> along with a notification to local or federal authorities
I think that might dissuade a lot of them, but one of the biggest problems I see with some of the red flag laws that have been implemented is the mental health professionals who have been involved are the only people who aren't allowed to report you to the cops. Anyone else can, with impunity, but not them.
It's a conversation with Amazon "Fulfillment Center" ambassadors, who defend Amazon and say they're very happy. But their Twitter accounts don't follow anyone, they're corporate-branded, they all recite near-identical messages, and they're being paid to represent what it's like working for Amazon, and they "happen to like working for Amazon". The way they speak sounds very scripted and forced, a la The Borg.
I absolutely agree - that's the whole point of the article and my comment. If you're in an experimental space, and 9/10 of your ideas are never going to make it to market, I'd rather spend 1 units of time on each to figure out which one's going to work, and then 20 units of time redesigning it the right way (i.e. 21 units of time to be done), rather than 10 units of time on each to make them all ready for production (i.e. 100 units of time to be done). But those ratios will vary depending on how sure you are about what needs to be done next, so yes - you've gotta weigh the cost / benefit.
I thought interest rates were more driven by inflation. Mortgages are insured, for instance, removing much of the risk, but you pay for that insurance much of the time (THAT'S driven by risk), but $500,000 is worth more now than it will be in 30 years, so you're gonna have to pay to get it fronted to you.
The whole thread is nit-picking. The point of bankruptcy isn't "fuck being fiscally conservative - we don't even know we want the stuff we're buying so who cares if we can pay our credit card bills", whereas that's literally how you should approach some projects.
No. Bankruptcy doesn't just eliminate the debt and let you move on consequence-free - it's a legal process in which a plan is put in place for everyone to get their fair share of what's left, or to recover from the debt without the debt itself destroying future productivity. It can also be very detrimental to your credit opportunities. If you abandon a project, you're just never going to repay the debt or suffer from any consequences of it.
One important difference between tech debt and financial debt, is that if the project you accrued a bunch of tech debt in gets killed for unrelated reasons before it's completed, your debt is forgiven. You never pay it off, and you never have to.
When you're validating an idea, don't worry about making everything perfect. Worry about validating the idea. Once you're more confident that you're actually gonna do it long-term, then it starts being more beneficial to pay off the tech debt.
Actually the general consensus in the US government would be that everything kills people and must be regulated by people who don't understand it and who have conflicts of interest. That way people will stop dying.
I said "IF" there's no salting. In any case, I'd be less concerned about SSID's not being unique as I am about the fact that the SSID of a specific target is trivial to obtain and almost never changed.
If it's not a strong hash and the protocol doesn't include salting, it's not impossible. Rainbow tables exist. And they really only need to find a collision. Wi-Fi protocols, especially WEP, have had vulnerabilities similar to this before. Similar in the sense that if you sniffed enough traffic you could figure out the password (don't recall the specific mechanisms - but this could be one).
Unrelated to the point of the article, but since we're discussing lawyers and their knowledge of coding in a Silicon Valley audience: has anyone else noticed that many of the lawyers who specialize in software licensing actually have a very shallow understanding of common open-source licenses? I think I've worked with at least 3 firms now at my current employer, a medium-size (>2000 person) software company. When I've had meetings with them about compliance with open-source licenses, they seem to be unaware of really basic aspects of the licenses. I've had one that thought the ASL 2.0 left you wide-open to patent trolls because you gave up all of your patent rights. I've had another that thought we could simply stop redistributing GPL software and have no further obligation to provide a way to get our modifications to the source. Especially for someone who went to law school, it seems as thought most of the lawyers I've worked with haven't read the license text, but simply heard this and that about the licenses. Is this common among Silicon Valley lawyers, or have I just had bad lawyers? I'm sure there's a lot more to law in Silicon Valley than this, but this is even with the person they refer me to for open source license questions.
I think that might dissuade a lot of them, but one of the biggest problems I see with some of the red flag laws that have been implemented is the mental health professionals who have been involved are the only people who aren't allowed to report you to the cops. Anyone else can, with impunity, but not them.