thecus

Why let depositors in the US banking system lose capital when there's an insurance fund covered by the banking system itself for this purpose? The investors in SVB lost everything, isn't that accountability enough? You really want businesses with payables and payroll that exceed the FDIC limit by millions to be exposed to risk for relying on the US banking system, to what end, why?

There are plenty of necessary reasons for business to have money in accounts above $250k. There should be no exposure here, this is the US banking system - bank deposits should be guaranteed by the entire system (not the taxpayer). Let the shareholders burn, fine... but cmon man, what does anyone get by letting depositors lose capital when placed in US banks?

The consequences are the reduction of billions in shareholder value, and we shouldn't be dumb about doing anything that reduces confidence in US banks. SVB shareholders will be down from like 60 bln mkt cap during the pandemic to a good fat 0.

So, when you're running a $3mm payroll, how do you do that while keeping money in an FDIC insured state.

FDIC needs to be reformed. I feel like it's been 250k for my entire life lol, at the very least the amount needs to be revisited.

Don't participate on HN a lot, but I couldn't resist responding to the GDPR violation in the same line as engaging with the NY Attorney General.

I suspect that any cloud provider has enormous amounts of fraud on it and no tooling is 100% error free. It's also important to note that GDPR has specific exemptions for companies responding suspected security/fraud related issues.

I love DO because the performance for the price is great. Also have no issue supporting emerging tech companies with cultures I connect with.

Multiple people have asked about his wealth. In the S-1 it gives you a good overview of the minimum amount of wealth generation potential he had.

His agreement stipulated that he had ISOs for 709,568 shares at a strike price of $.001471.

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=3847...

"This Amended and Restated Incentive Stock Option Letter Agreement (this "Agreement") amends and supersedes paragraph 2(c) of the Employment Agreement between you and the Company dated October 24, 1994, regarding the grant to you of a stock option (the "Option") for the purchase of 709,568 shares (the "Option Shares") of the Common Stock of Amazon.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") at an exercise price of $.001471 per share (reflects stock split effected on November 23, 1996)."

His agreement stipulated that he had ISOs for 709,568 shares at a strike price of $.001471.

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=3847...

"This Amended and Restated Incentive Stock Option Letter Agreement (this "Agreement") amends and supersedes paragraph 2(c) of the Employment Agreement between you and the Company dated October 24, 1994, regarding the grant to you of a stock option (the "Option") for the purchase of 709,568 shares (the "Option Shares") of the Common Stock of Amazon.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") at an exercise price of $.001471 per share (reflects stock split effected on November 23, 1996)."

Our own bodies destroy 'cancer' all the time. It's when the body loses control that shit gets real.

Source: I stayed at a holiday inn.

It's a good thing I pay attention to detail.

Commented above, it's a cool project, but ultimately I wouldn't recommend spending too much time trying to fight a war against browser clients.

Unless sites/applications are running their own thick clients, there is ultimately no way that they'll ever be able to ensure ad content is displayed.

It's a valiant effort, but there's really no way they'll win this battle. The client simply has too much control.

I was toying with writing a chrome extension for sites/videos that behave differently when adblock is running. It shouldn't be too hard to make the site believe that the ad content is running, when it's not actually running.

Not a perfect approach, but if bandwidth / compute / memory is not an issue, it could be a novel way to respond to more sophisticated ad block detect mechanisms that come out.

And the supreme court specifically called out in their rulings that they did not imply that it was a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.

That also doesn't mean it should be illegal... we've seen immense decrease in violent crimes over the past two decades -- we've also seen a dramatic shift in state laws allowing the right for people to conceal carry.

Correlation != causation and such, but science and numbers matter... They are really interesting when you review them.

And when 2/3 of the states support that change, it'll happen.

The whole point of the constitution is that it is not driven by politics or emotional events. It is changed when a super majority of our citizens / states feel it should be changed.

I don't like the ambiguity in the second amendment, but allowing an emotional event to be the catalyst to circumvent one of the other liberties enshrined in the constitution is scary.

Regardless, with the advent of 3D printing, it's a stupid fucking argument anyway. Over the next few decades, every evil doer will be able to print a weapon.

It's a minor degree of information disclosure -- hardly at it's finest.

I also want to add on that I do not view this as a security issue. There are a myriad of things that should be done:

1) Your company should not be using SaaS services for sensitive projects w/o codenames. (Codename FishSauce = Viber M&A) -- obviously just obscurity, but still solid opsec.

2) I'd love to see your write-up on HipChat uploading all files directly to an S3 bucket accessible to the world.

3) Every user w/ that companies domain sees this each time they sign-in.

4)I just think it's overhyped and not a big deal.

5) It only impacts companies who have multiple slack TEAMS (not the same thing as channels, no channel names are disclosed)

Also, this is a decision Slack admins make: http://imgur.com/FCUE1mY