polishninja

Usually you have to provide another piece of information like the first 5 letters of the last name or something. That's definitely not good that they show you a name by just putting in an account number.

Australia put a cap on interchange fees in 2017 that caused a drop in card rewards. Merchants argued that the lower interchange costs would be passed on to consumers. However, it appears to only significantly affected the consumer rewards.

It's interesting that the car was exceeding the speed limit of 35 mph. I would assume the car would stay at or below the speed limit. Who gets the speeding ticket in this case? Does 5 mph affect the reaction time such that it could have noticed and taken evasive action?

It doesn't help that almost all the fascia locks on each vendor's machines are a standard key. With that standard key, you have full access to the computer or embedded device drive.

Nowadays the communication link to the dispenser is encrypted, making swapping the hard drive useless. The real problem is the machines aren't replaced very often so there are quite a few old models out in the field that are susceptible to these sort of attacks.

I've been following the Ethereum/DAO situation since the drain of funds occurred. I currently do not own any cryptocurrencies so this has been my first real look at the communities surrounding Ethereum and Bitcoin. In laymen's terms I am under the impression that these crypto coins are to be treated the same as cash. If I hand someone $10,000 in USD and they disappear and/or spend the money without fulfilling their side of the contract, I'm out of luck. Sure, I could take them to court but if I can't find them (or I sent my crypto coins to another country) or they can't repay, my coins are still gone. I know there are different schemes to handle this situation, such as coin burn, escrow, etc. But, barring those methods, once a coin is spent it's forever spent, same as a crisp $100 I hand to some door to door salesman that never comes back.

After dipping my toe into the crypto currency world, learning about the DAO and Ethereum, there are a few things that bother me about this whole situation.

1.) Rolling back (voiding) transactions, which seems to go against the concept of cryptocurrencies in general.

2.) The conflict of interest between the DAO, slock it, and core Ethereum developers, and their hefty co-mingled investments in the DAO.

3.) The labeling of this person as a "thief" when they played by the rules set forth by the DAO contracts. Maybe not the spirit, but courts generally decide that. The code is the law and is final is my understanding. (I don't know how you code the spirit, by the way.)

4.) The non-inclusive "democratic" vote of the Ethereum community on the hard fork that appears questionable.

5.) The different rules for reversing a "theft" depending on whose funds where taken (see #1 and #2) or how much was involved.

6.) The centralized decision making on the fork by a small number of people who stand to lose substantial funds based on a poorly understood investment vehicle.

This whole situation occurred because of some poorly implement code and now there's a whole lot more code being deployed in a hurried manner. If there is another unnoticed, unintentional way to run code that is not within the spirit of a contract in the future and no core Ethereum or slock it funds are involved, will another hard fork occur? Will they legally be forced to do it? It seems as though the risk was contained to the DAO's funds and now, with the hastily rolled out fork, the whole Ethereum market is put at risk.

I've run into this issue multiple times as well.

It looks like Gigster will invest (money, time?) in some companies from a predetermined fund, not Gigster itself. In turn, they will share 1% of their fund equity with all Gigster developers who were active at the time, paying out when a fund company or Gigster liquidity event occurs. They will allocate rights to returns to active Gigster developers over a 1 to 5 year period.

It looks like, as a Gigster developer, you would get 1%/total active Gigster developers. If there were 500 Gigster developers over that 1 to 5 year period, you'd get 1%/500 = 0.002% of a liquidity event depending on Gigster's weighting mechanism. If Gigster's equity stake was 20% in a company that exited for $100 million, you'd receive maybe $40,000 depending on how Gigster determines your weighted percentage.

It's not really even the same league as a 401k or pension, contrary to what the page says.

Calling it equity is a bit confusing. On the page it states at the top:

"Gigster Fund provides our freelancers with access to equity from Gigster and select companies in our client portfolio."

At the bottom it states with regards to owning equity:

"No. Direct equity ownership or indirect ownership through a limited partnership has complex tax & legal implications, and the SEC limits the number of shareholders a corporation may have which would make direct ownership impossible after a certain number of freelancers".

And

"No. Direct equity ownership or indirect ownership through a limited partnership has complex tax and legal implications. In the United States, for example, Gigsters would be required by law to be accredited investors."

I thought that Neonto looked like a good prototype tool. Downloaded it and unfortunately, it's Mac only.

It looks like that box would be a death trap if there was a fire.

What CEO does this? What a strange place to work.

"Hence there are office conversations held on Twitter, and the blurring of personal and professional boundaries, such as when Mr. Altchek broadcast his dental examination on Periscope, a live streaming video app."