plankers

Tesla's approach, however, kills people. Waymo's has not as of yet.

The CPSU was banned in Russia 29 years ago.

Soon: a global reduction of lithium levels in seawater makes fish more aggressive.

The beer will always be worth what you paid for it. The money you still have may, however, fluctuate in value.

Yes, the lack of stress makes the time much more productive.

It does get old eventually.

There's something beautiful about watching a billionaire (or almost one) tell the ISO Central Secretariat "That's dumb."

Isn't this a bit disingenuous though? If somebody had designed an algorithm capable of breaking RSA given supercomputer-level resources, that's still breaking RSA even if they may not be able to provide ironclad proof.

And the incentives to let lay-people in on how the game works are much less!

Ethereum is an astoundingly interesting sandbox for blockchain projects and smart contract experimentation.

How it ever got moved to prod is beyond me.

Interesting analysis of the differences between the two scenes, but I'm not convinced of Danco's assertion that bad angels keep away the good. It seems equally possible that the attractive draw for angels (and all VCs) of a red-hot scene like SF is simply too powerful, so all the "good" angels flock there rather than waste their time in a less productive market.

The same phenomenon he describes where liquidity events propagate the cycle of early movers becoming angels could easily take place on a larger scale where an exodus of "good" angels from SF seeking value in other markets disseminates this model and evens it out a bit. This could also dampen some of the externalities created by this feverish form of capitalism i.e. ludicrous real estate prices, crushing income inequality, etc.

Of course this would take some rather weighty exogenous event taking place to make either SF or the US unattractive locations to start a business.

You have my apologies and my thanks for posting a better link :)

That's for data exfiltration. Wouldn't be useful for sending launch and scheduling commands.

Motörhead [1] and Aerosmith [2]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh3t49NsWBA

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-0lAhnoDlU

+1 for security researchers' union. Reminds me of the bounty hunters' guild in the Mandalorian but with fewer blasters.

This is good. Now if only they'd stop trying to wall off the podcast market.

glares angrily at Joe Rogan

I'm not suggesting that there's any threat, implicit or otherwise. But why should an employer (or contractor) be allowed to register the political sentiment of their employees/workers as part of the normal course of business?

Seems to me the heft of the problem falls in forcing drivers to either explicitly consent to agreeing with the platform's views by selecting "Yes on 22" or to communicate their ambivalence by selecting "OK" in the dialogue that is presented to them in the driver app.

If Uber just presented an explanation of the issues and allowed drivers to decide for themselves without any way for the platform to track their decision, no problem.

>It's very possible that Uber/Lyft will decide that the overhead of being an employer is not worth the reduced revenue, it's not like they're making a lot of money in the first place.

Here's the thing... they're not making _any_ money in the first place. Every single segment of Uber's business is loss-making. So AB5 will uh, force a loss-making, VC-capital-burning, parasitic business to be slightly more loss-making at the cost of providing a living wage to drivers?

The whole situation is frankly absurd.

>Princeton undergrad, Harvard MBA, SVP at Bain, CEO at eBay, HP, primary candidate in a gubernatorial race

You just listed the standard elitist silver spoon CV. She had a stellar career because she was born into it. Her track record at all of these institutions speaks to her actual talent.

Meritocracy, my ass.

nowhere near as helpful as RTFA, no

Also half-jokingly I feel like the exact same thing happens in grocery stores.

She's security adjacent, experience working on product in cybersecurity startups and talking at conferences. I get the vibe she cares more about money than security.

You're right in your core point, I just wanted to say that eliminating competition or throwing up silly hoops for competition to jump through by abusing your power over the market is totally anti-competitive behavior. They don't even have to compete, they've structured their businesses such that competition is impossible.

You're not the only one.

https://xkcd.com/2030/

It sounds like you're already pointing to one concrete outcome that would come from these "driver protection" laws: the proliferation of driver co-ops that are able to undercut Uber and Lyft. Assuming they aren't regulated as Uber and Lyft are(for argument's sake), this would allow drivers the choice of whether to become an employee of the big corps or remain an independent contractor by using the co-op platform.

I don't think it would be much of a stretch to assume that in this situation you would have sleek, more expensive "luxury" services competing against more humble, but cheaper, community run services. Sounds like a much more equitable arrangement that provides greater choice for both riders and drivers.

Instead we get this:

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/12360294490421985...

It's all the millenial kids that you didn't give a good start and who are getting those 63% of new jobs that pay below-average who are suffering.

Maybe if there were an entire recreational industry built around tossing burritos at road signs. But, uh, there's not.

So is yours.