phlo

The author went with an UG nested in a KG as the legal structure. That's two legal entities. It's a neat workaround to avoid corporate taxes (the KG acts as a pass-through vehicle, for taxes and for liability), and avoid personal liability (which passes through the KG but stops at the UG).

In comparison, AG and GmbH also shield their owners from liability, but require capital deposits and are subject to corporate taxes.

Going with a UG-in-a-KG is an exercise in eating your cake and having it too. It's a cool legal structure that works around some of the limitations of its building blocks. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the people who can build the neat hack for you are going to want to get paid in order to do that.

You have to savour the lack of self-awareness in this one.

> Founder chooses the most complex legal structure that's readily-available... and is surprised that this complexity comes with laywer and notary fees.

> Founder decides to incorporate a company with the name of a popular brand of kitchen rolls... and is surprised that it's too generic.

> After "weeks of correspondence" (and, I suppose, extensive research), founder decides to incorporate a company that's named the same as a Swedish online marketing company instead. Very distinctive. No risk of confusion, ever.

(Published: 05 Sep 2023)

My go-to for situations like these: Assume that the offender _clearly_ didn't mean to behave incorrectly, and help them overcome the mistake.

Person in a public space listening to reels at full volume? Get their attention, then loudly point out that their headphones got disconnected and everybody can hear the audio.

People leaving a train or bus and leaving behind trash? Loudly let them know that they forgot their water bottle or paper bag. If it's a single item, this works doubly well if you helpfully hand them the item, too.

> AFAIR they don't do multilingual restreams (automated or otherwise) like some other online events.

They do. There's a team of interpreters at CCC who translate most talks between English and German, and to some other languages. As with most things CCC, it's all volunteer-driven and done on a best-effort basis, but it's there.

When interpretation is available, I prefer talks that are given in whichever language the presenter is most comfortable in. Presenting in front of a large audience is stressful enough as it is, so IMO it makes a ton of sense _not_ to worry about doing that in a second/third language, and delegating that part of the presentation to someone else instead.

Adam Neumann begs to differ.

> [Piracy:] When I download a movie this way, I truly own it.

When you download a pirated copy, it's more likely that you _possess_ it, rather than _owning_ it. You are in control of the bits and bytes, they will not just disappear; but since your copy is unlicensed and illicit, the copyright holder could take legal steps to make you delete your copy (and pay for your infringement on their copyright).

> Same as I own a DVD disk.

That's different. You own the physical disc, and the right to re-sell or potentially lend out that physical disc. (However, you can't take the data from that disc, and stream it to a public audience on the internet.)

> [...] rewatch some episodes just plugging the disk via USB

Depends on your jurisdiction, but in many places it is legal for you to create a backup of a physical disc that you own, and make personal use of that backup. In some places you are allowed to share your backup copy with friends and family (on a non-commercial basis, of course). It gets nuanced.

I see where you're coming from, and looking at the problem from a purely technical perspective, I agree with you. A password is just a string of codepoints. Accept what you get, yeet it into a password hashing function, and be done with it.

However, in my opinion, for real-world systems, you need to strike a balance between technical and operational, and user experience concerns. If restricting your password space to printable ASCII characters can meaningfully decrease the amount of the tickets that generate half of your ticket volume, you should give it some serious thought.

There are good arguments for both approaches, and the right way also depends on your user base. There was a story about WhatsApp a while ago, criticizing that WhatsApp would only notify users when their contacts' security code had changed, whereas Signal (and other secure messengers) would block and ask for confirmation first. Signal currently sits at 100M+ downloads in Play store, WhatsApp sits at 5B+. The numbers are very vague, but WA has 1-2 orders of magnitude more users than Signal.

In the WhatsApp example, a small change in the process can mean that good security becomes accessible to a pool of billions of users, vs. excellent security to millions. Restricting the password character set (to a sensible set of characters, and with a sensible length limit) comes with no security drawbacks, and good chances of some process/usability improvements. For a real-world deployment, I would argue it's very prudent.

Let's start at the edgest of cases.

Some emoji, for example, are combinations of multiple other emoji, and a given combined emoji may not be uniquely represented by a sequence of codepoints. In the pathological case, this could mean that an OS update on the user's system changes the composition of the same emoji, which might make it impossible for them to input their password. It is probably prudent for a system to disallow emoji passwords.

One step away from Emoji, Unicode also allows for other m̸̱̜̅ͅȋ̴̩̠̀s̸̺͐c̶͈͇͉̐͛̚h̸̤̣̆i̴͍͍͒͌e̴̲̽̓f̸̞̽̊. Chances are, full-on Zalgo passwords can lead to problems. Again, there are probably prudent reasons to restrict some characters. On the other hand, those modifiers exist for a reason, and disallowing phrases in the user's native language doesn't make for great UX.

Towards the more common use of Unicode, there is a pretty good _practical_ reason to restrict the use of some non-ASCII characters: if your system accepts ç, ö and ø as characters in passwords, and non-technical users venture into a part of the world where the keyboard layout doesn't, your helpdesk is going to have to deal with the occasional annoyed customer. From a systems design perspective, those characters seem fine -- operationally, they may cause headaches.

Finally, we've arrived at printable ASCII characters. Restrictions on maximum length (usually 6 or 8 characters), and on certain characters (%, & or :) tend to be based on interactions with legacy systems (e.g. DES crypt() used to have an 8-character minimum), or on bad input handling. Either way, it's probably a bad sign.

I used the same mod to turn a few older, passive hi-fi speakers into Sonos-enabled wireless speakers. They sound (and look) a lot better than the Symfonisk, and putting the DAC and amp right into the speaker enclosure is more convenient than an external amp and wiring.

If you use them to bi-amp speakers with two drivers, the TruePlay calibration works great.

That's fair. I can see the benefits in most of the things you listed. Chances are, this boils down to whether you regard your car as sort-of an extension to your home. I don't, so I'm perfectly happy to have _a_ car available to me at a moment's notice. I understand that many people do, and they'll prefer being able to own a car and really make it their own. The whole car sharing thing is also predicated on good availability of cars near where you need them. It works great for me, in an urban setting; it would be wholly useless if I lived somewhere out in the sticks.

The point I want to make: SaaS, RegArb and the sharing economy are different things. If VW tries to charge you per-hour to use the software installed on your car, then let's talk about abusive software licensing. If Uber skirts regulations to muscle into the transportation market, let's frame the discussion around employment law and transport regulations. RegArb startups make it a habit of framing their business model as something else; and we're all better off if we don't fall for that trap :)

The _actual_ sharing economy is great. Your beef is probably with corporations that masquerade as part of the sharing economy in order to exploit regulatory loopholes (e.g. Uber, Airbnb).

For an example of the actual sharing economy: I'm a member of a local cooperative that owns and maintains a fleet of ~3k cars, distributed across the country at most train stations and in many neighborhoods. For an initial deposit of $1k, "my car" is whatever I need it to be at that moment. If I need to transport furniture in the morning, it's a Mercedes Vito. For a leisurely drive in the countryside at lunch, it's an Audi convertible. And for a quick grocery run before stores close, a cheap Citroën C1 will do the trick. And because the whole thing is a cooperative, per-km prices are around what I'd pay if I owned any of the cars myself.

Sharing is great. Regulatory arbitrage masquerading as the sharing economy, less so.