So not only are we measuring lines of code as a productivity metric as though that has any actual relation to productivity, but across the board they are boasting that lines of code is going up and PR density is getting bigger as well.
Those numbers should be seen as a giant red flag, not as any kind of positive.
I understand the intention of what the author is trying to achieve, but I think the problem they will run into is how do you define "evil" in a legal document or license? There is a subset of acts and beliefs that wider society has deemed "evil", but I doubt large corporations are actively supporting sexual assault, torture, murder etc. What the author is referring to is things they find morally reprehensible but do not reach the level of the aforementioned acts enough to be expressly illegal and evil (and whether they are or not, IANAL).
Several people either in this circuit or close by made submissions to this effect to ICANN recently.
It's very hard to get traction on this story because there is a lot of "don't prod the bear" regarding things ICANN can and should ask Department of State about, and things which really have moved into "self managed, independent international body" space. The reason there are two HSM east and west coast was because of this kind of national-strategic sensitivity. It would be a low bar (only money) decision to duplicate the investment in Singapore and Geneva, two locations which ICANN has existing investment in, with good secure facilities and accepted by the wider public as "neutral" points.
When the KSK ceremonies started up, several people also pointed out that this "diverse locations" thing was a bit hokey. The response above is my re-write of the kinds of things said to me, at the time. If somebody wants to deny State or any other US federal agency influenced the decision I have no formal proof.
I should add as a declaration of interest I was at Rob's goodbye KSK event, I am a TCR, and I made such a submission this year. I have not received any indication it was understood or read, despite asking for some acknowledgement, but the process wheels in an agency like ICANN run to their own time.
The risk is being told no, and inviting dissent into the independence of ICANN. Not asking, means no risk of being told "no, you do as you're told" which would endanger the whole 3 legged stool. the GAC would immediately question the assumption the US government had that level of signoff, the money flows and lawyers would fire up, it would be come a shitstorm in a teacup.
The least likely outcome of asking the department of state if ICANN is "permitted" to add an HSM outside the USA, is a positive answer.
The most likely path to doing it, is not to assume you have to ask.
It's my personal opinion from beer convos with people in the circuit. As I said I have no firm proofs and you should hedge belief in this by the lack of verifyable facts.
Yes, but we're a long way down "our hands are off it's ICANN now". The exception might be DNSSEC and the verisign contract continuance. I have no complaint against verisign, far from it: their staff are excellent and they are amazingly diligent and risk averse.
But at a contractual level you could ask is there another company which could tender to operate the root publication function, and meet all stakeholder requirements? And, could that company be legally constituted outside the USA?
Possibly. Ex CERN staff have indicated they were dismayed when the address management function went elsewhere in Europe. I know people both sides of this divide, it's ancient history in some ways.
Asking the US Dept. of State would almost certainly result in "huh?" from the folks there. The part of the USG that plays in the ICANN kiddie pool is US Dept. of Commerce (NTIA) and they no longer have a veto on what ICANN does.
One of the issues is section 4.2 of the IANA Naming Functions contract:
"[...] Contractor must be able to demonstrate that all primary operations and systems will remain within the United States (including the District of Columbia). [...]"
The Key Management Facilities are considered a part of the "primary operations and systems". IIRC, this clause was included in order to move the transition of the IANA functions forward in the face of some resistance within the US government.
Until that bit of legalese is revised, there will be no movement on creating a non-US key management facility. I believe changing the IANA Functions contract requires the Customer Standing Committee. As far as I am aware, no one within the CSC thought it worth the effort, i.e., "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Perhaps under the current US administration, that feeling as changed, but I haven't heard of any significant efforts in that regard.
The USA has shown, over the last 12 months, what a security-conscious country it is. The Defense Secretary's almost fanantical regard for messaging security should be held up as an object lesson for all future generations.
The problem with investors these days is that too many of them seem so focused on short-term gains and showing their numbers increase quarter-over-quarter that we seem to be incapable of looking at an investment over a longer period of time.
As someone who was the victim of a lot of bullying myself, this article is a very mixed bag for me.
For one, I like the idea of creating some degree of systems of support to try and prevent things like school shootings from happening by stopping them before they get too far.
On the other hand, unless there are more details missing from this article, it really seems like the only person who got any degree of punishment is the student who was being bullied.
You know what stops bullies that doesn't involve shooting them? Ruthless consequences for their actions. Schools love to talk about their 'zero tolerance' policy for bullying, but if there are no consequences outside of a teacher telling the bully to stop, then that is definitely less of a 'zero tolerance' policy and more of a 'mostly tolerated' policy. Zero tolerance means immediate suspensions, expulsions, supporting police reports for physically violent bullying etc.
