These folks just put up a long post trying to weigh the risk v reward at various startup stages.
Mostly summarized into: "Joining at Series C may give you an ideal combination of risk and reward. Series C startups had the highest weighted growth in our analysis, followed by Series B and A."
Is this really what is passing as journalism these days?
Anyone who spends even a modest amount of time looking at incidents of justified use of lethal force can quickly determine that an officer having a reasonable fear of great bodily harm to themselves or others is enough to justify the force.
Often times this reasonable fear is justified by actions that take place in under a second. A furtive movement towards a waistband in the right context will almost always qualify.
Articles like this that push an unfounded narrative are simply pandering for clicks/views while failing to even attempting to understand/explain the motivations for such a tool are worse than intellectually lazy. I think they quite likely result in needless excess deaths.
It really isn't rocket science to imagine a lethal robot like this being deployed in a situation which results in deescalation, where the robot operator doesn't have to take a shot where an officer would have been forced to. And to suggest that an officer is somehow going to feel more inclined to shoot someone because its pushing a button vs pulling a trigger just shows a truly impressive amount of bias.
I'd much, much rather send in a lethal robot than an officer to a situation where a use of force is likely, and I really can't fathom any logical argument that putting an officer in there is somehow going to result in less use of force. Unless your world view is that every officer is just trying to execute as many people as they possibly can.
Just watch the 10 seconds here. Guy has stolen a car, walking away from officers, yells "shoot me" and "fuck you fuck you!", digging in his pockets, then quickly points at the officer in a drawing motion. If this was a robot POV instead of an officer, zero chance anyone pushes the button to shoot the guy. Why would you and deal with risking your entire career/life? You're still on the hook for all the consequences of unjustified use of force, and you have the time to wait and verify if the suspect has a gun, so you do. The officer on the other hand is put in an impossible situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SeiCU55e3s&t=104s
I'd much rather have a lethal robot be put in that above situation than an officer, and I'd love to hear anyone explain otherwise.
(Also, I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be "casual", not "causal": `“legal precedence justifying the causal use of weapons”`, but I ain't no english major)
I figured it was unlikely google would make such a mistake, so I looked at the docs. They use public key cryptography to generate a private shared secret that is hashed alongside the message. This prevents the brute force hash attack.
For posterity, they updated the post on Mar 7 and will be emailing anyone affected.
"Update March 7, 2022: We appreciate the feedback from the community and our customers, and will be emailing users as part of this disclosure. We apologize for not doing that at the same time as the post/disclosure on Friday, March 4, 2022."
I could see this being really useful for the team I'm on, specifically for doing docker builds of rust binaries. The build always has to start from scratch, and being able to easily used a remote high power machine could really speed this up. Thanks for sharing!
I'm aware of the impracticability of everyone divesting out of USTs right now. Your points are entirely valid and are the reason the system is still being held together.
My point is there exists some set of circumstances in which that assumption changes.
As an example, at some fed balance sheet level + inflation level, your options are either:
1) Do nothing and end up with nothing
2) Do something and end up with more than nothing
I've lost count of total fed pledges at this point, something on the order of $8T? Say things drag on and that goes to $12T+? And say inflation takes off, is the fed really going to fight inflation? It can't.
You start seeing high double digit inflation while the fed is printing money and keeping rates at zero, and at some point you have to move your USTs into something. If you don't, you'll be left with nothing.
I realize this is incredibly hard to imagine given the current system, but things that can't go on forever wont'.
Sometimes the only winning move is not to play :-)
At some point it becomes irrational to keep holding USTs. I'm well aware it seems right now there aren't any other good options, but that can definitely change quickly.
Last time they dropped it from 5.25% to 0, and still had to print ~$3.7T. With only 1.5% to cut and GDP 50% larger than it was back then, how much QE will they attempt this round?
(To be clear, I personally don't think the fed will be able to get themselves out of this one. I'm just stating most market participants think they can.)
I certainly agree w/ you that it will take a fatal failure to kill this meme, and I think that failure might be coming up.
The % of corporate debt rated BBB has also exploded. It is likely these companies should really be junk, but are kept alive by reluctant/agreeable rating agencies and historically low rates.
A couple of fun behind the scenes stories which I think at this point are past the statute of limitations.
Source: I was the Service Engineer on pipes for around a year or so.
1) When you went to the pipes landing page, there were a few demo pipes to show people what was possible. One of them combined search results from say ebay/craiglist/amazon to show prices for things.
One day I was looking through the source of these, and noticed there were affiliate ids in the ebay/amazon links. They all belonged to some early team member who had long since left.
I showed a couple people on the team, we all guessed at how much they were making from this, said good on em and went about our day. I still wonder how much they ended up making from it.
2) It was my first on-call, and all of a sudden the west coast pipes cluster just went bananas. After ~5 minutes, east coast started to go nuts and the west coast subsided.
Someone, despite numerous defensive measures, had found a way to create a pipe-bomb that would recursively call multiple versions of itself. Once the west coast load balancer failed over, one of these requests would hit the east coast and the 'virus' would jump over there. This flipped flopped back and forth until I figured out how to blacklist pipe ids (and eventually got a code fix).
Understanding the root cause of how our healthcare system developed is both crucial and completely lacking from most of these discussions.
It is a tale of federally mandated wage control and specialized tax breaks. A quick google will show many articles outlining how we got here.
Why is car insurance not tied to employers? In general how much better does car insurance work than health? Are the prices not much more straightforward and is it easy to shop around? If you are treated poorly by your car insurance company, can you easily tell all your friends and change companies?
This is the real problem here. Most folks have no choice and no skin in the game, which leads to all these crazy stories about zero pricing information and no ability to change companies.
If the tax breaks simply got removed, and people had to actually pay directly for their insurance and could switch companies, the vast majority of these problems would go away.
Can someone ask the author to google 'myspace' and 'yahoo'? Maybe 'sun' as well?
"""
Customers naturally gravitate to the platform with the largest network of customers (think Facebook). Or their success depends on having the most customer data (think Google).
...
What this “post-Chicago” economics shows is that in such industries, firms that jump into an early lead can gain such an overwhelming advantage that new rivals find it nearly impossible to enter the market, while even experienced ones find it difficult to stay in the game.
"""