This thread [1] on Zuckerberg from 7+ years ago doesn't look too different. Top comments saying it's "pretty cringe-y", another posting an image from Reddit and some "Twitter bingo cards". The nature of the situation doesn't really offer much for deep analysis, but the discussion yesterday [2] on the product itself seems fine to me. You might disagree since people are more skeptical rather than being glad Meta is pushing it.
I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. The Cambridge Analytica stuff was probably some of the ethically worst stuff that Zuckerberg and Meta has ever done, and they absolutely deserved to get raked over the coals for it. AI glasses and VR are nowhere in the same ballpark. In fact, that the two discussions are tonally similar seems to support my argument.
The discussion yesterday was fine. If that was the only conversation we had, I wouldn't be worried.
Yes, considering it was ~2 years from freezing withdrawals to the approved bankruptcy plan to repay customers.
FTX was only able to repay customers because the value of BTC increased during that time. But customers were only repaid the value of their portfolio at the time of the collapse.
If I steal your money, invest it, then return the principal amount after 2 years, would you consider it financial harm?
The countries with the highest inflation rates [1] aren't necessarily the same with high rates of poverty [2]. For example Lebanon has the highest inflation rate in the world, but has poverty rates lower than Mexico (which itself has relatively low inflation).
Claiming that Meta distributed pirated works is still a copyright claim, but you're correct that it's seemingly irrelevant to the fair use argument (which the article acknowledges).
1. Handle in large quantities. The ransom paid here was $1 million. With crypto, transferring that much is a few keystrokes. With cash, it's basically a large bag of cash that needs to be moved around.
2. Hold for ransom. Given point #1, kidnappers (of people and data) know that it's much easier to demand payment of large amounts in crypto than cash. If you kidnap a rich person in the crypto world, kidnappers know it's easy for him to sign over a very large amount of bitcoin quickly, which looks to be what happened here. Even for a very wealthy person, it's not logistically easy to get a million dollars in cash, never mind hand it over in a way that isn't a huge risk for the kidnappers.
3. Launder. Crypto tumblers are still a thing despite US government crackdown. Laundering cash with recorded serial numbers is much harder.
I'm not denying that crypto may have some legitimate uses, but it's basically a dream come true for criminals.
If criminals know somebody holds a significant amount of crypto, such as the CEO of a crypto company, they don't need to have them contact somebody else to withdraw and deliver a large amount of physical cash. They don't need to convince anyone they're serious. If the victim has their phone with them or can remember a password, then the criminals just have to coerce the victim into making a transfer.
Arguably, this isn't even really kidnapping in the traditional sense. It's high-tech mugging.
Owning a significant amount of crypto-currency and carrying the ability to make a transfer around in your head or pocket is basically the same as carrying a suitcase full of cash.
Your comment that it is logistically easy for the random rich guy to buy large sum of crypto is simply not true. For one, you'd have to go through KYC which takes time, and you can't just open an account and buy 100k in crypto (yet alone millions) as you'd need a history of activity on your account and multiple limit increases.
True, but not in this mental exercise where the person is being held hostage. They would still need to liquidate assets and transfer to crypto, and also need connections to this type of seller. In that case, that’d probably already have it.
Crypto does have significant advantages (handling in large quantities and rapid payment, as you described) but it is meaningfully harder to launder since blockchains are public and forensics is straightforward. The DoJ and crypto forensics firms has posted about this at length.
You're just explaining why crypto is becoming increasingly popular for businesses in general: the tech works.
1. Yes, everything is recorded on the block chain, but tumblers work. But yes, I agree it's hard to move large amounts of money on the blockchain since it's public.
2. "You're just explaining why crypto is becoming increasingly popular for businesses in general" Citation definitely needed. I used to see "pay with Bitcoin!" in a couple places online about 5-8 years ago. I never see it now, and hardly anyone I know, even big time "crypto people", actually use crypto to buy anything. Almost all the "uses" I hear are speculation or criminal uses. The only legitimate use I've actually seen is cross-border payments.
> it's hard to move large amounts of money on the blockchain since it's public
This was a $1mm ransom. The attraction of crypto isn't that it's easy to launder. It's that it's easy to steal. Beat a crypto bro on the head and you know you can effect a verifiable, irreversible transfer. Wiring money involves many more steps and has all kinds of reverse options.
Just look at all the movie plots that hinge on "ransom payment gone wrong" scenes, where the actual handing over of payment results in some kidnappers getting killed. With crypto, it just becomes "send a large amount of bitcoin to address X by date Y, otherwise we start shipping you various body parts of the kidnappee on dates Y+1, Y+2, etc." This dynamic is also the reason ransomware is so effective.
Not that many people keep a big stack of physical cash under their pillow, and organisations that do keep cash are well-known robbery targets (e.g. banks, mints).
