blakdawg

https://www.macincloud.com/ might be of interest.

Do you have a non-paywalled link?

If “fold[ing] up shop” includes filing bankruptcy and losing all of your non-retirement assets, and you’re cool with that, then you’re basically good.

An LLC won’t protect you from claims that you personally screwed up; or that you treated the LLC like an alter ego (rather than as a separate entity) and thus piercing the veil is appropriate.

If you want to consider a very very unlikely but not impossible scenario, look at the Hulk Hogan/Peter Thiel vs. Gawker litigation and its aftermath.

If you need protection from litigation threats, you need insurance; structures like LLC’s don’t win/settle lawsuits, they make it tougher for plaintiffs to collect after they win a judgement.

I wouldn’t be shocked if lower-revenue customers turn out to be a disproportionate demand on support/customer service. Not every potential customer is a good fit from a vendors perspective.

My impression is that they’ve got the free plan for people with minimal usage or who just want to kick the tires - beyond that, if their service isn’t worth $100/yr to you, they don’t want to think about you or support you.

SSLeay, which was forked and became OpenSSL, was developed by Tim Hudson (AU) and Eric Young (NZ).

Also, he's not precisely (primarily?) an open source developer, but Julian Assange is Australian.

Is there a reason that a consumer would prefer an application-specific currency (intimate, DentaCoin, whatever) rather than a generic currency (BTC, BCH, ETH, LTC, whatever)?

From my point of view, it seems like an unnecessary friction to be moving value between different currencies depending on what I want to buy - and the fact that I'm buying the currency at all may reveal more than I want it to.

(* I understand why it's attractive to be in on the beginning of a new digital currency, and collect the proceeds of an ICO, or hold a lot of cheap or pre-mined coins; I'm specifically interested in why it's good for a consumer, not the promoters.)

What if you didn’t wait until you’re unemployed to start thinking about the next opportunity?

What about contributing to a community, with open source code or a tutorial or a conference presentation?

... says the article written by a guy who sells stocks and bonds for a living.

I wonder if he lives in a rental.

What's more important, air or water?

Excel.

The headline isn’t a very good summary of the article, or the basic idea expressed therein. The author proposes the use of a tontine, an investment trust arrangement dating back to the 1600’s. A tontine, correctly administered, won’t go bankrupt. A tontine can be implemented using a blockchain.

That’s as far as the article goes is showing how blockchains can prevent pension failures.

Do you have a non-paywalled link?

Futures contract is bought or sold to hedge against risks for the underlying asset. Ex: Buying corn futures to hedge against corn price fluctuations. In case of bitcoin though, there is no underlying asset, right?

The underlying asset is 1 or 5 bitcoins, depending on the exchange where the future is traded. (CBOE and CME, respectively.)

A traditional futures contract obligates the parties to carry out the exchange/transfer at the agreed upon price - this is distinct from an option, which gives one party the right to transact at a given price, and the counterparty the obligation to transact at that price, if the first party elects to exercise their option.

There's a lot of detail on the CBOE BTC futures available at http://cfe.cboe.com/cfe-products/xbt-cboe-bitcoin-futures/co...

Since the CBOE BTC futures are apparently settled in cash, that means that holders of the futures won't get an actual BTC, they'll get USD equivalent to the settlement price. So someone who paid $17,000 for a BTC future whose value on the settlement date was $11,000 would receive a deposit of $11,000 USD. And if someone paid $11,000 for a BTC future contract, and BTC was worth $17,000 when the settlement amount was determined, that person would get a deposit in the amount of $17,000.

I don't know how CBOE is handling this internally - but it's possible (likely?) that the people who are actually selling the futures (e.g., agreeing to deliver a USD amount equivalent to the value of 1 BTC on a date in the future) are purchasing BTC on the open market at the time the future is sold; and they're selling the BTC on the open market on the settlement date (perhaps a little before or after) so they will have the cash to meet their obligation to deliver USD equivalent to the settlement price.

