internal skunkworks-style initiative.

* Large orgs will upgrade. Their infosec departments will freak out that an old, "potentially insecure" language is being used, regardless of third party vendor support. I see this a fair bit now in the PHP space; where RHEL supports and backports patches for old, insecure versions of PHP, but the infosec people still can't stand it. These days, infosec is getting more and more pull in every huge organization, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them start to treat 2.7—or the old, un-updated packages that are locking someone to 2.7—as a possible attack vector and force a change.

All that said, you are right about jobs. If someone knows 2.7 inside and out, they will start to see higher and higher paying contract gigs over the next 15-20 years. Just like the COBOL programmers saw.

Your employer owns the data, not you. The owner of something doesn't need special permission to look at it. It could be a company provided computer, email, or filing cabinet; they all belong to your work and they do not need to ask anyone to get in and look at the contents.

Even something that has a reasonable expectation of only containing personal belongings (eg. a locker) may or may not be protected from employer search as each state in the US has slightly different rules.

For work related tools, the rules are almost entirely stacked towards having no right to privacy whether a company policy exists or not.

I didn't think my state was that unique, so I did a bit of searching and found some interesting gotchas in a few different states:

Alabama: Must file in municipality where the other party (defendant) resides

Alaska: Easy to move to regular court

Arizona: Easy to move to regular court

Delaware: Cannot be used for punitive damages (basically this)

Indiana: Easy to move to regular court (If I am reading it right)

Michigan: Easy to move to regular court

New York: Must file in municipality where the other party (defendant) resides

Oregon: Basically must file in municipality where the other party (defendant) resides. Easy to move to regular court

It really isn't genius at all. At least in my state, either party can object to the small claims status by simply sending a letter. Then it moves over to normal court with normal lawyers. Already you are out the small claims filing fee (yes, you have to pay the court to even bring a small claims case).

Once in normal court, you would need to hire a lawyer, and they would just find some local representation. At this point, you would probably withdraw the case because it isn't worth that investment.

But suppose you kept going. Their local council is going to proxy their attempts to change venue to where they are located. Unless you had a really compelling argument, they would probably win the change of venue. Now you need to find another lawyer somewhere else, and it is probably an expensive locale like New York or LA where they have a firm on retainer. Still want to push the case? Me neither.

By all means, try the small claims route. But don't think for one second that it is a slam dunk.

First, that is CBP scooping up data at the border, not the CIA. If the CIA were targeting you, you would not know.

Second, CBP asks for your password. This is not the same as an administrator password, and certainly in the case of some business travelers, they may not know the admin creds.

"...is run by the field agent directly from an USB stick; it requires administrator privileges..."

So?

This just in - people with physical and administrative access to a machine can install monitoring software - news at 11. Be sure to tell every MSP or Enterprise IT group to tune in.

Not the commenter, but guessing AFS = andrew file system.

This has been used for decades by a lot of the universities who were original internet consumers (MIT, Univ of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon, etc). In fact, it is still used by a lot of these universities and research institutions for data sharing and distributed computing, afaik.

It is timing out for me already, so here is the google cache text-only version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PL_BKoM...

How long until I get screwed on my old lifetime custom zone

Depends on who is asking, what they ask, and for what reason. Though it is generally avoided.

If it is a simple reference check (never minding why a terminating company would be listed as a ref...) then as little information as possible would be given; possibly as small as "so and so no longer works here and that is the limit of what we can disclose with them" in order to avoid a bad reference lawsuit.

If it is an employment verification firm, depending on how rigorous the verification, it may come up by direct questioning and this should be expected by all parties.

Some companies do have strict policies about not disclosing some/all details. I am aware of a few firms, that wether good or bad, have policies against providing any reference, similarly, to avoid any potential lawsuit.

Now, when it comes to unemployment, if an ex-employee files a claim, the gloves will very likely come off. If the company can avoid a claim being made against their account, that is the difference of a lot of money on a recurring basis. So in this sense, reason very much matters.

No, not confusing it. Your original message was WRT paper trail, which is not required in all cases.

To your message here, fired means something very specific. Though fired can be for cause or no cause. And the reason of cause matters for unemployment.

Laid off means something else.

So really, there are four categories from an unemployment standpoint:

1. Fired - policy violation

2. Fired - "incompetent" (note: in the eyes of the employer)

3. Fired - no cause

4. Laid off

Both 1 and 2 are bad for new job prospects. 3 is hit and miss from a job prospect perspective, but still generally negative. 4 has no impact.

For unemployment in my state, 2, 3, and 4 will all let you collect (and bills back to the company who terminated the working relationship) where #1 makes you unemployment ineligible.

Circling back to your original message about paper trail, #1 is the only one that companies essentially always keep (or should keep) the paper trail for in my state, because it is the only one that is needed to to defend the company in an unemployment hearing if it ever gets there. For the other categories, there may or may not be a paper trail, and it certainly isn't required.