It's substantially harder to kidnap someone and force them to sell their business and then give the cash to you than it is to make them transfer their crypto. And realistically most people's wealth will be in a company or some shares, etc.
This mindset can only be born of stability. If your country descends into chaos, having money on hand is better than having money in a bank, and therefore, not on hand.
Silver coins is my bet. I'm not a prepper by any means, but I always keep some silver on hand. If nothing else, they make good gifts for kids. They feel like little pirates when you give them silver coins.
I buy, restore, and sell woodworking and metalworking tools and vehicles. If I did it full time I could have that much on hand. I think I have like 25k in case a really good deal pops up, and it's a very side gig.
In which case you really shouldn't tell a public forum about it.
Maybe it's my jaded European mindset, but - rich people have been a target since the dawn of civilization, flaunting wealth is a good way to attract attention from bad people.
The chances of someone finding me through this public forum are very low. Following this username takes you to a person from Reddit who I am not. If you follow the clues in my posts, you'll narrow it down to a farmer who also works in colleges, and who lived in the Midwest at some point, but doesn't anymore, and whose parents live in an area of the world that is kind of arid. There's a lot of those type of people.
I'm more concerned about locals finding out. That's why I don't talk about the cash I have on hand in my real life, ever.
That's insane and irresponsible. There's a reason that you can't make large "cash" purchases in physical cash - even with a certified or cashier's check you're limited to under $50k total or $100k/day before getting into private banking where your limits are higher.
>There's a reason that you can't make large "cash" purchases in physical cash
I don't understand what you mean with this.
And also, yes you can? I've purchased cattle (~100k) and vehicles (5-40k) with cash.
It's not insane and irresponsible. I legitimately do not understand your attitude with that. As long as you don't walk around with 100k in your hand waving it around, what's the danger? The world isn't as bad as the news would have you believe.
Also, Some people prefer doing business without involving electronics. I've bought things using cash, silver, canning jars, and baseball cards. I prefer to barter for goods and labor, but some people prefer cash. What's the problem with that?
Had a Ukrainian girlfriend that had $25,000 in her go bag, just in case. She was not even close to wealthy and that was a considerable fraction of her yearly salary. She was the complete opposite of a criminal.
> Nuclear war between US and Russia is less likely with Trump
Incredibly difficult to estimate this, in large part because the probabilities are so small.
What we can say is neither Russia nor America wants MAD. So the way an exchange would happen would be due to a fuckup. And not any old fuckup, e.g. Ukraine hit Moscow with an American missile or whatever. But a nuclear fuckup, e.g. Moscow thinks it's detected multiple missile launches and can't get the President on the phone.
>Incredibly difficult to estimate this, in large part because the probabilities are so small.
The UN chief has been stating that the risk of nuclear warfare is at the highest point in decades. Not because of the risk of a 'fuckup', but due to geopolitical tensions. Historically the risk has been highest during periods of geopolitical tension.
> UN chief has been stating that the risk of nuclear warfare is at the highest point in decades
Would love to see how they're calculating this.
I'd agree we're at post-Cold War high in terms of risk of nuclear war. But that's because we have more nuclear states than before [1]. I'm sceptical we're worse off than the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union was collapsing and former Communist officials were busy staging coups and whatnot. I'm also sceptical that Russia and America are at greater risk of nuclear war than during e.g. the collapse of Yugoslavia or the Syrian civil war.
> Historically the risk has been highest during periods of geopolitical tension
Sure. Though it's difficult to argue anything about nuclear use historically given they've only been used in one campaign, the Cold War was a strategic nuclear stalemate, and the post-Cold War era doesn't particularly sustain your hypothesis. (Pyongyang and Pakistan being particularly-potent wildcards.)
For the sake of argument, however, let's assume you're right. Are you claiming Donald Trump wasn't a source of geopolitical tension? The Trump who continued our occupation of Afghanistan, boosted troops in Iraq and Syria, offed an Iranian major general and seriously weighed leaving NATO? All while launching a multi-pronged salvo at China?
This isn't a Trump v Biden or Harris thing. It's just the reality of a superpower expressing its geopolitical interests.
Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions. Kamala would likely continue the policy of continuous, slow escalation. The most recent escalation is Ukraine shooting long range weapon into Russia, what's next?
Ending a conflict won't affect the probabilities compared to escalating it? De-escalation through escalation will end up in the the history books as the dumbest things western politicians believed in 2024
> Ending a conflict won't affect the probabilities compared to escalating it?
If affects it. We just can't universally say which way.
Appeasement is the classic example of escalatory de-escalation. But a better one is the Cold War: America or the USSR entering or withdrawing from a particular theatre, e.g. Vietnam or Afghanistan, was on average orthogonal to risk of nuclear war.
Whether a peace deal enhances or damages the peace is context dependent and can swing either way.