So my hunch is that it means that there's a little extra selling happening on settlement days - but it looks like the volume of contracts (1,907 on January 9, per the article) is small enough that it shouldn't be moving the market a lot. That's roughly 21 million USD compared to a daily average trade volume of about 9 billion USD.

I think the title is a little aggressive - it presupposes that an ICO buyer received a "tip" with inside information. While that's not an unreasonable thing to consider with respect to an angel (or larger) investor who has substantial contact with the company/people behind the ICO, arbitrary retail-level speculators who are just throwing money at anything using the word "blockchain" or "ICO" aren't likely to be punished by the SEC for having too much information.

Instead, they'll be punished by the market for being idiots. But that's a different sort of thing.

Not.

This seems like unintelligible gibberish:

The issue starts from the 13 DNS root zone servers, which servers from many public/private internal connected networks connects to these 13 DNS root zone named authorities. The following link shows all corporations that exists at Securities Exchanges Commission, which doesn’t include there are 45508 companies listed in stock exchanges around the world (List of Companies at SEC)(2017). According to reports, The latest article that researchers found named “Neira Jones” reported the U.S Largest Databreach on Paper.li site that reports large to midsized databreaches (Hackbusters Reports Largest Databreach in History)(2017). Root Servers. The authoritative name servers that serve the DNS root zone, commonly known as the “root servers”, are a network of hundreds of servers in many countries around the world, which permissions were replicated on internal servers exposing massive amounts of sensitive forbidden documents. They are configured in the DNS root zone as 13 named authorities, as follows.(INTERNET ROOT SERVERS)(2017). These are listed companies. The number of formal unlisted companies would be a wild guess as there is no central quantified effort to build an international registry. So taking a different approach, in countries like USA, there is one company for every 11 people. In some others, there are 0. A rough extrapolation based on economic freedom and worldwide business numbers from UN reports would mean that there is a company for every 60 people on the planet. That brings us to ~115 Million companies.

If you are connected to the author/publisher, you might encourage them to rewrite it and/or enlist a good editor.

That's not nearly as much fun as reimplementing the functionality yourself.

This is basically true, but a little overstated.

In particular, it's helpful to make a distinction between brute-forcing a cipher, and brute-forcing a particular file. If I GPG-encrypt my plaintext with a weak RSA key, or a weak passphrase with conventional encryption, that particular ciphertext may be revealed through a brute force attack; the attack wasn't on the cipher, it was on my key.

Also, the fact that it's impossible/infeasible to exhaustively search the keyspace doesn't mean that the key won't be found - 50% of the time it'll be found in the first half of the keyspace that's searched (assuming a linear search), 1% of the time it'll be found in the first 1% of the keyspace that's searched, and so forth. Success via brute force isn't at all likely, but it's not impossible, even though an exhaustive search is practically impossible.

How is this different from traditional appearance services? The only difference I can see from a quick look is the use of an iOS/Android app.

I'm not sure about the provenance of the statements apparently attributed to Musk.

However - assuming he said that stuff - I don't think it's particularly interesting or shocking that he wasn't hired at Netscape, especially if Netscape was at a point in the evolution of their company that they were hiring based on resumes/degrees/buzzwords, versus productivity or personal relationships or whatever.

SpaceX and Tesla probably ignored some resumes this week from people who will go on to found amazing companies. And from people who will never do anything interesting.

The fact that Musk turns out to be a good entrepreneur doesn't mean he's the right fit for any job. Would I hire him if I needed someone to run a startup, or scale up a startup? Yes, he's proven he's good at that. Would I hire him to clean my house or mow my lawn? No, I'm pretty sure he'd get bored/frustrated and leave to find a more interesting project. Would I hire him to work in a bakery, or as a glassblower, or a bus driver? I don't know, he might or might not be a good fit for those jobs.

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks

I knew a guy who made a shitload of money with a software program he wrote for carpet stores/installers to optimize cutting different carpet pieces to minimize waste.

