Yes. In a perfect information market, this will not work. The people that can do the job for 0.40 will do it directly for that amount or they will get it for 0.60. But information is a scarcity for poor people and that makes the market very very inefficient with a lot of people getting part of the cake without adding any value.
If you're the sole owner of a corporation and also an employee, you can move money from the corporation to your own pocket by either paying yourself a salary or paying a dividend out of corporate profits.
At least prior to the recent corporate tax rate cut, the tax you'd pay on the salary would typically be less than the sum of corporate income tax and tax on the dividend, so people would pay themselves unreasonably large salaries to save on taxes, and the IRS would object to this.
I don't think so. For instance, people I spoke with on reddit who installed the FB app thought that due to SSL, all their communications would be encrypted, and FB would only see who they were talking to, not what. Of course, the entire point of the root cert is to break SSL.
What? How can you make that argument? The average person has absolutely no clue of the various ways websites are tracking them already, let alone the potential amount of data Google would be getting by aggregating all this through their router.
> Steganographic communication as a substitute for encrypted text is a baffling misinterpretation of the reason for encryption in a chat program.
I agree with you, but couldn't you say the same thing about using end-to-end encryption in a chat program as a substitute for messaging that's just encrypted in transit?
> Steganographic communication as a substitute for encrypted text is a baffling misinterpretation of the reason for encryption in a chat program.
> I agree with you, but couldn't you say the same thing about using end-to-end encryption in a chat program as a substitute for messaging that's just encrypted in transit?
I just want to point out, again, that this is not an argument that I tried to make.
But what are you saying people should do? Only communicate information that I don’t mind being public using traditional non-secure messaging systems, and use stegonagraphy whenever one wants to communicate private information?
Steganography+encryption has a number of use cases. The one I think is most interesting is being able to store encrypted data locally with ease. Right now if I want to encrypt some text I have a number of options.
I can encrypt the hard drive. I can encrypt a text file to a binary encrypted file. I can encrypt a text file to a text file with something like pgp. But none of those are what I would call user friendly. But through the magic of steganography you could do all that and save it to an image file. Now we have something that people might be comfortable using.
As for secure chat idk. I wouldn't trust Windows, iOS, Android, my ISP, my VPN, the NSA (and whoever else), the spyware my mom has installed on her computer that neither of us know about, etc. I'd probably just google for something but I wouldn't be under any illusion that it's totally secure.
Can you elaborate on the logic of why saving encrypted text to an image file is more user-friendly than saving it to a text file? Why would that make people more comfortable?
Because people are more comfortable dealing with image files than .enc files or whatever extension one might use. Plus you dont just have to encode text. You can encode any file type. Look, I don't know what this is to the various participants in this thread but to me it's been really sad. I feel like I'm arguing politics. I don't think I've said anything unduly disrespectful or even incorrect yet I've been arguing about this with people who apparently think they know better but consistently get basic facts wrong or appear to be disingenuous to help win a debate. I'm not here to connect every dot for you. You're not holding my ideas up to the light of truth or whatever you think you may be doing. I really regret logging on to hackernews today.
At Google and other recent tech giants, you'll find thousands of people who could live comfortably without working a day for the rest of their lives. They're clearly not doing it for the salary.
This is pretty unfathomable to me. Similar to how youth is wasted on the young, wealth is too often wasted on the wealthy. Don’t these people have any hobbies or ability to entertain themselves? Is going in to work their favorite thing to do or simply the only thing they know?
> Don’t these people have any hobbies or ability to entertain themselves? Is going in to work their favorite thing to do or simply the only thing they know?
Why are you so snide towards them? What's wrong with them enjoying their work as a hobby and entertainment? Why is building whatever at Google invalid as a joyful activity someone might chose to do, but building a model aeroplane or anything else outside work would be a valid hobby instead?
Have you considered that maybe their work is their hobby, and a huge part of their life and purpose?
I work somewhere where a lot of my coworkers and management are incredibly dedicated and passionate about what we do. They will show up and go apeshit on a project for 12+ hours a day for a month at a time because they're excited about the challenge and the outcomes. Even when they're not working on such a schedule, they often go home and work on personal projects that parallel what they do in their work. There are plenty of days where I can't wait to get to work; all issues outside of it take the backseat. No matter how bad those issues are, I have no choice but to get over them, because my work is never finished.
I'd imagine that some jobs would be grating, but there's a lot of them that would never get old for some people.
It's not an accident... Success people are successful in part because they like doing these things.
I see it all the time here and on Reddit: people eschew giving a shit about what they do, then turn around and complain that they can't get ahead. News flash: people that care about things are better at those things. I don't think this should be a surprise to anyone, but it sometimes feels like it is...
> chooses to keep earning more money for their boss
But they aren't choosing to keep earning money for their boss. They're choosing to keep doing what they enjoy. That happens to earn their company money as well - why's that an issue?
Would you say the same thing about A-list actors or pro athletes? After a couple of successful movies or seasons, they could afford to retire too, but most choose to continue working as long as they possibly can.
I wouldn't work at Google for free if I was a junior or mid-level engineer doing something boring like maintaining an old codebase or trying to keep servers online. But some of these employees get to work on truly interesting projects with some of the best engineers in the world. Especially if they are inventing new products or researching and discovering new things. I imagine that the AI researchers earning millions per year probably love their work and would do it for free.
Serious question: is it illegal to exploit a cryptocurrency flaw for profit (strictly at the protocol level -- not hacking someone's machine or wallet, etc.)?
> No you cannot, unless you're running a single threaded server process on a single machine. What you can do is _gamble_ that you probably won't have a collision
This seems like a pointless distinction.
If I did the math right, you can generate 1,000,000 ULIDs per second (1000 per millisecond) for around 50 million years before you can expect to hit your first collision.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure any system I build won't be running 50 million years from now. Not to mention that the timestamp portion of the ULID will overflow in a mere 9000 years.
I did the math too after reading your comment and got the same result: on average, with 1,000,000 ULIDs per second, I'll wait 50 million years before hitting the first collision.
If that $1 per hour provides you with a better income than your peers with less physical labor, then this doesn't sound exploitive at all.