Similar perspective from me, I really don’t understand why people in authority are allergic to making the correct decision and punishing bullies or even worse punishing the victim.
From my own personal experience being bullied. I went to teachers and the principal to speak up that I was being bullied, the teachers themselves witnessed it many times and acknowledged it was happening but the bully suffered no consequences other than being told to stop. My parents were awesome and got involved but even after that the school refused to do anything because the bully was “sorry”. Finally my parents told me they had my back and would support me if I wanted fight back but either way they were taking me out of that school at the end of the year. Punched the guy right in the face the next time after repeatedly telling him I would if he didn’t stop. I was immediately physically escorted to the principal’s office and my parents had to pick me up. The only reason I didn’t get expelled is because the bully didn’t want to admit I got the better of him so the school saw no fault. Never got bullied again by that kid. My story isn’t to say resorting to violence is the right thing to do but instead why did it even have to get to that point to begin with? So many members of authority could have issued consequences for behavior they witnessed but chose not to.
As someone who also was bullied heavily as a kid, my best explanation is that a lot of the adults who are in the posittions of authority were probably never the ones being bullied as kids (and some of them maybe were themselves the bullies). A large number of kids aren't directly involved in the bullying learn to keep their heads down and not get involved. The victims of the bullying will always remember it quite vividly, but those who just saw it happen without the same strong emotions attached to the memories won't recall the specifics of just how frequent or severe it was, but just have a vague recollection of bullying happening sometimes. When they end up seeing something similar happening in front of them again as adults, it wouldn't shock me if the same instincts around not getting involved or thinking about it too hard resurface and make it easier for them to rationalize not intervening.
For those of us who identify with the victims, this is almost unfathomable, but over the years I've been able to recognize that quite a lot of people don't actually identify in the victim in this situation. The idea that this might be the case didn't ever occur to me for years because of how much my insecurity and anxiety as an adult are related to my experiences of being bullied as a kid, so it made it hard to realize that this core emotional experience that's impossible for me to separate from my conception of what it's like to be a kid just doesn't exist for most people.
One of my boys was invited out by some classmates, then beaten up in a back alley. I called the police who visited their homes. They got the message that they'd be in court if they did anything like that again.
End of problem.
If your kid is bullied, call the police. Most school authorities are bully enablers.
Yes, the literal hours of video of footage of abuse that by the own claims of the authorities could have culminated in a violent response were "punished" with a single verbal warning. As the parent commenter says, they didn't get punished.
Ragging (esp. in STEM places; often violent; no slapping, et cetera, was not even considered violent) was a pathetic menace where I live. It is still not eradicated, but has shrunk to something so little that it is not a norm anymore or a right passage for seniors. How did it shrink? When seniors started getting expelled – no quarters given if ragging was proven.
Yup, cracking the toughest of entrance exams here after toiling for years in school (sometimes after) and going to those colleges and then getting kicked out (often with a piece of paper that ensured you didn't get admission elsewhere either) just because you couldn't resist harassing/abusing/attacking/hurting freshers who had just entered college did the trick. Before that? Threats, warnings, and policy-making just on paper did zilch. It was literally a national move sort of - coming right from the top, forcing states to act.. etc.
Is this sort of thing as common in US colleges as it is portrayed in movies?
My experience of university (not in the US) was that by then students had grown up, and there wasn’t any bullying going on that I saw. Students were treated as adults, violence was dealt with by the police.
Why would a bully care if they are suspended or expelled.
The most stubborn bullies in reality will often only reliably respond because they will starve to death, face violence, or have necessities taken away. I.e. a Nazi can't do nazi shit at work or they will get fired and starve.
A child cant get fired. Their parents must provide no matter what, and it is neglect if they don't and abuse if they use violence. End result is a bully knows the worst can happen is they lose luxuries and get a vacation from school, but always be taken care of. So really any punishment you can mete out is a nothingburger.
It's also very different to be warned that you "could get suspended or expelled" and actually have it happen. A warning isn't a punishment, but a communication that a punishment might occur, assuming that the one giving the warning actually follows through with observing whether behavior changes and is willing to actually carry out the punishment in the case that it doesn't. Kids are just as aware of this as adults and can make judgments about how likely this is when they receive warnings.
In fact, a child can get fired. They can get kicked off of sports teams, …. But yes, it is a difficult problem. I liked a lot of what I read in the article.
First, they identified the problem students.
