Zarathustra_

Let me qualify that. You're right, we do need a lot more people. But the answer is, don't write your own, write as part of a team. Ideally, a public and peer-reviewed project. The short answer is many people will work on it together, but don't write your own.

Previous thread with lots of relevant information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542405

Short answer is yes usually, and if not, you can always do inline asm. Of course, you're really, really, really not supposed to write your own crypto.

> Either put up with your computer exploding and not being able to do your job for a few days, or spend another two grand to buy a whole other computer you probably won't use.

Fixed that for you. I get the point generally, but there's a great difference between "I damaged my computer and it will take a week to fix" and "My computer spontaneously combusted and it will take a week to fix". Namely, fault and impact. When you damage your computer, you are at fault and you are impacted. Fair. When your computer goes boom, Apple is (probably) at fault, but you are still impacted.

Though yeah, not backing up your stuff is inexcusable in the age of cheap, ubiquitous storage space. Particularly in the cloud.

This could be said of both sides. We elect politicians to pass laws to impose opinions and values. While you may disagree with those, that doesn't make the opinion of the large portion of the population which agrees with him invalid. His opinions may be unpopular among the people who attend Black Hat, but not so much so among the rest of Americans. Congressman Hurd is also well-known for supporting cybersecurity initiatives in government, something we need more of.

If you disagree with Mr. Hurd on many issues, but agree with him on cybersecurity, why can't you just agree with him there and let him speak? The politicians with whom I agree only in part are without end.

This is surely due to cost of data. It baffles me that we have so much regulation and so many entrenched players that there is little room for competition, leading to higher prices. The question is, how do you prevent the natural monopolies of a finite resource (like wireless spectrum)? The first thing I could think of is stopping the Sprint - T-Mobile merger, but I'm not confident Sprint will keep its head above water much longer without it. Maybe it's better to have the airwaves resold? Or maybe not, as one of the big existing telcos will buy them at auction.

Can any one conceive of a reasonable solution to this? Ideally one which involves minimum government intervention.

I guess I'm an interesting blend of geek and luddite. I enjoy tinkering with computers immensely, but prefer to leave them in their place. I don't like carrying a phone, don't use social networks, don't play video-games, etc. As part of this perspective, I have an intense distrust of self-driving cars. There is a great deal of difference between digitizing analog devices (using new devices to fill old roles), and creating new roles for tech to fill. I'm just a little too wary when it comes to driving. I can't stand the idea of a car grabbing control from me and braking, though some people I know drive such cars and regard it as a feature.

I don't know if this comes because of a technical background or not. As I have learned more about software development, assembly, cybersecurity, etc. over the years, I have become more rather than less accepting of things like self-driving cars.

This applies to IoT as well. I will never, ever, ever have one of those glorified wiretaps they call "voice assistants". What do they do, any way? I don't really care about being able to tell a speaker to order more laundry detergent. Nor do I want any of these goofy "smart" appliances - why do I care about my toaster sending me push notifications when my bread is done? Or mining bitcoin?

I guess I just felt like ranting. I hope one of you can convince me such a cynical outlook is wrong, as I get a bit sick of viewing new stuff with negativity.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. That seems somewhat like a reasonable loop hole, though I can easily see how it could be abused. I appreciate the information.

No, it used to be the point. Now a large portion of the point is to cash out existing investors. I do not claim it is the sole purpose, and this is largely true among unicorns, but it is certainly a shift. Look at Facebook: they kept raising huge series of private equity.

I will preface this by saying I am not defending Wal-Mart. However, it is somewhat a cost of doing business in many countries. I have spoken with close friends from both Brazil, Mexico, and India, and it is very much part of how business is done there. I have also heard from numerous acquaintances that this is the case in China, including people who did business there. This does perhaps not justify Wal-Mart's behavior, but it provides some context and reminds us that companies (even those the size of Wal-Mart) have few options. Besides, promising to bring jobs to a certain area leads to more tax revenue, which in turn leads to fatter pockets for politicians. We delude ourselves to pretend we are perfect.

However, America has the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which does mean this could be more complicated. We recognize that someone else jumping off a bridge does not justify our doing so. And though we still have problems at home, we do try to police them. When a corruption scandal breaks, politicians usually are forced out of office; compared to many other places, this is good.