It sounds simple and boring, but if you can save people a lot of money, they don't mind sharing it with you.

No, Parsons is at least a 2-trick pony; from Wikipedia:

"In 1984, he founded Parsons Technology in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and began selling MoneyCounts, a home accounting program. In late 1987, Parsons was able to quit his job and focus completely on selling and overseeing growth of MoneyCounts. Eventually, Parsons Technology grew to be a 1,000-employee, privately held company. On September 27, 1994, Parsons completed the sale of Parsons Technology to Intuit, Inc. for $64 million."

Lol. "Reddit sucks because they banned us. So we're making a better site where we decide who gets banned, not those other guys."

They aren't intended to reduce homelessness, they are intended to cause homeless people to go somewhere else.

There are a lot of jobs that are valued less than project/program manager.

That is unrelated to whether or not it's a good match for you.

You can be valued by your colleagues - or hated - in any job.

Yes, everyone brings their own personal interpretation

It is fascinating (and illustrative) that you are apparently unable to even imagine something that isn't moral relativism.

You are missing the point. What if everyone doesn't bring their own personal interpretation?

These ideas are very, very old - Adam Smith and John Locke were writing about the difference between an item's "use value" (how useful it is) and its "exchange value" (what you can trade for it) in the 1700's, and Karl Marx spent a lot of time on this in his book Capital, first published in 1867.

I guess it's worth restating this stuff (because obviously everyone didn't get the memo) but it's misleading to present these insights as if they were new. It may be that the ideas have never occurred to some people before - but while it's nice to think up smart things all by yourself, it's even nicer to begin with an education about what's already been figured out, so one can work on new problems instead of centuries' old problems.

I can't tell if your failure to distinguish between actual questions and rhetorical questions is deliberate or not.

But - at the risk of taking a troll's bait - perhaps we can just assume that the author of the linked blog isn't actually expecting anyone to respond to his questions literally. Instead, he's obliquely asserting that the questions he poses haven't been, and can't be, answered reasonably by people who subscribe to a "social justice" worldview. He's saying that people with that worldview are illogical or hypocritical or unreasonable, because questions like those he's raising deserve (and aren't getting) satisfactory answers.

Ultimately, the point that he's belaboring is that the "social justice" movement as he understands it doesn't rest on any fixed values, but that what's just depends on the perspective of individuals, e.g., is essentially applied moral relativism. And he's doesn't believe moral relativism is an appropriate foundation for organizing human life.

So the challenge is to either disagree, and identify fixed moral positions/values that support "social justice"; or to agree that social justice is moral relativism, but that's OK because moral relativism is OK.

Or one can say "I reject that characterization/argument" - but the danger is that others may perceive the rejection as motivated by fear or an admission of failure, especially if you don't present an alternative characterization that seems at least as reasonable.

Often, the purpose of an argument isn't to influence the other participant, but to influence others who may observe the exchange. Even if the author is "sea lioning" (aka concern trolling), if he does it effectively enough, third parties who can't tell the difference may find it convincing, and claims that "the answer is obvious" or "you should already know the answer" are unpersuasive.

If your quibble is with the idea of a "protected group", his language is very close to that of a well-established term, "protected class" that's familiar to anyone working on the legal side of anti-discrimination.

The idea itself certainly isn't one he made up - the idea that it's possible to sort people into different groups based on physical or conceptual criteria is probably older than language. It's also one that "marginalized people" or "historically oppressed groups" (or whatever label you prefer) also struggle with.

I don't know if there's a generally accepted definition of "social justice", but one of the core concepts seems to be concerned with identifying and correcting privileges and oppressions (e.g., injustices) which are enjoyed or visited upon people based on their (perceived) membership in social groups.

There's nothing unreasonable about asking for clarity about which groups fall into the "oppressor" and "oppressed" categories; and about how group membership is determined. Even within "social justice" movements, there are complicated questions about that - e.g., trans people, Rachel Dolezal, etc.