> De-escalation through escalation will end up in the the history books as the dumbest things western politicians believed in 2024
What a strange comment to make in the context of nuclear strategy. Should the U.S. unilaterally dismantle its nuclear deterrent?
Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions.
Do you think rewarding the aggressor with large-scale land concessions (the only kind they have indicated they will accept), along with other concessions they will certainly demand (a lifting of sanctions, no need to pay financial restitution for the immense suffering and damage they have caused; and certainly no prosecution for war crimes) -- can provide a viable foundation for "peace"?
> Trump wants a peace deal in ukraine that could involve land concessions.
This would only be temporary until Putin decides what to invade next. He has his country weapons production running at full swing, why stop when he knows he can get what he wants. Granted having all of Europe fully under Putin's control would probably reduce the risk of MAD since the crazy guy got all his wishes. I just hope I won't have to live in such a Europe.
>This would only be temporary until Putin decides what to invade next. He has his country weapons production running at full swing, why stop when he knows he can get what he wants. Granted having all of Europe fully under Putin's control
This is irrational fearmongering. Let's assume NATO falls apart and it's every country for itself. It will take years for Russia to reconstitute its combat power to sufficient degree to conduct another large-scale mechanized invasion of anything bigger than the Baltic states. Speaking of the Baltics, I'm really not concerned about them, combined pop of ~6 million and GDP of ~$650B...they are roughly the size and impact of Hong Kong, and should not drive policy-making that risks continents of hundreds of millions when the West didn't raise a finger to protect HK from the PRC's authoritarian crackdown.
But let's look at the big nation-states that could be in Russia's sights: they aren't sitting still and are ALSO re-arming with everything from US hardware to South Korean tanks and artillery[0]. Now consider demographics. Poland and Romania have a combined population of ~60 million. Their capital cities have metro areas of ~2 million+, much like Kyiv and Kharkhiv, which Russia hasn't been able to take by force of arms. How would Russia control them if they resisted? What sort of sustained insurgency would the populations (who as I understand it are overwhelmingly anti-Russian) be capable of inflicting? What sort of cost-benefit analysis do you really think Putin is doing that would result in some dystopian return to Russian domination of Eastern Europe? In other words, what does he, and perhaps more importantly, the rest of Russia's siloviki, stand to gain that makes waging an open war and/or counter-insurgency against ~60 million Poles and Romanians worthwhile? If you think Putin is just trying to paint the map like a Hearts of Iron player.....that perspective is simply not in touch with reality.
> I just hope I won't have to live in such a Europe.
You already lived through a period of Putin-dominated Europe, when he had Europe's most important economy in his back pocket: 2000-20013. [1] Russia was printing money selling petrochemicals to German industry. The oligarchs were fat, happy, and spent a bunch of their cash buying European vacation homes and sports teams. The biggest person rocking the boat was Georgia's Mikhael Sakhashvili[2], who Putin simply slapped down as a warning to the US, then went back to printing money (assisted by greasing the wheels with Gerhard Schroder's help)[3]. Second-biggest person rocking the boat was George Bush's administration, which refused to ratify the START II treaty[4], then unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty[5], then insisted on putting ABMs in Russia's near-abroad[6]. And yet....life in Europe got along just fine.
The comment above yours is simply misinformed. Clearly Putin isn't going to try to take all of Europe. Even though you aren't misquoting the commenter, you're basically attacking a straw man here (in that this is not a scenario anyone is seriously considering).
However Putin has objectively threatened Poland and the Baltics (via numerous statements), and if he is appeased (or otherwise allowed to succeed) in Ukraine, there's a much more realistic possibility that he may make a move on those countries. He may not seek to entirely conquer Poland, for example, but it's not unrealistic to expect that he may attempt some form of "border correction", per his sockpuppet Medvedev's recent statements in this regard.[0]. Not for any rational reason, of course. He didn't have a rational reason to invade Ukraine either. He did to make a point, and because he thought he could get away with it.
So getting down to brass tacks here -- should Poland and the Baltics be defended, in your view? Or should they be thrown under the bus, because (at least in regard to the latter) you've decided that you're "really not concerned about them"?
You already lived through a period of Putin-dominated Europe,
A Europe in which Putin enjoys a substantial "soft power" leverage via cheap gas is very different from a Europe in which Putin is allowed to sever off large chunks of countries (if not entire countries), and his people are allowed to murder, rape and deport/kidnap at will.
There's no comparison at all between the "domination" he enjoyed in the previous era, and what he's trying to pull off now.
Strong disagree. Trump has proven to be unreliable and unpredictable. He’s drunk on his own real or perceived power like a typical cult leader, and cannot be relied on to act rationally. Not unlike Putin.
The public support is for an age limit of social media (which already exists), not necessarily the measures to achieve it which are yet to be determined. There's not 68% support of using measures like digital ID.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38236285