Recent submissions

Comment · 6 years ago
The law allows for jail time, it's just rarely pursued these days by the DoJ because Eric Holder changed their system to pursue 'wins' (fines) rather than criminal prosecution, because the bar for successful prosecution is so much higher to convict someone of a crime.

Can't lose a case if you never try and convict anyone.

Comment · 6 years ago
Any shortseller with a lot of money would have an interest in bringing them down sooner rather than later.

Their financial trickery was exposed in early 2019 and then was overwhelmingly confirmed by the end of 2019.

If you were trying to make some money on their stock tanking, timing it would have been anywhere from extremely difficult to impossible.

Comment · 7 years ago
I like your ideas, but how do you retain control of your account?

How do you prove that you are the owner?

If someone manages to log in as you and takes over your account, how do you get it back without giving some method to contact you.

Comment · 7 years ago
SMS 2FA is insecure because companies implement it in a way that it becomes one-factor.

Forgot your password - reset your password - get an SMS

When there is no second factor involved, it's not 2FA despite people calling it that.

Comment · 7 years ago
>I am not confident that moderators are seen as partners in community building; but rather volunteers to be tightly controlled.

This is really the core of the issue IMHO.

Comment · 7 years ago
Would you please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the HN guidelines.

Comments about voting are highly discouraged.

Additionally voting is not about your feelings, or even whether you agree with the person. Everyone should vote based on what is relevant to the conversation.

Anything not relevant to the topic at hand should be downvoted. It's not a personal attack, it's a way to clean up the thread to prevent people from reading irrelevant posts that don't add anything to the discussion.

Comment · 7 years ago
From the comments.. for anyone that didn't scroll all the way:

Before "apologizing", you need to come clean: did you lie?

Earlier, you (Stack Exchange) wrote:

>We removed a moderator for repeatedly violating our existing Code of Conduct and being unwilling to accept our CM’s repeated requests to change that behavior.

However, Monica disputed that she had received repeated requests to change her behavior.

Clearly one party here is lying, and much of the community believes that party is Stack Exchange.

So—did you lie, or not? Your "apology" is meaningless until you clean this up.

Comment · 7 years ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton