From [2], SoftBank lent billions for employees to invest. That's incredible and dubious! I've been offered to purchase stock of my employer at reduced prices if I hold it for X time, but never been offered a loan to do it.
>> SoftBank lent billions for employees to invest. That's incredible and dubious!
In some ways, this is great. It shows that fund executives' interests are aligned with the long-term returns of the fund. It shows they are there for the carry returns and not just the annual admin fees. It gives execs skin in the game.
People keep saying this, but in reality all this ever seems to do is to give employees an incentive to boost the share price. If you have an employee that works hard to create long term value for the company you can review their performance at the end of the year and make a judgement that they've created long term value in a sustainable way and you can give them a big bonus or increase their salary. If you give them massive amounts of stock, suddenly you're powerless, it doesn't matter what they're doing to boost the stock price, as long as they bump the price they're going to get a good income no matter what you think of their performance.
Bonuses end up becoming political exercises. If you can keep bonuses aligned with value, that is great but I've seen otherwise many times.
Serious question - are there really many bad ways to bump up the stock price?
There is financial engineering (like stock buy-backs), you can just disallow that and remove the problem.
There is unnecessary M&A, but if the employees are running amok with unnecessary M&A, you have much bigger problems.
There are illegal things -- but we have the law to take care of that.
There are extractive measures (e.g., squeeze blood from workers, suppliers), but if that is allowed, then the "value" you see from that is likely also "value" you'd reflect on the annual bonus.
And this is the first time I’ve ever said that on HN in four years. I’m suppose to give a third party full access to my infrastructure with a cross account role??
This isn’t even hosted on your own account? But even then with full access they could do anything.
Any company that would tell you to do something this crazy even if they don’t have any bad intent, is far too immature to trust with my infrastructure.
Since with Microtica you could provision any kind of AWS service the policy mentioned in the documentation is left to be more open so you can tryout fast and then when you figure out what you need the access could be reduced.
Ultimately, the user has the complete control over what access he will give to Microtica.
Since this policy was primarily intended for DevOps module, and Cost Optimizer needs only a subset of those permissions we will update the documentation to avoid the confusion.
No, please just no. Don't give anybody outside of your org full admin permissions. Putting a bad example is bad, and also show their incompetences. At least they can put a red giant box to warn people, not expecting everybody know not to do it.
I avoid giving myself admin permissions except when absolutely necessary. I created a “read only role” with no permissions and then started adding permissions to it as I run into issues.
I log into our management account and switch to the read only role for our prod account. If I have to switch to admin role I have the toolbar display as red.
If I’m that paranoid about me making a mistake, why would I trust a third party with those rights?
Just realized that the example with CLI in the docs have the right policy with least privileges. Somehow the part with the full access was overlooked. We just updated the documentation.
I completely agree with your approach, we also encourage our users to start with the base permissions and then give more when necessary. Even more, to give an access only on resources provisioned by our system. As we automatically tag all resources, using IAM policy conditions this could be easily done. The control is always on the user's side.
If you haven't switched to Firefox, you should! There were a few things I didn't like at first, but after searching StackOverflow and blog posts for how to change the settings, I am now fairly happy!
> TEMPEST [1] (or Van Eck Phreaking) is a technique to eavesdrop video monitors by receiving the electromagnetic signal emitted by the VGA/HDMI cable and connectors
I've always thought of TEMPEST as magic and incredibly cool. I get how this works for video, but why is it that infosec recommends for EM shielding of a datacenter? Wouldn't there be so much EM noise from a DC that the data you could pull off be .. noisy? lossy?
It's difficult, but it gets a lot easier if you can send requests in. If you can force some kind of deterministic (not salted) crypto calculation to happen with a particular piece of key material, over and over again, you can use the same correlation technique that works for extracting GPS signals from hundreds of dB below the noise floor.
People have also done this with analysis of the power consumption of crypto hardware. I believe this was used against Trezor devices.
My old boss always said "There isn't 200 dB in the entire universe". Of course if you compare the diameter of the universe to a quark, it's 10,453 dBmeters, so I guess there is.
Every 3dB is roughly a halving of the power level. It's hard to wrap a human brain around the orders of magnitude difference, the numbers are so far outside of anything we can encounter in the human scale.
Still, I will try to make an analogy. Start with the smallest transistor we make today, (7nm) and scale it up by the equivalent of 200dB and it would be 258 million km across, or about the same as the diameter of the Earth's orbit around the sun.
That's a pretty good rule of thumb until you get into some really weird stuff.
The link budget for bouncing radio signals off the moon (EME) is something like 260 dB. A while ago I had a chance to see the ground station at NASA Goldstone where they manage the radio links to Mars and the outer planets. There was a terminal open with ~single digit bits / second coming in from one of the Voyager probes. Having a 70 meter dish and a cryogenic receiver helps, but the link budget there has got to be truly staggering...
My old boss worked on the Apollo mission comms, specifically the large dish antennas on the ship. It was just his way of joking about large numbers.
10 dB (deci-Bells) is an order of magnitude ratio; 10 dB = 10Log(10). For non ratios you tack on units, such as 30 dBHz = 10 Log(1 kHz). It just a way of expressing large values in engineering, and you can add the dB instead of multiplying in linear domain. You begin to think in dB after doing it for years.
The path losses stated in the replies are good examples when the rule is broken. The path loss is 22 dB + 20*Log(distance/wavelength). My universe/quark is just a joke of the most extreme ratio I can think of; I’m sure there are others larger.
> It blows my absolute mind that these books were written a hundred years ago.
The more you read history, and the actual written words or written speeches of intellectuals and politicians, you'll continue to be amazed. Much of their language is poetic, and their prose seems more coherent than today's, but that's probably because they wrote a lot more letters to one another.
Also anything not memorable has been lost. There's a selection bias.
Why are so many old houses built so well? It's not just because craftsmanship was better. It's because the ones not built so well didn't get old. (I owned a house built in 1884 for a few years. Most of it was excellent craftsmanship. Some ... not so much. Previous owners had been lucky the dining room floor had never been stressed too much.)
