hsk0823

No one thinks this is actually secure, it's security theater.

The thing is, the cost of identity theft of consumers to credit reporting companies is less than the cost to actually adopt secure methods to judge one's credit.

Gandi or GTFO, they're one of the few registrars that are fighting for the "good guys"

could it have gone into spam?

USB 3.X / USB-C / Thunderbolt 3, all of it together is confusing enough for those technical, add marketing speak to the mix and it's just going to end up with a mish mosh of different words that mean absolutely nothing and tell the end user very little.

Add to the fact that everyone is skimping on the actual USB 3 standards and a large amount of shitty products on the market that don't do what they say they do (due to poor quality control, making wires longer than spec expecting them to work to spec), we have to rely on guys like Benson to crowdsource working and non working products.

https://bensonapprovedcom.wordpress.com/

No it can't. We're literally talking about monitoring and capturing packets for data loss prevention, something that can't be done if the packets are encrypted.

There's a whole IT market segment around TLS decryption for corporate LAN. Basically corporate MITM that will decrypt TLS at the gateway / firewall, and with currently used TLS standards, will then re encrypt the traffic back to the client so the browser thinks it has a legit connection. It's used to scan packets for intrusion detection, for malware, to track for data loss like the article talks about.

There are orgs with thousands of corporate G Suite accounts. I mean if you are in the 10k or larger size, running your services internally might make sense but for the rest of us, G Suite should work well enough for corporate email.

How do we know that this isn't the case here and said hacker went after those records as well?

This all seems like an inside job and thus even offline backups are at risk if a disgruntled employee wanted to go after it.

Yes it is. https://github.com/jhallen/joes-sandbox/tree/master/editor-p...

It be really great if they allowed G Suite admins to have fine grained control over what is and isn't SPAM in their own domain. Alas even that's subject to consumer Gmail spam filters.

You'd think so, but no even internal G Suite emails that never leave the domain, still subject to GMail's generic all users spam filters. And even as a paying user, you can't get out of them.

They introduced more stringent controls around what constitutes spam.

Never gonna happen, the big G knows the best for all. Even G Suite business users have to deal with the lack of controls here, even if we whitelist our own domain, things can get flagged by the larger Gmail spam filters that G Suite users are still subject to.

I say that most sushi restaurants in N America go by using sushi grade fish that was probably processed by a fish monger, not the chef.

Aging fish really comes into play for high end sushi, where the chef is after some chemical reactions can only happen over time, it's not rot, it's more like it had time to rest and develop flavors that it would not have had if it was just straight from the fish right after it was caught.

I think the Peter principle, the idea that people are promoted to until they are incompetent in their roles, comes into play.

What worked for you to get to the job isn't necessarily going to work for you to succeed in the job, I agree with others saying that it's not a time management issue, it's a change in perspective that's require, you no longer have the ability to do everything for everyone, you now have to lead people you can trust to fulfill those tasks better than you could, as your responsibilities grow, the rest of your team doesn't stay static, they also grow with you.

I think that depends on what you think his new job actually is, and if that actually aligns with what they think their new job is.

Every manager has different ways to lead, every person has different behaviors that make them more or less likely to follow someone who is leading. The whole team needs to work out the right dynamic and be truthful with each other and managers need to be truthful with their employees as well as with themselves.

It may turn out like it often does, great developers who understand the product and project inside out don't automatically make them great managers

You keep calling it a public offering, but the reality is, a public offering is selling parts of your company for cash, aka a stock, ownership has it's privileges, without those privileges, you aren't selling anything to the public, the public is giving you money in return for a piece of paper and a fuzzy good feeling inside. I don't invest to get a fuzzy good feeling inside. I donate for that.

Donations are not investments. They're expenses. Investments must have a return of some monetary vale, or else it's an expense.

There's three ways to raise money. You can finance it (debt) or you can sell ownership (equity), or the last one, people can randomly throw money at you and expect nothing in return. The last method of raising funds are donations, those aren't an asset that can produce dividends, or earn interest, that's the opposite of an investment, it's an expense. A charitable one generally to get more favorable tax incentives.

Of course you can have equity in a non profit. That doesn't mean your entitled to profits that don't exist, it means you have a stake in the organization. And the # of outstanding stocks versus the # of stocks held by the general public is a tiny fraction of what the Packers are worth, but again those silly pieces of paper are not proof of equity or ownership, it's literally memorabilia fans traded cash for a piece of paper that says they own something even though they have no power of ownership, the annual shareholder meeting is for show, so to call it an investment like a traditional stock would be isn't fair, it's really not the same thing.

What you are describing is development office, going out to ask for donations for a cause. That's not the same as running a venture that's going to make profit for shareholders.