Second, they tried something.
I'm of two minds on this, I think all comedians should be able to make fun of anything, but at the same time, just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you get to avoid the consequences of what you say. Whether I agree with the outcome or not, if ABC don't like what Jimmy Kimmel said, they are free to pull his show off the air and fire him all they want, Kimmel is not entitled or owed TV time nor is ABC required to broadcast his show. But, by the same token, ABC must then be willing to accept the consequences of doing that and any bad PR that comes from it.
That all being said, what I don't like is that even if ABC execs decided that they found what Kimmel said distasteful or offensive, this still looks an awful lot like acting out of fear of a president who famously is very spiteful to anyone who says anything bad about him.
It was the CEO of Disney and it happened after threats from the head of the FCC.
Edit: to clarify, the CEO of Disney caved to pressure from affiliates owned by a Nexstar who are actively petitioning the FCC to relax media ownership rules so they can buy more affiliates than the law allows.
Not even just that, the FCC chair directly threatened ABC's broadcast license if they didn't do something about Kimmel.
If that's not infringing on first amendment rights, I don't know what is. The right will of course support this; they tend to treat the constitution and laws as flexible whenever their ideology requires it.
The fact that we're talking about this using terms like "sides" is the problem. American politics has long since stopped being about policy, but is treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what. It's as though people are incapable of having thoughts on an issue more complex than "does my side think this is good or bad?" and suddenly those who disagree with you are evil, and with partisan media suddenly you see the "other side" as some faceless evil rather than people with differing and complex experiences and views.
I don't agree with a lot of the things Charlie Kirk said, and as someone who is not an American, there was also a lot of things he said I simply didn't care about because they didn't apply to me. I also found that his way of communicating was more geared towards encouraging discussions that would generate views. But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.
American politics isn't politics, it's one step short of being like football hooliganism for supposedly smart people.
Part of the problem is that many claim violence has been done ... with words, and in so doing they incite actual violence. If we want violence to stop then we need to:
- talk to each other about politics (as we used to) so as to moderate each other's opinions
We also need to unequivocally defend free speech. Not violence or criminality but free speech. We shouldn’t tolerate uncivilized counter rioting or other aggressive ways of dealing with others’ opinions - it’s a path to exactly this kind of violence.
I agree. And funny enough the top comment in this thread describes Hans potential replies to this news as “violent”. It’s a form of newspeak. Peach is never violent. Come up with a thousand other words, but that’s what violence is to mean we then need another word for actual violence.
> But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.
could you give some examples of good, civil conversations he's had with people he strongly opposed? I'd like watch them. I think it's a skill we all need to cultivate.
Just look up his college campus debates. He would do a very unique round table debate format where he would have 20 college kids sit in a circle and each while get a minute to debate with him. It’s very wholesome and civil.
I agree with you. There should not be sides in the American political system. Yet here we are, because the people we elect seem to want to create a boogeyman in the other "side" and blame all of society's problems on them. Maybe that's just a reflection on American society.
And the news networks eat that shit up. They love a boogeyman, because it's good for ratings.
The news networks and social networks have determined that controversy increases engagement which increases profit.
You could imagine a different algorithm that promoted peaceful, thoughtful interactions. But that would have led to the death of Facebook, twitter, news networks, etc.
We may in fact be here due to sheer greed. The media companies have profited by creating discontent in our society rather than content.
This really can't be stated loudly enough and they studied it and figured this out with A/B testing and implemented it. It's on the level of tobacco companies covering up cancer.
In another HN post about New Mexico offering free childcare, there was a comment that basically hit on the same point [1]. Capitalism has really fucked our society in so many ways.
I have news for you: it's not just American politics that has "sides". In fact, it's exceedingly surprising to me how much politics has aligned (not necessarily in terms of party names and labels) throughout the entire Western world in the past several decades.
I don't disagree. I don't know anything about the political systems of other countries. I'm just talking about what I am familiar with, which is the American political system.
You're right, though. Americans actually agree on most things [1]. In that sense, there is really only one "side." Yet the media exploits the small differences that people don't agree upon to create a giant divide.
Anecdote:
I firmly believe Trump is going to destroy our democracy, or at least put it to its absolute limits. Yet, I have many friends who voted for Trump. They're great people. We don't ever talk politics, but whenever we talk about economics, or society, we actually agree about most things. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't be friends.
Yet the talking heads on TV would have us believe that democrats and republicans are enemies. And that may very well be a self fulfilling prophecy.
That's your prerogative to choose your friends or definition of good person. I personally think that this mentality divides an already divided nation even more.
