Why think the man who does not exist exists? why not assume pando made him up, and made the whole story up? The story isn't so implausible that people would doubt it. If anything,the story is toogood - count the number of times the man comes across as a bad guy. Randian of the worst kind? tick. Used to work in wall street? tick. In HFT? tick. Why did he grant an interview if he was trying to keep his business secret? I don't know if the story is made up, but its ringing bells in my head...
I'm cautious about your Latvia story - its sounds to me like the bike was worried about fraud. Thats pretty common - about half the times I go to the US, I have to ring up the bank and get the card unblocked.
That being said, there are countries attempting to control the flow of money. Argentina wants to enforce its price for the dollar. Cyprus wants to prevent everyone taking their money and running. and so on. However, most of these countries see attempts to circumvent their controls as illegal. I feel its unwise to get my hopes up about bitcoin for this sort of transaction for that reason.
To me, this comment is the essence of hacker news. Guy goes around the world. Guy visits tons of dangerous places and miles of border paperwork. One presumes he did a ton of research. And yet, there's a guy on the internet saying "oh, here's this thing you missed".
I'm not trying to "correct" him, just want to make sure aspirational HN travellers take advantage of a tiny piece of information he may have missed. Of course, if you'd rather read too much into a trivial comment on a trivial article, knock yourself out. That's also par for the course.
drive by comment: I don't know what you mean to imply by Oakland (!?!?), but... I took the amtrak south from Oakland, and I was shocked by the level of poverty thats visible from the train.
the problem is that living near the rail line* has been traditionally one of the least desirable places to live. I'm not hand-waving away the poverty or even it's ratios but you will see lots of poverty around a rail line.
*there's a long, long history here going way, way back in the US. Living near a light rail or a commuter station is completely different than living near a freight rail/mixed use rail
Hah. I recall antispam companies doing the same thing - once they got big enough, they demanded money from major mail exchanges. I'm sure companies paid out rather than risk long legal cases and poor PR.
"The .doc file format was also obfuscated,... it was effectively a dump of the in-memory data structures .... It's hard to imagine a corporation as large and [usually] competently-managed as Microsoft making such a mistake by accident "
They didn't use a binary on-disk format by accident, nor was it a mistake. The folks who wrote word knew that what users would want to open and save files as fast as possible, on hardware thats weak and tiny by today's standards. Going for a format that resulted in the smallest possible files and the fastest possible reads and writes makes sense in those conditions.
Indeed, disk transfer speed mattered a great deal in the early days. People used to save all their data to floppy disks, and use their hard disks only to load programs.
Say you had a large document of 600 KB size. Floppy drives wrote at 45 KB/second. Imagine waiting 13 seconds for your file to save out. You might save less often -- which means that you ran a correspondingly higher risk of losing data.
The .DOC file is a binary format so that it could contain document "sections," with pointers between the sections. This is what made "Fast Save" possible. If you only made a small change to an enormous document, Word would simply append the changes, and then change the pointers in the rest of the document.
Instead of waiting 13 seconds, you'd get the save in under a second.
I agree with your post generally, but has Snowden said anything about CAs? I did expect to hear that at least one has signed anything the NSA put in front of them, but I don't recall Snowden providing "proof"* of this.
* I'm in no position to verify anything Snowden leaks.
The main thing is that CAs are centralized proxies for trust combined with the revelations that confirm that the NSA directly targets such central entities. There was a lot of general uneasiness about the reliance on CAs before the Snowden revelations, and I think the fact that NSA documents show that it leans on such central entities confirms the wisdom of that unease.
I don't know about the NSA, but I've personally negotiated a deal with a CA to add whatever domains we wanted to a certificate without validation. They just "trusted us."
I'm a employee of a large tech company that's being parodied here, and I found this really disconcerting. The scenes with the boss and HR are completely different to my experience. No one cares what I do at the weekend. No one cares about my social media presence. No one cares if I use the company's products or not.
A few clear examples: one of my grandparents passed away, and the company was as supportive as possible. I asked if I could work from my parents house to be with my grandmother, and I got back "You can work from another country for an open ended period. If you aren't getting anything done, let me know, and we'll call it compassionate leave". There are people who go out socializing, but I've never felt pressured to go along. There are people who work long hours or the weekend, but again, I've never felt pressured to do that either.
Edit: When the company was newer, the employees worked very long hours and weekends. They worked, mind you. Everyone I know from that era is remarkably well off. The vast majority of the early employees have retired to spend more time with their wealth. I'm much more concerned, as a person, about either the big companies that do massive crunches (see ea spouse) or the startups that fails despite everyone working really hard, the employees don't get the 100 million dollar payday.
Exaggerating reveals the point. That is the satirical technique in action. And this is about poking fun at a) the enthusiastic self regard that many tech companies have for their "culture" and b) the notion of the unlimited benefits of self-surveillance, which is a value social networking has explicitly and implicitly promoted.
Shrug. The article is mostly a tale of two, uh, causes of excitement. It doesn't make a sweeping claim about getting rid of anything.
"continually reduced its nuclear stockpile, or that we've been at the forefront of promoting non-proliferation."
I'm amused. Its easy to promote other people not having weapons :). Its worth noting that the US is still the world's largest nuclear power. The RRW program would have featured replacing every existing weapon, probably the US resuming tests, and it was pretty expenvise - are you really surprised it got cancelled?
To make things crystal clear here: the US has vastly reduced its deployed nuclear warheads and stockpiles over time. The US currently has less than 1/10th as many warheads deployed as during the peak of the Cold War, and that number is continuing to drop.
Also note that in fact Russia has more deployed warheads than the US currently.
Why think the man who does not exist exists? why not assume pando made him up, and made the whole story up? The story isn't so implausible that people would doubt it. If anything,the story is toogood - count the number of times the man comes across as a bad guy. Randian of the worst kind? tick. Used to work in wall street? tick. In HFT? tick. Why did he grant an interview if he was trying to keep his business secret? I don't know if the story is made up, but its ringing bells in my head...