I am not assuming anything. I made a suggestion, nothing else. They're free to do nothing if they feel like they already did enough. You're assuming I'm assuming <...>, which goes against the HN rule to assume best intentions.
I don't see anything patronizing or showing superiority in what I wrote. I am saying this as a peer, not as a superior.
It's kinda weird to expect people not to make mistakes such as this if nobody tells them it's wrong. And it's normal for people to tell other people they do bad stuff if they do.
Of course... If you send someone unencrypted data, they can read it. Companies at least have to follow some laws regarding the data - don't expect that with private instances (not controlled by you).
Eh... Was it really that hard to guess what they're gonna do with it? How long ago was that? It's not like their abuse of [foreign] workers is anything new.
> Investors losing their skin? That's all risk/reward. They took big risk for big reward but lost.
No, it's not OK and it's not all risk/reward. The risk is whether the product can succeed and be better than others' products/services - not whether the company you're investing in is a fraud - that's what the legal system tries to prevent.
The alternating left-to-right right-to-left lines were done because you could read it easier that way - they used to have gigantic books/scrolls, the lines were very long.
It does matter, the risk calculation gets way worse once you start counting in the possibility of fraud. It's going to be 9/10 if each one of the 10 actually try their hardest to succeed. It's going to be 10/10 if fraud isn't prevented.