LA_Banker

6 ms·

1.
by LA_Banker 9y ago
Yes, OP seems to think the blockchain somehow solves the (extremely subjective) issue of valuation , as opposed to simply "did this transaction occur between counterparties?
2.
by LA_Banker 9y ago
The automated clearing house system, our current means of settling payments, is pretty secure. The bigger threats are someone getting ahold of your credit card or checking account info, which is the same threat level whenever you want to co
3.
by LA_Banker 9y ago
Precisely.
4.
by LA_Banker 9y ago
No. I support the blockchain and think it will be revolutionary. However, Enron's issues weren't attributable to some discrepancy between credits and debits. Accounting, surprisingly to folks who've never studied it and think
5.
by LA_Banker 9y ago
Which only further demonstrates the gap between a 4-yr Comp Sci degree and software development. Which, don't get me wrong, I'm a university snob and think software engineers should understand things all the way down to the machin
6.
by LA_Banker 9y ago
University CS courses tend to be heavy on varyingly useful theory, light on practical knowledge. Which, fine, that's like most university degrees even in the most vocational of fields. So while this dude's "degree" might
7.
by LA_Banker 9y ago
I'm ceaselessly amused by the folks fearing Amazon Echos or Google Homes as though they're constantly listening microphones sent to the NSA. As though we don't already carry devices on our person everywhere we go that have mi
8.
by LA_Banker 9y ago
This is interesting because while Apple's (comparative) dedication to privacy is endearing, it's a long-term existential threat. Google knows all about me and its assistant is, usually, great. Amazon has troves of data on what I b
9.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
I'm presupposing the contact card has their job position/title, and therefore still answers the question – also presupposing the original (odd) premise of wondering who someone already saved in your phone is. The Venn overlap betw
10.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
I don't see it as humblebragging (any of us could create a Cook contact / ReCode readers likely know Walt Mossberg's relationship to Apple) but, worse, a faulty premise. Odds are, if you have them in your contact database, yo
11.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
a16z is getting punished (at least, in the article) for marking their paper gains more conservatively than other funds. Their LPs are likely smart enough to realize this.
12.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
I mentioned this to someone else who made the same point (albeit with the ACLU instead of the EFF): Hm, that's an interesting point that I'll have to noodle over. Thanks for pointing it out.
13.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
Hm, that's an interesting point that I'll have to noodle over. Thanks for pointing it out.
14.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
I'm not defending Gawker; I'm saying there's a better way to have this debate. We don’t have to accept or excuse Gawker’s worst stories to protest Thiel’s dangerous playbook for attacks on institutions of civil society.
15.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
I don't think one needs to necessarily choose a side. I'm of the opinion that what Gawker did is wrong, but surreptitiously funding lawsuits to bankrupt the company is a perversion of the justice system. The tension between privac
16.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
My mistake, I misread. I edited my post to address this.
17.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
There's a certain, perverse form of cognitive dissonance in thinking what Gawker did to Hogan was wrong, but ViolentAcrez and his posting of creepshots of underage girls was somehow unimpeachable free speech – and therefore his freedom
18.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
>and in fact was illegal for a long time Yeah, no. NYTimes v. Sullivan determined that public figures sacrifice a good deal of their privacy when they when they enter the public sphere. For instance, the same such video of, say, a govern
19.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
An LBO of a home is called "getting a mortgage." And yet, one's car or home isn't exactly a share-issuing company. You can form a company to own it – but that's not private equity. Are you familiar with what "p
20.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
One doesn't exactly "start [their] own private equity firm." Tens of (more often: hundreds of) millions of dollars must be raised and even then, they must bid (or acquire by other means) on companies. Anyone with a net worth
21.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
>At least they will do everything possible to maximize profits. Yes, sometimes this involves slower ambulances or slow internet. This is especially the case when there is no/few alternatives. What are you going to do... not have a
22.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
>However, conflating private equity with wall st., and making a distinction between how firms under private equity ownership behave vs. public equity or closely held (no financial sponsor) seems pointless other than to further some other
23.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
>Fair enough. But since when was the DNC officially a part of the US Federal Government? U.S. Law (U.S. Code or "U.S.C.") doesn't just cover the government. It covers, well, the U.S. Were you thinking Constitutional Law, w
24.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
>Everybody that has spent more than 3 hours on the internet already knows that everyone is out there to get you. Yes, just like every adult knows thieves are out there to get to your valuables. It means you should secure them, sure, but
25.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
That's fair. The comparison was a little unexpected, stark, and a detour from normal HN fare, but I still thought it was apt. (YMMV)
26.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
Indeed. Moreover, this is what political parties do! They try to influence elections; they don't rig them such that votes aren't counted, like some banana republic. (Sanders supporters will no doubt point out some voting anomali
27.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
Ah, that makes much more sense.
28.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
The metaphor strikes me as somewhat self-explanatory. They could have done more to prevent it, sure, (just like a woman could avoid situations where rape is possible [I guess? I don't even think that's feasible]), but since the cr
29.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
>throw an election [thinking face emoji]
30.
by LA_Banker 10y ago
It's not Wikileaks' job to save the DNC, but they could claim more moral authority if they didn't so brazenly also play a role in disseminating donor financial information. That's essentially what Snowden is saying. Go

More ›