fasteddie

Another headstone in the google graveyard. This one doesn't make any sense to me, either, unless there are weird regulatory issues they want to avoid since it seemed like a very popular registrar. Or maybe they just didn't want to staff any limited customer support team.

This is one of my pet peeves of GDPR! Your nephew and IP Octet cases are very extreme edge cases that we shouldn't build policy around if there are major drawbacks to including them. It's bad there is ostensibly no compliant way to count anonymized unique users in Europe under the current framework.

This actually was his second offense.

The people actually building the buildings (developers) are, generally, different than the people renting out buildings (landlords). Developers profit when more units are built, landlords are hurt with increased competition.

Also, recent California law was changed so that the maximum allowable annual rent increase is ~10% (still rough if you are hit with that, but better than 30%).

Regardless of relative value, in most cases it is cheaper to just demolish and rebuild office space than gut + renovate. SROs/boarding house cases make a little more economic sense for these conversions but are more unpopular uses.

Especially once you get big enough to require a retention policy and have to delete your years of knowledge repository! Better off documenting separately from the start.

As much as the HN crowd dislikes to hear it, the biggest gaming console in the world is the smartphone. PC Gaming is almost as big as the entire console market, bigger than any individual platform. Any publisher-focused antitruster would have microsoft leaning very hard into those facts.

That's the point, though. I could make a non-crypto based money transfer software that does not store sender or recipient information in the db. That too would make it impossible for that software comply with the law. Or the authors sculpture example.

Just because the nature of the software makes it impossible to comply with particular laws doesn't make it good or bad. You need to make a value judgement if the regulation itself is valuable.

A new small apartment in San Francisco cannot be built for less than $800k these days, so coming in a $333k per resident is not too surprising to me in a similar high-cost city with a building with a ton of amenities.

As a mediocre armchair accountant, I'm interested in how to read their P&L since so much of the loss is depreciated clothing, which they presumably continue to rent out even after they mark down the value of the clothes.

Presumably a dress has a much higher LTV in future implied subscription income then its inherent accounting liquidation value.

What? It absolutely needs to be up -- those ads being served are on Facebook and Insta, not display banners on random sites.

This is a great, clean explainer.

Series B seems to be the sweet spot to me if you would like to avoid working at a FAANG but want similar EV in your comp package, assuming you are decently good at guessing winners.

At that point the company is meaningfully de-risked but the equity offers are still pretty good for mid-career folks that you end up with millions in a good exit.

I'm a bit confused reading this. Is the lawsuit that users signing up for e.g. Venmo didn't know that they were also giving their transaction history/whatever to Venmo, or that Plaid was then taking the data passed to Venmo and reselling to, I don't know, a hedge fund?

If it's the former -- I certainly think services need to clearly state what/why/how they are using the data, but it's on the services (like Venmo) and not Plaid.

I once used a very dumb feature flag set up to get around a rule an Apple reviewer told us were breaking, just for review period. The supposed rule violation was around for a year and no one had flagged it except for this one reviewer, and they were clearly interpreting the policy wrong. Easier to make a flag to appease then try and work up the management review chain.

This wasn't malware or anything like that, but goes to show limits of automated review.