comrade_ogilvy

I think a variation of your idea is a winner. The top of the delivery truck can have lots of instrumentation to determine whether the final approach is safe, and help guide the landing. The human does the last 50 feet of delivery.

A computer can know exactly where the trucks are and when they will be in the vicinity. The delivery time can be fairly accurately estimated on the spot.

In an urban environment, bikes could do the last mile, with the robots delivered to pre-designated drop off points. A predetermined location would be easy on the computer.

But I think your idea works better in a suburban zone. The trucks exist and are constantly driving around. It is a question of how to re-prioritize the work on the fly.

The practical answer is probably to blend the technologies. In an urban environment, the bikes do the last mile. Very small drop off points with tiny specialized helipads would accept a stream of fast deliveries from the more distant real warehouses. Since the routes would be established, the computer technology demands would be modest.

Get the package to the drop off point in 30-60 minutes by quad-copter. Get the package from there by bike in 30-60 minutes. There would be uncertainty based on the availability of human messengers, but routes and delivery times can be estimated/calculated by computer. "Estimated delivery in 79 minutes. Click yes?"

Keep in the larger context in mind:

Your former employer (and anyone else you have done significant business with) can always find some flimsy basis for a lawsuit that will cost you several dozens of sleepless nights and $10k-$20k in lawyers fees, before it is thrown out by the judge.

What is stopping the other guy is they are not pissed off enough to throw $50k-$100k in the toilet for the lawyers fees and distraction to punish you unjustly.

Not signing does not actually protect you from baseless suits, if you run your mouth.

I have had this happen a couple time. I got a call one Saturday morning asking about 3 recent charges, including a Men's Warehouse in Waikiki.

My response: "You are calling me at my California home number. I WISH I were in Waikiki right now. How about you reverse everything today and send me a new card in the mail?"

Exactly. When you pre-authorize money to be removed from your account, the bank will happily believe every future charge from that party. From their point of view, your emptied bank account is your problem.

In fact, some banks will not even give you an effective means of removing such authorization. You may literally need a new bank account to keep your account from being emptied in the future.

I am ideologically opposed to ever letting money leaving my bank account, except under my close supervision with direct instructions on time and amount and to whom.

That means nobody has a right to ask for money from my bank. I tell my bank whom to give money and how much. Not my credit card. Not my mortgage company. Definitely not my gym.* Nobody. Never.

Therefore I never used debit cards. Wells Fargo kept sending me debit cards when my ATM card expired. I changed banks. I do not want any ambiguity about the balance in my bank.

"But they promise me all kinds of protections!" That sounds nice, but there are two problems:

First, you are giving up a wonderful kind of protection: the ability to walk away. If I disagree with my credit card company, I can pay what I deem correct and cancel my card. They can see me in court about the remaining balance, if they think they can win. I am whole. I still have my money in the bank account. It is approximately never going to be a problem, because the credit card companies understand the score. They have a strong incentive to play fair with an honest credit card holder.

Second of all, the moment the bank/credit card company thinks something really fishy is going on, you are screwed. You know how you said you were wondering about those security questions and whether you would recognize the voice? Think carefully. If the bank suspects your nephew who stayed the weekend last month or a roommate or an ex-SO are directly involved, it all becomes your problem. The bank will not restore any funds to your account. The local police will laugh at you. And now you see the problem. The fact of your emptied bank account will not be changed, and those promises you were banking on are worthless. (Have money to hire a lawyer? That one is lose-lose.)

* Private gyms love to get bill your bank account and be authorized for automatic payment. The thing most people do not realize is most banks consider this to be completely and totally your problem now. If you cancel your gym membership, and the gym makes a "mistake" and keeps billing you, the bank will not help you. In fact, some banks will tell you that your only recourse (from their POV) is to get a new bank account to protect yourself in the future. Those "mistakes"? Your problem.

That sounds exactly like the kind of wishful thinking the OP is railing against. For "retail" folk who are having trouble navigating through regular life without getting screwed by their regular bank account, what does bitcoin offer? Less than nothing. Bitcoins may have their uses, but it is primarily an advantage to very sophisticated persons (or criminals).

I would argue that fear of failure is taught.

Small children are relentless and courageous and highly tolerant of discomfort -- falling down 20 times does not intimidate them when learning to walk. They get tired, shrug and try again later. They pause their learning process temporarily but there are no negative emotions there, while the thrill of attempting something new is still kindling.

The founders were pushed out because the VCs perceived the founders were not running the company all that well. The VCs may have been wrong in that assessment, but the VC controlled board did go through the hassle of bringing in new management for fun.

Exactly. The preferred stock is paid for with real money. The common shares I bought as an employee was at single digit pennies a share. While I am not exactly happy how I got wiped out, I did less badly than many VCs did.

Yup. Our choices have consequences, and he put a lot of effort into making the world a crappier place so he could have a bit more stuff, most of which he probably did not actually need.

But the author did even realize half of it. A cashier demoted here or docked pay there is only the tip of the iceberg. The bigger cost is how every manager of every corporate store he scammed was put under pressure to look at all employees as insects, for fear that a few bad apples were running a side business doing favors for friends.

It is true that the cost may well be less than sending a check to some American farmers to ship over rice, because the monies circulate locally.

But ultimately that money could have built a big dam, or a few beautiful bridges, or a small power plant in a country with lots of power outages.

I personally think it is money well spent, because it heralds the arrival of India to the world of first class satellite launching, by doing something Russia failed at the first few attempts. But that payoff is over the long term.

>Compelling someone to lie after the facts have changed seems to me a far murkier legal area (and perhaps easier to fight in court).

And IIRC C-level executives are required to certify they believe their quarterly reports are, to the best of their knowledge, accurate, under Sarbanes-Oxley. There is a ticking clock here, once Apple asserts that the nebulous statement is relevant to the value of the company, because some customers are tetchy about their data.

Being deceitful about something that a reasonable person could construe as relevant to the value of the corporation in a public document could be a crime. Stockholders have rights.

I think a case can be made that public perceptions about how effectively Apple protects customer data is relevant to the company's perceived value to its customers, and therefore to its stockholders.

There is an interesting question here about whether a judge could order someone to commit a crime. Would he have the balls to put that in writing?

Can the CEO simply refuse to publish his quarterly results because he cannot certify it is accurate and complete under SOX? Sorry, SEC. Go talk to the secret judge.

Could the good Doctor Strangelove be wrong?