dbags

I've been given the wrong streets during browsing. Hosts give out an address a block or three away so their landlord is less likely to find it.

I believe it was mostly landlord dodging, but the fake address was also a better location.

Good. I know that Chesky is trying to pretend that this is about people who occasionally share their homes, but that's bullshit. There are a lot of people who are stuck living next to illegal, untaxed hotels because one of their neighbors AirBNBs their place full time.

I know that a lot of people on this site think that if you add the words 'on the internet' you should be exempt from all regulation and taxation, but that's just not how the world works.

I hope that the people who've been profiting from the lack of enforcement are forced to play on a level playing field.

Disclaimer: my experience with NYC AirBNBs have been incredibly negative, including people listing with fake names, revealing that they'd given fake addresses at the last minute (when it was already too late to change plans), showing deceptive photos, and giving false descriptions.

More importantly, the number is utterly and completely meaningless without the rest of the term sheet.

To be extreme, think of the difference between this investment as all common stock, versus this investment as participating preferred with 3x liquidation preferences.

I've seen companies trade liquidation preferences for higher valuations before, because they wanted to pretend a down round wasn't, or because they wanted to feign a greater level of success than had been earned. It wouldn't be unprecedented, particularly from a marketing-savvy company like Mongo that knows a 3 comma valuation would help close deals.

Here's the other criminal complaint against him: https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238...

It's shorter, and it has details on a second murder-for-hire plot.

Not talking about fraud? Hacking tools, identity theft tools, and false id kids were also sold on SR. This was definitely a marketplace for fraud.

But hey, no need for honesty to enter the debate. Not when it undermines betterunix's precious libertarian religion.

The libertarian religion is so strong that the Libertarians on this site are, predictably, not just defending SR. They're lying about what was on it, defending the hiring of hitmen, and generally making clear that Libertarianism is solely about self-interest and has ZERO underlying ethical frameworks.

You can add ten fingers, or you can give them your code, or they can dial 911 with a fully locked phone. So no, it's slightly easier for a relative to use in an emergency than a typical locked phone.

My main issue with Dropbox is that they aren't trustworthy.

How Dropbox lost my trust:

1) they flat-out lied in their promotional materials. They falsely claimed that data was kept encrypted and that they couldn't access it. They stopped claiming this only after a third-party revealed that it was a lie.

2) The CTO's reactions to major security flaws made crystal clear that he does not view loss exposures as a problem unless you suffer a loss.

3) The CTO's reactions to major security flaws made crystal clear that Dropbox prefers sweeping problems under the rug to transparency.

This has created a situation where a reasonable person can't ever really trust Dropbox.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/dropbox-ftc/ -- nice summary of Dropbox's flagrant lies about encrypted data.