e_d_e_v

Do you live there? Is it that bad?

> which is obviously nonsense.

I think I've observed enough of this sentiment over the years, from some very smart and successful people, to come to the conclusion that, if it is nonsense, it is non-obvious.

> I never diminish anyone

Perhaps you never _intend_ to diminish anyone, but to some, your statements may reasonably appear to be diminishing some cohort.

Well, it seems ridiculous to say that, because there have been 3g microcells (openbsc, for example) forever. It seems bizarre that we couldn't have a switch in every truck that turns it into a mobile microcell for <$100. The backhaul is the problem, because normal microcells are connected to the internet via hardline IP communication . . . . which could be done with modern satellite. The problem is that if you are selling anything to any kind of government agency, you absolutely want them _not_ to be able to use any commodity component like a "cell phone"

It seems that perhaps you have some idea of what these perverse outcomes look like. D) seems to be "a company reinvests in its employees (training, etc) and E) is someethign like "a Company rewards employees and stakeholders for long-term company success."

What does the perverse scenario look like for you?

> the lenders will only lend up to 80% of the value of the house (an ordinary bank loan must be used for the remaining fraction)

From olau's explanation, it seems that there is enough money flowing, that more than 80% can be financed (in some way) even if it is not in a single or collateral-backed loan.

In my limited experience, stock options have significant differences from other typical investments in the following ways: 1) You can be prevented from effectively selling stock options prior to a liquidity event 2) Partly due to 1) , stock options are much harder to price than other investments that _could_ be bought and sold freely. 3) Due to the additional requirements as a byproduct of vesting, it is often impossible to pursue options at multiple similar organizations simultaneously. 4) Due to the caveats of even being a shareholder in a company, sometimes there are complications and risks. This is why there is a significant multi-page document to sign when exercising options typically.

> The forgotten / underestimated cost is the salaries of these people to set things up well in the first place, be on call to fix things when they break, and perform those upgrades in the same way that cloud providers do.

The thing is, you need this equivalently for any cloud provider as well. People who know how to operate and run a cloud account effectively are not a dime a dozen, and given the migration going on now are actually in higher demand than some qualified datacenter operators.

A Voigt-Kampff machine?

I think IP ownership does = stewardship of all domains using that IP from a DV certificate perspective. The moral of the story is don't point a domain you value at a sketchy host's IP. The list of the things that need to happen to work around poorly managed hosting providers in this scenario is overblown. No one should host anything they think is important on shared hosting. Full stop. That is about as much of a reality as the above statements around SNI, but it is something individuals can actually act upon.

Ok, in this scenario, we have a web host with an adversarial entity on its server, that commits a crime.

By the same token, if that web host were hacked and used to obtain a nefarious certificate, would the CA be accountable? It seems to me that, as a customer, if you point your domain (which you must do somehow) at a hosting provider, then any DV issued with that hosting providers' infrastructure should be considered to be the responsibility of the hosting provider and domain owner. I think you and rgbrenner are making perfectly valid points for high-value infrastructure, which has in my view very little to do with these hosting providers. The fact that people can upload certificates at all for domains which they have not proved (to the hosting provider) ownership of is disturbing in and of itself, even if it is quite common.