For those on the outside, especially outside the tech scene all together, looking in, a multi million dollar series A for a company of under 10 employees looks like easy money, compared to say someone trying to run their mom and pop retail shop. Of course most people forget that this money isn't free, there's cost and expectations around how that money will be used.

Very true, my mind was stuck on tech VC since the 70s, but yeah the idea of buying equity in a venture isn't new.

Define reasonable because to the VC taking the large risk, 5% YoY isn't the goal.

The organization does, it's a non profit, it gets reinvested into the team coffers to be spent. There's no dividend or anything like that.

It's a scam because the equity have any decision making power. It's still controlled by a small group of people aka the board of directors, the stock structure is setup that fans could not mount a hostile takeover. It's called ownership, but it's not, it has no value, it cannot ever be sold back, it doesn't grant you any say over how the team operates. The Packers are not a community owned organization, it's operates no different than any other NFL team, decisions are not made by the fans. The Packers aren't really community owned organization, a real community owned organization whose members have actual power over the organization. Those are very few and far between, are generally non profits, and in the end, no ability for outside investors to get the profits they're looking for, thus they won't bother to invest.

You hear from time to time small to mid sized business that are "employees owned and operated" but that doesn't mean every employee has the same equity, the generally ownership will have the largest stake anyway with employees having very little control or equity compared to ownership

Dell may have been a dorm room startup, but VC influences exists even in it's first early years from Lee Walker who I don't believe was just a simple salaried employee but must have invested some of his own money for equity, and it had meteoric growth in the first few years from dorm room project to full fledged multinational company with a very quick IPO.

Of course. That's part of raising capital, is funding employee salary. Of course it's not a "they're set", it's a market rate salary given the size of the company and the role you do for the company.

What's to stop VC fraud? Generally when you accept VC money, you're giving a board seat to said VC, who is there to yes guide with experience, but is also there to protect their investment.

But that's a deal a VC wouldn't make in the first place.

The Packers model works because it's basically a scam, no one in Green Bay actually has any say over what the Packers do day to day but it feels good for Packer fans to say they own a part of the team. There's emotional buy in, it's not a rationale way to invest your money, and no one lends money with the idea that they're not going to see it again as a business.

Community support projects work for Kickstarter or Indiegogo marketing to the general public consumer, that's not the same thing as trying to build a B2B SaaS platform fixing a specific problem marketed at Fortune 500 companies.

Careful what you wish for, startups have people who will wear as many different hats as required to make it work. Corporate life may have had a really well defined job role, that may not be true in any startup you join.

VC money is not free, there's a real cost to it, it's written on the term sheet.

VC money is relatively easy money to obtain versus trying to grind for the same amount of capital yourself, but there's certainly a cost to any transaction.

Lots of good questions. Maybe a primer on the relationship between a VC and a founder would be helpful.

Say you are a founder, you've got a killer idea, you think you can change the world with this idea but you need capital to bring it to life. Say you can demonstrate on a small scale that your idea does work, you have analysis that the market will support your idea, but you need money again to make it a reality. VCs come in, say we'll give you a boat load of cash today, in exchange for a hefty portion of your company, based on an evaluation that we're going to make. They usually take a board seat, and will be a part of your company's leadership, but remember the goal of the VC on the board may not always align with what other board members want for the company, VCs are looking to make the company's evaluation value grow so their investment is worth more than they spent, usually for a set amount of time or some sort of liquidation event occurs, be it acquisition, IPO, or shutting it down.

VCs work within a fund, a set amount of capital to invest, and that fund generally has a timeline, say 10 years, for the fund to end and realize any and all profit and losses and close the fund down. Once a company goes public, the VC can choose to do what they want, including completely selling all the shares they can convert into straight cash, or holding onto it, or devise some other strategy to distribute stocks to it's limited parters (the other groups of capital such as pension funds, college endowments, etc. etc.) for them to do what they wish.

Early/Seed, Mid-Stage, Late stage, these are generally terms to describe where a company is, and sometimes can be seen as part of the VC chain, seed / series A, Series B-C, Series D and above if additional rounds of funding are needed.

There are plenty of companies that exist to purely exist and serve their customers, by the time a company goes public, VCs are generally long gone as their funds have run their course. The VC model is a relatively new investment invention compared to industrial companies of the early 1900s in manufacturing let's say.

The pros and cons of a public vs private company can fill an entire textbook. They're just different models of operating, with different legal ramifications, different things you can and cannot do as a public company versus a private company, as well as access to capital which as a public company comes much easier (sell your share to the public) than it can when you have to pitch private investors.

In the broader economy, VCs play a small part, endowments, pension funds, other investment groups, may as part of their investment strategy partner with various VC and PE firms. But there's there's a diversity of firms that operate VC funds, it's not all just in one company (although one could argue Softbank Vision fund is just that), and each VC and PE firm has their own investment philosophy on how they stay successful.