While I do believe Trump to be a traitor, I believe that folks who voted for him were intentionally manipulated by the talking heads on TV and social media influencers into believing falsehoods and voting against their own self interests. And hey, guess what — many of those who voted for Trump also believe the democrats to be traitors, and that they are seeking to destroy America.
Entertaining this division is not good for our country.
I also find it a bit extreme how many people feel the need to add some sort of disclaimer every time they say something nice about the guy who died:
- "I strongly disagree with Charlie Kirk, but [...] Condolences to his wife and small kids"
- "I have scant philosophical agreement, but..."
- "While I'm not a fan..."
Says something about the level of polarization that people are so afraid of accidentally being mistaken for a supporter, even in these circumstances. He was not a particularly niche character, his views are probably similar to a decently sized share of the American population. The American people are struggling so hard to find any kind of unity.
There is only one "side", and they're die-hard. The left is a rag-tag group of misfits who simply don't identify as conservative for one reason or another, which is part of the reason it's so hard for the democratic establishment to find a message that resonates with such a varied and untethered group.
So no, no one is talking about "sideS." A single, cohesive group of people has been building an unearned narrative of persecution and victimhood as a pretext to lash out at and antagonize every person who isn't them.
treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what
I don't understand this. Sport is just sport - just watch, enjoy, have a good time. And the better team that day wins - enjoy and go home. What's with "defend them no matter what"? Defend from what and why?
> What's with "defend them no matter what"? Defend from what and why?
In my experience, a lot of sports fans love to debate and argue, claim some strategy was "unfair" when used against their team, argue whether some penalty was justified or not. People who are die-hard for their team will usually defend their team no matter what.
> Sport is just sport - just watch, enjoy, have a good time
This is the thing. Politics has basically become a form of entertainment these days. You have talk-shows covering politics and making fun of the political news of the day, you have YouTubers and streamers who make a living off of making political content. Artists make comics that are varying degrees of witty political satire and, in America at least, the democratic and republican conventions are basically a political sideshow circus. To top it off, how many people have taken this situation as a reason to post on social media? Regardless of if you like or dislike Charlie Kirk and his idea's, using his death as a reason to post something on social media, positive or negative, is just using the situation for entertainment purposes.
How many people these days can honestly say they engage in politics to talk about policy, and not as a form of entertainment?
It’s also stupid to be talking about “sides” when we don’t even have a handle on the shooter.
It could be a random crazy person, a Democrat, Trump supporter pissed off that Kirk was trying to help Trump move past the Epstein stuff or any number of in-betweens.
And you can knock off the white washing of Kirk’s political life. In recent memory, he has advocated for military occupation of US cities, making children watch public executions, and eschewed the idea of empathy. This “well, he said it in calm voice” handwaving is spineless.
I was comparing the concept to the Actor model as I skimmed the piece, but I don’t think there’s much overlap. What about Smalltalk correlates to cells?
According to Alan Kays 1971 description of Smalltalk:
“An object is a little computer that has its own memory, you send messages to it in order to tell it to do something. It can interact with other objects through messages in order to get that task done.”
Smalltalk concepts heavily informed the Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) tenets, e.g.
1. Services are autonomous - Cohesive single responsibility.
2. Services have explicit boundaries - Loosely coupled, owns its data and business rules.
Choosing good service boundaries is really crucial for a successful, resilient, maintainable system.
The impression I got from the document is that cells don’t communicate much with each other. They’re effectively multiple copies of the same cluster of services.
Cells could certainly encapsulate multiple microservices, but I don’t see a strong correlation between Smalltalk objects and cells. That may just be a lack of imagination on my part.
Hummmm while there might be some similarities the concept are not that close.
Cells are usually used to reduce blast radius and to force design that can scale.
It is a bit like a multi-AZ/multi datacenter architecture where however cells can share the same AS/datacenter. But nothing else.
So cells can share physical hardware but not logical components.
If you were to create a cell based architecture, you might have 9 cells over 3 AZ each using a different S3 bucket and DynamoDB table. For 9 S3 buckets and 9 DDB table in total.
I'm 30, so roughly the same age as the poster of this article. But for a person who (rightfully so) derides the ageism and racism they encounter, their whole section on technical literacy is just a modern-spin take on ageism.
Just because people my age and younger use discord etc, doesn't mean this is either a "good" way for people to communicate, or something we should force people whose technical literacy could vary wildly between extremes to try and figure out.
