> If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency.
Thank you for making crystal clear that there is literally ZERO value in engaging with you.
You're such a closed-minded piece of shit the you're willing to accuse anybody who disagrees with you of being dumb autocrats. The arrogance and stupidity of that sentiment is overwhelming. The lack of humanity required to write it and click post... wow... you're absolute garbage.
Good news everybody. I found the one racist white guy on this site who doesn't give a single fuck about other people.
j/k: Paul Graham supports Peter Thiel's vendetta against women and minorities because Paul Graham is a GUTLESS COWARD who cares more about a cozy relationship with a billionaire than about any sort of morality.
WORSE: Paul Graham is a FUCKING LIAR who claims that it would be MCCARTHYISM just to clearly state that he and YC disagree with Thiel's bigotry. Yes. Paul Graham is such dog shit that he feels FREE to accuse people who are pro-equality of being McCarthists, but he is UNWILLING to assert that Peter Thiel is a bigot.
So good news... you found your people. This site is chock full of utterly worthless fat old rich white men who are fucking full of themselves and actively work to make the world far worse and evil... but have their heads so far up their asses that they pretend it's good instead.
What I'm saying is PAUL GRAHAM IS A FUCKING COWARD and PAUL GRAHAM is respected SOLELY because of his connections and money. HE IS A WORTHLESS FAT FUCK WITH A SHIT STARTUP WHO GOT LUCKY. HE IS GARBAGE.
Because he hadn't selected early access, dropbox just opted a few regular users into this.
It's a pretty shitty thing to be mean to somebody for that, even if you'd been right; but it's atrociously shitty when you were wrong. And you were wrong. But don't worry, DropBox makes pg rich, and HN loves assholes, so you'll get upvoted for your unwarranted personal attack.
This doesn't explain the consistently slow and unhelpful support function.
For what it's worth, I stopped using or recommending Coinbase after issues being charged successfully, but then Coinbase failed to make the buy, didn't honor the quote, and took days to respond.
Coinbase is an obvious and mediocre idea, executed poorly. It's a testament to the SV hype machine that they raised enough money that they can pretend they're a real company.
The money is going from some Americans to other Americans. There's also an ROI issue if we're all paying equally, but the recipients are chosen in a biased manner.
You're engaging in catastrophism. This isn't a big deal, and the most of the folks claiming otherwise are folks who hate the FDA and government in general, and are dishonestly pretending that this is their reason.
Borrow some balls and admit that you think the world would be better if you were legally allowed to sell anything as anything, and THAT is the reason you hate the FDA.
Let's be honest about this. Dropbox has always been awful with security. They used to flat out lie about encryption (pretending they encrypted server side, when they weren't at all). They've had numerous other incidents, including ones where Arash treated affected customers horribly.
Dropbox has hired some good people, but the foundation consists of a great CEO, and a customer-hostile CTO who doesn't give a fuck about security. It will NEVER be a good product because of that.
Drew Houston would be WAY wealthier today if he'd fired that worthless piece of shit he calls a CTO years ago.
YOUR FUCKING COMMENT HERE. A user says he feels like Docker folks treat users like idiots and you...
1) imply that he's wrong for thinking that ("sad that you believe that"); and
2) then directly state that he's wrong; then
3) add one smart sentence (requesting feedback); but then
4) immediately undermine that by treating the user like an idiot again.
So yeah... docker treats users like idiots, because YOU are their leader, and YOU think we're all fucking idiots. None of your employees are going to treat users better than you do, and you can't even apologize and ask for feedback without treating users poorly.
I have a lot of egg on my face for having introduced Docker into my company a year ago. I liked their vision, and I figured that there'd be some bumps in the road, but that it would be better than attempting to reinvent similar technologies in-house. I was wrong.
Docker hasn't done what I expected. I thought they'd really lock in their core use cases, and make those rock solid. Instead they're trying to do more, and more complex things, while the underpinnings are still half-baked.
My new prediction for docker is that they'll follow the same trajectory as a MongoDB type company. Useful idea with a few glitches -> add more flash instead of fixing the glitches -> raise more money -> end up with a monstrosity of a company and a mediocre product -> desperately hope that they conned enough enterprises into using it to become self-sufficient on enterprise support/licensing.
They've clearly abandoned the market of 'people who want good infrastructure', and are now selling solely to morons. Docker is hot garbage, and it is used almost exclusively by trend-loving idiots.
Sadly, and really annoyingly, my coworkers think I'm a trend-loving idiot because I used to believe that Docker would mature and turn into great software. instead, they've turned into a horrible tire fire.
Here's to hoping somebody else enters the space and executes competently. Docker could've been great... but instead it's fucking docker.
1) USV has money because they have better returns, not because of their "echoing fanbase".
2) The better returns started a virtuous cycle, in that USV gets better dealflow than average VCs (and far better than the UT Austin kid), and thus USV finds it easier to get better returns in the future.
1) It is naive, at best, to believe that the wholesale destruction of privacy for individuals will also mean the wholesale destruction of privacy for elites. This simply won't happen.
2) Privacy is not a binary state. The crux of your argument is that since I do not have privacy from the NSA, then I should not have privacy from any individuals. I don't mind if you want to give up yours, but I like mine. Please do not subject me to your tyranny.
3) Your Constitutional hand-wringing ignores a lot of reality, including (but not limited to) the fact that Constitutional law isn't as simple as you think it is, and that if your best argument is that people who never conceived of mass photography and image recognition didn't take a stand against it, well... that's silly.
4) Your conclusions are precisely backwards. If we start making the locations of all cars perfectly public, of all people public etc, we won't have more freedom. We'll have an inescapable tyranny.
This is not an easy problem to solve. But your proposed solution is only fine for people whose actions are neatly aligned with current and future cultural norms as well as the preferences of current and future elites. Cheap widespread surveillance (which will happen otherwise) will be absolutely devastating to enemies of the state, it will be horrible for "unusual" people generally, and it will be FANTASTIC for elites.
> It wasn't HFTs that brought down the economy in '07-'08. It was their adversaries.
That's a cute quote, but it's not true in any meaningful sense.
HFTs weren't trading against the collection of real estate speculators, mortgage originators, mortgage securitizers, ratings agencies, or lazy investment managers who brought down the economy in '07-'08.
You're right that HFT is hardly the worst part of modern finance, but your post is conspiratorial nonsense... suggesting that other parts of finance are trying to villainize HFT so you look over there, instead of at them? That's unfounded, conspiratorial lunacy.
I get that you hate some bankers, or whatever, probably because you were told to... but if you did even the most superficial cui bono analysis, you'd realize there are simpler explanations for the HFT hatred; and that only a nutjob would write your post.
You've described a valuable part of algorithmic trading. It's a social good, and it creates value for everyone involved. It's a good thing. When informed people want to defend HFT, they often point to this type of activity, because it's automated trading that happens pretty quickly (sounds like HFT), and it's easy to love.
But when informed people criticize HFT, they're talking about other activities. They're criticizing schemes wherein the HFT identifies that a real (read: risk taking) market participant is willing to pay $10.04, that a second real market participant is willing to sell for $10.02, and that those participants will learn of each other's existence in a half millisecond. But instead of allowing that half millisecond to pass, the HFT buys at $10.02, sells at $10.04, and captures a profit before those first two orders can match.
But it doesn't matter. If your wallet is stolen one time in your whole life, that single event will likely cost you more than HFT will.
Oh wait... only a fucking garbage person would write what Thompete wrote.