'Large pull requests are hard to review' is a good reason to keep PRs small, but small PRs also encourage continuous integration/delivery/deployment. Stacked PRs sound like they encourage long-lived feature branches instead.
This thread [1] on Zuckerberg from 7+ years ago doesn't look too different. Top comments saying it's "pretty cringe-y", another posting an image from Reddit and some "Twitter bingo cards". The nature of the situation doesn't really offer much for deep analysis, but the discussion yesterday [2] on the product itself seems fine to me. You might disagree since people are more skeptical rather than being glad Meta is pushing it.
I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. The Cambridge Analytica stuff was probably some of the ethically worst stuff that Zuckerberg and Meta has ever done, and they absolutely deserved to get raked over the coals for it. AI glasses and VR are nowhere in the same ballpark. In fact, that the two discussions are tonally similar seems to support my argument.
The discussion yesterday was fine. If that was the only conversation we had, I wouldn't be worried.
Yes, considering it was ~2 years from freezing withdrawals to the approved bankruptcy plan to repay customers.
FTX was only able to repay customers because the value of BTC increased during that time. But customers were only repaid the value of their portfolio at the time of the collapse.
If I steal your money, invest it, then return the principal amount after 2 years, would you consider it financial harm?
The countries with the highest inflation rates [1] aren't necessarily the same with high rates of poverty [2]. For example Lebanon has the highest inflation rate in the world, but has poverty rates lower than Mexico (which itself has relatively low inflation).
Claiming that Meta distributed pirated works is still a copyright claim, but you're correct that it's seemingly irrelevant to the fair use argument (which the article acknowledges).
1. Handle in large quantities. The ransom paid here was $1 million. With crypto, transferring that much is a few keystrokes. With cash, it's basically a large bag of cash that needs to be moved around.
2. Hold for ransom. Given point #1, kidnappers (of people and data) know that it's much easier to demand payment of large amounts in crypto than cash. If you kidnap a rich person in the crypto world, kidnappers know it's easy for him to sign over a very large amount of bitcoin quickly, which looks to be what happened here. Even for a very wealthy person, it's not logistically easy to get a million dollars in cash, never mind hand it over in a way that isn't a huge risk for the kidnappers.
3. Launder. Crypto tumblers are still a thing despite US government crackdown. Laundering cash with recorded serial numbers is much harder.
I'm not denying that crypto may have some legitimate uses, but it's basically a dream come true for criminals.
If criminals know somebody holds a significant amount of crypto, such as the CEO of a crypto company, they don't need to have them contact somebody else to withdraw and deliver a large amount of physical cash. They don't need to convince anyone they're serious. If the victim has their phone with them or can remember a password, then the criminals just have to coerce the victim into making a transfer.
Arguably, this isn't even really kidnapping in the traditional sense. It's high-tech mugging.
Owning a significant amount of crypto-currency and carrying the ability to make a transfer around in your head or pocket is basically the same as carrying a suitcase full of cash.
Your comment that it is logistically easy for the random rich guy to buy large sum of crypto is simply not true. For one, you'd have to go through KYC which takes time, and you can't just open an account and buy 100k in crypto (yet alone millions) as you'd need a history of activity on your account and multiple limit increases.
True, but not in this mental exercise where the person is being held hostage. They would still need to liquidate assets and transfer to crypto, and also need connections to this type of seller. In that case, that’d probably already have it.
Crypto does have significant advantages (handling in large quantities and rapid payment, as you described) but it is meaningfully harder to launder since blockchains are public and forensics is straightforward. The DoJ and crypto forensics firms has posted about this at length.
You're just explaining why crypto is becoming increasingly popular for businesses in general: the tech works.
1. Yes, everything is recorded on the block chain, but tumblers work. But yes, I agree it's hard to move large amounts of money on the blockchain since it's public.
2. "You're just explaining why crypto is becoming increasingly popular for businesses in general" Citation definitely needed. I used to see "pay with Bitcoin!" in a couple places online about 5-8 years ago. I never see it now, and hardly anyone I know, even big time "crypto people", actually use crypto to buy anything. Almost all the "uses" I hear are speculation or criminal uses. The only legitimate use I've actually seen is cross-border payments.
> it's hard to move large amounts of money on the blockchain since it's public
This was a $1mm ransom. The attraction of crypto isn't that it's easy to launder. It's that it's easy to steal. Beat a crypto bro on the head and you know you can effect a verifiable, irreversible transfer. Wiring money involves many more steps and has all kinds of reverse options.
Just look at all the movie plots that hinge on "ransom payment gone wrong" scenes, where the actual handing over of payment results in some kidnappers getting killed. With crypto, it just becomes "send a large amount of bitcoin to address X by date Y, otherwise we start shipping you various body parts of the kidnappee on dates Y+1, Y+2, etc." This dynamic is also the reason ransomware is so effective.
Not that many people keep a big stack of physical cash under their pillow, and organisations that do keep cash are well-known robbery targets (e.g. banks, mints).
It's substantially harder to kidnap someone and force them to sell their business and then give the cash to you than it is to make them transfer their crypto. And realistically most people's wealth will be in a company or some shares, etc.
This mindset can only be born of stability. If your country descends into chaos, having money on hand is better than having money in a bank, and therefore, not on hand.
Silver coins is my bet. I'm not a prepper by any means, but I always keep some silver on hand. If nothing else, they make good gifts for kids. They feel like little pirates when you give them silver coins.
I buy, restore, and sell woodworking and metalworking tools and vehicles. If I did it full time I could have that much on hand. I think I have like 25k in case a really good deal pops up, and it's a very side gig.
In which case you really shouldn't tell a public forum about it.
Maybe it's my jaded European mindset, but - rich people have been a target since the dawn of civilization, flaunting wealth is a good way to attract attention from bad people.
The chances of someone finding me through this public forum are very low. Following this username takes you to a person from Reddit who I am not. If you follow the clues in my posts, you'll narrow it down to a farmer who also works in colleges, and who lived in the Midwest at some point, but doesn't anymore, and whose parents live in an area of the world that is kind of arid. There's a lot of those type of people.
I'm more concerned about locals finding out. That's why I don't talk about the cash I have on hand in my real life, ever.
That's insane and irresponsible. There's a reason that you can't make large "cash" purchases in physical cash - even with a certified or cashier's check you're limited to under $50k total or $100k/day before getting into private banking where your limits are higher.
>There's a reason that you can't make large "cash" purchases in physical cash
I don't understand what you mean with this.
And also, yes you can? I've purchased cattle (~100k) and vehicles (5-40k) with cash.
It's not insane and irresponsible. I legitimately do not understand your attitude with that. As long as you don't walk around with 100k in your hand waving it around, what's the danger? The world isn't as bad as the news would have you believe.
Also, Some people prefer doing business without involving electronics. I've bought things using cash, silver, canning jars, and baseball cards. I prefer to barter for goods and labor, but some people prefer cash. What's the problem with that?
Had a Ukrainian girlfriend that had $25,000 in her go bag, just in case. She was not even close to wealthy and that was a considerable fraction of her yearly salary. She was the complete opposite of a criminal.