Personally, I hate discord and messaging in general and much prefer to make phone calls. I guess that makes me an anomaly compared to my generation, but I generally find that whole section rude and trying to solve their own personal problem, not the problems of the community as a whole.
I'll be honest, all these asides feel like there is some kind of explanation or big reveal that never comes. I can understand a bank identifying a large-sum account and wanting to look after them, being annoyed by that account moving banks as well as a local branch having to take precautions on such large withdrawals. But otherwise, I feel like I'm missing something here that isn't spelled out.
The author is used to thinking of their bank account as an anonymous number, with operations handled impassively by whoever happens to be staffing the bank's reception desk that day. They probably never considered 35 million dollars to be an amount worth fussing over ("this is not a lot of money to a big bank, they'll barely notice").
The bank thinks of multi-million dollar business accounts as a deeply personal relationship between the CEO and account manager, where the AM takes the CEO to fancy dinners and golf outings and remembers the names of the CEO's children. HashiCorp's account might have been the largest that had ever been opened at that particular branch.
This article is an amusing(?) story about those two worldviews making contact.
I admit I was laughing at the part where he transferred out the $35mil and Alex called him.
Honestly I'm sure a lot of people on HN have experienced the "hey I just wanted to see how you were doing" call from their bank. Once you have >$100k in your chase accounts they'll start doing that.
But why would anyone have that much money in their Chase accounts? I keep a nominal amount of money in my chase account and send the bulk of my money to fidelity to throw into whatever investment vehicle I like. Sadly, I think you need to have $1mil at fidelity to get the same red carpet treatment chase will give you for $100k.
Having that kind of cash with Fidelity gives you a lot of perks, but you still need to keep an eye on them. My Fidelity guy is now a VP, but because of my balances he still handles my accounts personally. I've been with them for a while and my conclusion is that they are no better (and often worse) than I am at financial planning and wealth building. The economy is always changing, and the big sudden changes are the ones that usually catch everyone (including the experts) by surprise. What worked well five years ago doesn't work anymore. You'll never get the kind of attention and analysis from Fidelity (or any firm) that you can get from yourself if you are willing to put in the effort.
> Once you have >$100k in your chase accounts they'll start doing that.
Is there a good reason for this other than if you're about to buy a house or something? Most of my net worth is in investments; very little is in checking or savings, because it doesn't seem like there is any benefit to that.
Nope. And that's part of why they start calling you - to sign you up for CDs, money market accounts, etc. (I'm not sure if they get a commission for selling you into a locked investment, but I imagine they do). They probably also are trying to get you on a good credit card, get a mortgage with them, be the first place you come when you want to buy a car, etc.
I guess I'll note, I've never had that much in my personal account but I have a friend who did for a while (and a family member who also did). Personally, I canceled my chase account because a teller at the local branch was being a condescending dick to me. I assume because I didn't have that much money in my account lmao.
> Is there a good reason for this other than if you're about to buy a house or something?
Liquidity. FDIC insurance upto $250k. Of course, you don't want to put a big chunk of your money into a bank like this, but $100k is not a "big chunk of your money" to a lot of people, in relative terms.
I'm assuming your sentiment applies to HYSAs as well, which is the better place for this kind of thing.
Checking is the backing buffer for a queue of pending transactions. If you have one or two highly-compensated people in your family, and somewhat randomly-distributed large expenses (paying cash for a car, renovating a house, credit card bills after a vacation, etc), then $100k does not seem like an unusually large buffer size.
> >$100k in your chase accounts they'll start doing that.
Heh, not Wells Fargo.
After 20 years being a customer and carrying very large deposits they will charge you for a cahiers check at the window. After you politely ask for it to be waived (having worked for the bank knowing they can waive it for you), being declined by the manager on duty who handled the escalation, and responding "I need the check but if you charge me for this I will close my account" to the question "Do you still want the check for the fee?"; then they will start calling you after the 10k daily transfers out start.
Hmm yea that doesn't surprise me. I really wasn't sure what the magic number was lol.
Says a lot about the level of service my credit union gives lol. I've had more than that in my account before and they never gave me special treatment. XD
The only thing I was amused about was the fact that a 22 year old without any sort of work experience got 1 Million dollars just like that (and much more later on).
I am more surprised about the founder lack of interest for bank and finance. It’s fully in his duty to know where his investor money is. And he seems to be careless about it.
It makes sense considering he's gone from founder / CEO -> founder / CTO -> individual contributor i.e. probably never focused on these things and just wanted to build the product as an engineer.
Those numbers should be seen as a giant red flag, not as any kind of positive.
reply