Yes, OP seems to think the blockchain somehow solves the (extremely subjective) issue of valuation, as opposed to simply "did this transaction occur between counterparties?
The automated clearing house system, our current means of settling payments, is pretty secure. The bigger threats are someone getting ahold of your credit card or checking account info, which is the same threat level whenever you want to convert your Coinbase balance back into your local currency (or someone getting ahold of your public key).
The blockchain, rather, represents a better clearinghouse merely by being a decentralized platform to account for payments rather than a centralized one.
OP says this prevents accounting fraud. Not one iota.
No. I support the blockchain and think it will be revolutionary. However, Enron's issues weren't attributable to some discrepancy between credits and debits.
Accounting, surprisingly to folks who've never studied it and think it's simple arithmetic, requires judgment, based on rules that are sometimes grey and subjective. When you add in legal complexities, it becomes... well, more complex and therefore open to manipulation.
For instance, Enron was able to hide many liabilities by marking it (in hindsight) below market, since... there was no market for said liabilities. So it was impossible to value them. Furthermore, it hid other debt in obscure subsidiaries that were only tangentially, legally and fiscally speaking, connected to Enron.
The blockchain confirms, with better accuracy than existing systems, "X transaction occurred between Y and Z partners." It does not confirm "X's assets were appropriately valued and marked as such to a non-existent market, and X is most definitely a legal subsidiary and is overseen by the fiduciary duty of A Holdings, Corp."
The blockchain has the potential to be a far more efficient settlement system. But saying it prevents Enron or Madoff is simply not true at all.
Which only further demonstrates the gap between a 4-yr Comp Sci degree and software development.
Which, don't get me wrong, I'm a university snob and think software engineers should understand things all the way down to the machine level, but the snobbery in reaction to JS* being taught in 4-yr curricula (which I wouldn't doubt as a widely held reaction) is saddening.
*JS wouldn't be my first choice for an actual university course on real-world coding; but I do resent the the chasm between applicable and theoretical software engineering skills... though this problem isn't confined to Comp Sci.
University CS courses tend to be heavy on varyingly useful theory, light on practical knowledge. Which, fine, that's like most university degrees even in the most vocational of fields.
So while this dude's "degree" might be substandard (MIT-OCW vs. MIT-MIT), I'd argue their education – at least in terms of applicability and self-direction – is equal, if not superior.
I'm ceaselessly amused by the folks fearing Amazon Echos or Google Homes as though they're constantly listening microphones sent to the NSA. As though we don't already carry devices on our person everywhere we go that have mics (smartphones).
Also, while we trade our privacy to Google (or Amazon, or whomever) in exchange for customization and convenience (a social contract I'm generally happy to sign off on), those companies have even more incentive to keep our data safe.
Google is one of the most valuable companies in the world precisely because it, and only it, has the AdSense knowledge (and whatever other knowledge Google collects about me) to target me.
Insurance companies go to Google and say "show our ads to people Googling insurance companies" – that's how Google makes money. It's not as though Google says "here you go State Farm, here's everyone who's been looking up car insurance." It's business model is based on proprietary customer knowledge. It can't give away this data; it's incentivized to limit it to its own ad-targeting tech.
Are there still problems with this model? Sure. If the government decides to subpoena Google on me, they'll turn over my Gmail. But is it a hell of a lot easier getting access to Google services (e.g. Google Maps knowing where I generally go and what the traffic is like) versus using, say, Duck Duck Go on a VPN (let alone Tor or Tails)? For me, and I'd assume most people, yes.
EDIT: I would also point out that we've long been facing the privacy vs. convenience issue. It used to be that merely signing up for a landline meant getting your phone # listed in the White Pages. Paying utility bills makes your name and home address a matter of public record (unless you choose to shield them via owning and paying through a corporate shell). Ditto real estate transactions involving your name/address. All public records, unless you choose to hire attorneys to setup shell corps for the sake of privacy. Not so expensive to do this now in the age of LegalZoom, etc., but this used to cost quite the pretty penny.
This is interesting because while Apple's (comparative) dedication to privacy is endearing, it's a long-term existential threat.
Google knows all about me and its assistant is, usually, great. Amazon has troves of data on what I buy, and I get to yell at Alexa to order more TP as soon as I see we're on the last roll.
Apple knows much less about me and, while I'm still an Apple fan and am tied to iPhones/Macs thanks to iMessage, Siri stinks as a result.
If voice assistants based on machine learning (specifically, personalized voice assistants) are the next big thing, Apple's privacy ethos will separate it from its major tech competitors – either in a great way, or a very negative way.
I'm presupposing the contact card has their job position/title, and therefore still answers the question – also presupposing the original (odd) premise of wondering who someone already saved in your phone is.
The Venn overlap between the set of "contacts in your phone" and "people with Wikipedia bios" is likely rather small. Hence why I think it's a faulty premise to complain about Siri defaulting to contact card when these two sets do intersect.
I don't see it as humblebragging (any of us could create a Cook contact / ReCode readers likely know Walt Mossberg's relationship to Apple) but, worse, a faulty premise.
Odds are, if you have them in your contact database, you already know them; you're not going to want Siri to give you their Wikipedia bio.
Siri has myriad faults, and thankfully someone of Mossberg's stature might push Apple to address them, but this is not one of them.
I mentioned this to someone else who made the same point (albeit with the ACLU instead of the EFF): Hm, that's an interesting point that I'll have to noodle over. Thanks for pointing it out.
I don't think one needs to necessarily choose a side. I'm of the opinion that what Gawker did is wrong, but surreptitiously funding lawsuits to bankrupt the company is a perversion of the justice system.
The tension between privacy and speech is a discussion that needs to be had. Litigating it in a Pinellas County courtroom is an odd way to go about having that debate.
Thiel has now demonstrated that those with deep enough pockets can now use the courts to exact revenge in a roundabout way. Yes, Gawker is tawdry but one can't help pondering a chilling effect here on more worthy stories. Were I a journalist, I'd certainly think twice now of pursuing an investigative piece that might offend a billionaire, given that my own financial livelihood could become fair game.
You defend VA downthread while only decrying Gawker as being unethical.
One takes photos of girls without their consent/knowledge while the other blurs the line of good journalistic taste. Yet it's only the latter that's unethical?
It's not difficult to impute which you approve of.
There's a certain, perverse form of cognitive dissonance in thinking what Gawker did to Hogan was wrong, but ViolentAcrez and his posting of creepshots of underage girls was somehow unimpeachable free speech – and therefore his freedom to continue doing such ought to be protected.
Do not the girls and women whose privacy he was invading not deserve the same right to privacy?
Yeah, no. NYTimes v. Sullivan determined that public figures sacrifice a good deal of their privacy when they when they enter the public sphere. For instance, the same such video of, say, a governor would certainly be newsworthy. Where it's unclear is to what degree is Hogan a public figure and whether the actual publishing of it, as opposed to just reporting on it, is constitutes newsworthiness.
In terms of lawsuit financing, it's perfectly legal. There's an entire industry devoted to third-party lawsuit financing – otherwise, poor victims of car attacks (or other consequences which injured their ability to work and earn) wouldn't be able to pursue personal injury claims.
Without it, only those with means could pursue legal recourse.
An LBO of a home is called "getting a mortgage." And yet, one's car or home isn't exactly a share-issuing company. You can form a company to own it – but that's not private equity.
Are you familiar with what "private equity" is? Note that "private equity" is distinct from "private" "equity."