HN user

matuszeg

141 karma
Posts0
Comments44
View on HN
No posts found.

But then why is the number higher for 2adult1child (1 working) when compared to 2adult1child(both working). wouldn't child raising costs get added back in once both are working?

I have received equity as an employee. When I started, the company was very early and their evaluation was still very low. The way it worked was that I had to pay for the equity grant upfront. I forget exactly how much but it was<$200. This is also how it worked for me as a founder of a company.

That same company eventually raised a sizeable equity round and then began issuing options for new employees. If they were to continue issuing equity grants, the cost to purchase the grant would be much more than $200 (likely tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars). Alternatively, if the company were to give employees equity grants directly instead of having to buy them then that would count as income and the employees would owe taxes on the equity gained. The tax bill could also easily be tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Options avoid all of that and defer the upfront costs that come with an equity grant.

Imo, the real problem is that options can be clawed back once you no longer work for the company.

I lived in Boston a couple years before Uber was a thing and if I was out at night and needed a ride back to Southie (where I lived), it would take me four or five taxis at least to get one to agree to go there.

Uber eliminated that problem. It would be terrible to go back to that system where drivers can just refuse you based on where you are going or what you look like.

The utility I get from Joe Rogan interviewing experts is that he asks a lot of clarifying questions to help bring the material back down to a more understandable level. I love Carmack's talks because I am in the same field and can usually follow him, but I cannot imagine a layman being able to keep up.

I agree one event does not summarize an individual. But if you can choose what is remembered and what is not you can pick and choose the data others use to determine who you are. If someone goes on a racist tirade on Facebook, yea that does not automatically make them a racist, but its a very good data point that people who meet that person should be able to reference. I believe the sentiment of the Right to be Forgotten is so the racist who changes their mind can move on from their past. But I feel this will be abused more than used correctly. Con artists will wildly abuse the Right to be Forgotten.

I usually make throwaways for the same reason.

I think there is some merit to the idea of Right to be Forgotten[1] but at the same time, I feel like that would just help evil people hide their true nature. The other half of me wants to just have the NSA dump everything one day and let everyone know what everyone else has really been saying for the last 15 years. The first couple days would be tough for everyone to acclimate knowing who everyone really is. But in theory that is a net good. Deception is rarely for good.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

Your statement on trust cannot be restated enough.

My additional concern is that, I do not use Facebook. I deleted my account like 10 years. Yet they still retain data on me, not only without my consent. They have the opposite of my consent. I explicitly told them to delete everything they had on me and I am opting out of their service.

Yet articles like this pop up time and time again[1]. There is talks about them scanning every picture on facebook for faces and building profiles of everyone, including non-users.

How am I, a person who has no Facebook and does not want anything to do with them supposed to stop them from monitoring and tracking me.

Imagine if in high school you found out some guy in your class was keeping records of the structure of your face, or the websites you visit and you confront them to stop and all they say is other students have allowed me to do this so I keep everyone's records to make it easier for me to track the people who gave me permission.

I assume everyone would not be comfortable with this, especially if they then go to sell that data to the students running for class president so they can manipulate your friends to harass you to vote for their candidate.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/19/facebooks-tracking-of-non-...

I would assume he has an admin type of account on Facebook, but does that even matter tho. He and many other employees have direct access to their databases and code. They can do whatever they want and there do not seem to be any checks in place to prevent crime/abuse.

If some engineer at Facebook wants to log into the account of someone they have a crush on, search for nudes or something else nefarious, I have yet to learn of any systems in place to prevent that from happening besides Facebook telling us to trust them.

They used to have a master password to log into any account[1]. They say they replaced this with a special tool you need "permission" to use.

Quote from the article "Finally, while the interviewee says the ‘master password’ has been deprecated, employees can still access your profile through a special tool, but they need to provide a reason for why they’re doing it. If they get audited down the line and fail to provide an explanation, they can be fired"

That sounds like a system where you trust everyone and audit later to verify nothing bad happened. Imo these systems are put in place to hide abuse not reveal it because they are reactionary instead of preventative.

That entire system of checking employees from abusing data, relies of everyone trusting the people in charge at Facebook to do the right thing, insert "dumb fucks" Zuckerberg quote here[2].

Imo it is a matter of time before we find out about wide scale massive data abuse from Facebook employees. Either an insider feeding out data to others or someone on the inside listening to hedge fund managers private conversations to insider trade off of.

I am just generally tired of everyone trusting everyone all the time. We have to have rules and systems in place to eliminate the need for trust.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2010/01/11/rumpus-facebook-privacy/ [2] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg#Quotes