yourcelf

Joined 16 years ago

Karma
84
Submissions
41
Member since
Nov 15
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/cfd; my proof: https://keybase.io/cfd/sigs/pjDpoX5NcGL3szArhWB-bGQ6Zq2aMysQsXQoabSaGw8 ]
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 2 years ago
It may be a bit more zoomed out than what you're looking for if you're specifically looking at philosophical treatments of the practice of engineering, but Andrew Feenberg's "Questioning Technology" is excellent introduction to the philosophy of technology, particularly exploring the interplay between technological constraint and political/economic/social drivers of its development.

"Philosophy of Technology" in general is a pretty rich field with a long history, and you might find more references in it than in engineering specifically.

Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
A problem we've run into with Radar is that it only kicks in when you attempt to create a charge, and not when you attach a card to a customer.

This means that if your business model involves "try before you buy" or usage-based billing, you'd better be sure to make an initial charge, otherwise the customer might incur costs before Radar decides to block the charges.

Even if you do require an initial charge, if you allow customers to change their credit card between recurring charges, the new card could be extra risky and "fly under the Radar" until the first charge attempt.

Are there any plans to offer fraud risk and blocking when attaching a card to a customer, or will still be limited to just blocking charges? With Stripe's new emphasis on recurring billing, it seems like this would be important.

We currently see Radar as a liability for us. It might block the occasional fraud and avoid a chargeback, but it also allows customers to incur costs with dodgy cards before we know they're dodgy, and then blocks charges outright before we know.

Comment · 9 years ago
Comment · 10 years ago
Comment · 10 years ago
Comment · 11 years ago
Comment · 11 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
If you'd like MIT students who were impacted by the administration's callous lack of support, consider:

- the MBTA "hackers", 2008: http://www.openmediaboston.org/content/mbta-suit-against-mit...

- Star Simpson, 2007: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2...

- Ryan McKinley's "Government Information Awareness", 2003: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Information_Awarene...

- Andrew "Bunnie" Huang, 2002, XBox hacker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Huang

- Ladyada, 2002: http://www.ladyada.net/pub/research.html

- David LaMacchia, 1994: http://cd.textfiles.com/group42/WAREZ/LAMACCHI.HTM

And these are only a few cases that made headlines; there are many additional controversies handled more quietly. The point remains that the MIT General Counsel's office exists to protect the institute, not the students, even while MIT's culture rewards innovative, boundary-pushing work.

The point at issue here is that MIT needs a legal support structure for such students commensurate with its encouragement of the work.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton