he said his seed phrases were in lastpass. There is no 2fa protection for private keys if the assets are in his crypto wallet and he's custodying them.
He said there wasn't much value in the wallets. Doesn't strike me as crazy to keep a small amount in something convenient. You see a similar convenience/security trade off made by big players, with immediate transactional needs satisfied by online/hot wallets and reserves held in offline/cold wallets.
I can see it both ways. It is putting all your eggs in one basket. The flip side is your vault is supposed to be protected enough that shouldn't be an issue.
Another comment rightfully points out that the vault itself is only protected by a password. I don't think that's protected enough if it's on cloud storage.
the problem is most capitalists wouldn't dare venture into that arena due to how intrenched the incumbents are. This makes the market highly inefficient due to lack of competition. Good on Cuban for daring to go whether other capitalists will not. I hope it works out for him.
yeah, good on him, but it'd be so much better if it were an employee co-op. He's still making bank, and eventually could be the amazon of pharmacy undercutting everyone else, and still make a tidy profit.
A non-profit or co-op could do the same thing and only aim for a small revenue target in the green, so they stay afloat and can keep paying payroll, and providing good service as needed.
I'm eventually planning on branching into this area, if I can get my co-op CRM/ERP software platform finished. I'm wanting a system to manage a network of union/worker businesses that work in syndication and encourage loyalty to in-network brands, through benefits, discounts, etc. Think if you had a software to basically combine worker, consumer, and housing co-ops into a sort of network or social net or mutual aid network where volunteering, working as an employee, or just loyalty as a customer dictates if you've qualified to earn a dividend or free healthcare.
It's a private research university. Private schools might have more financial aid available, but they cost much more, and they are a research institution, which adds (mostly) pointless prestige to undergraduate degrees.
That said, the growth of college tuitions is why you will find so many Americans skeptical of the value of college. The actual experience is nice, the things you learn might be useful, but the net value varies a lot depending on what you graduate with and when you do it.
I very nearly went into legal studies, but there were a number of lawsuits against schools from former law students claiming the schools vastly overstated the number of graduates getting relevant jobs (the market got flooded, basically).
Nowadays, it is fashionable to poke fun at gender studies and sports news and whatever other "fluff" degrees are out there, but it can happen to any degree really. When you're looking at a quarter of a million dollars or more of debt, you really need to think long and hard about what you plan to do about it.
It's also why free college and federal student debt relief are such hard sells here. Unless the actual problem of the cost of tuition is resolved, it hardly makes sense to throw more money at the problem- it just encourages more of the same bloat caused by federally backed, easy access loans have caused in the first place
In Australia, the fees for a four year engineering degree is around $30k AUD, and that's with very humane packback rules. $80k a _year_ is mindblowing. Rich folk and scholarship students I get, but why would anyone else go there?
I lived at home and went to a state school around 15 years ago. At the time, in-state tuition was something like $10k/year. I got around $10k in scholarships, so my education cost roughly $30k or $41k in today's money. This means one year at BU is two times the total cost of my education, time adjusted.
Amazon recently recruited me for a job, a job that I already do remotely for a different company, and I turned it down for the same reason. The job at amazon paid way more, but I'm far more productive and happier at home.
I see other jobs at amazon that are remote, but this particular department worked with hardware that they weren't interested in leaving the office. Again, I've worked remotely with similar hardware from the company that pioneered this type of hardware and have done so since 2008. We figured out security, remote testing, local development, software simulations, etc. and haven't had a single leak, hack, etc.
I am working for Amazon, fully from home. Zero expectation to ever step into the office. Each organization within Amazon is taking a different approach, leading to a lot of variability. Throwing this information out there in case anyone is put off by assuming that Amazon is demanding a return to office.
I can vouch for this as I am the only east coast employee on my west coast team at AWS and I also have no expectation of moving to west coast or returning to office. I have spoken to managers on other teams around Amazon and flexibility is entirely dependent on your director/VP (the manager 1-2 levels above your group manager).
If you’re considering an offer from Amazon I suggest you make it very clear from the start to your hiring manager your expectations on remote work and working hours. Theres some teams at Amazon that are taking a strong return to office stance and others like
mine that allow for fully remote.
Maybe? I recently interviewed and nobody could tell me what the policy would be in a few months.
“It’s WFH today, but that’ll probably change. And you can always take our bus from your local AWS office to the office where the rest of the team may or may not be because we don’t know what our policy will be.”
I’d expect a company of Amazon’s size and stature to have a better plan than “whatever your VP wants this week.”
Why? The world changes around us, and the best businesses are capable of adapting to suit. It doesn’t make any sense to make promises that one can’t keep. They can’t promise that some teams can WFH forever, because it might not make sense forever. Nor should every team have the same policy, because different teams do different things.
I think it makes more sense to be non-committal than to make promises and then have to renege on them later. The latter makes people much more justifiably upset.
Why? Because people have responsibilities outside of work. People have children and spouses with chronic conditions that require them to be available at a moment’s notice to deal with, for example. And it’s not going to change just because some manager at ConHugeCo wants people back in the office. I cannot take a job without knowing that I’ll be allowed to work a particular way for the foreseeable future, as it just wouldn’t be safe for my family.
And yes, reneging on agreements is bad. Employers need to be forced to understand that humans have rights and their employees are humans. Telling someone their job is remote then changing that 3 months after they start should be illegal. Unfortunately, it’s not, so you’re SOL if you find yourself in that position.
I don’t either, but they could have at least been open about “we’re WFH today but going hybrid as soon as COVID allows.” Instead they waffled and hedged around and wouldn’t commit.
Add in several other factors… 1. the VP and extended team I would have been working with was in Seattle and this position was in VA. 2. There’s an AWS office down the street from my house but they were 100% non-committal about the position being located there (vs the new Arlington HQ2). 3. Would have been a new team with lots of new hires, so I could have just hired them locally (if deemed necessary, though I’ve managed remotely for years now with success so seems silly to me).
From what I hear, policy in general is wildly inconsistent within Amazon. I have heard all sort of stories from people at Amazon ranging from "world's best boss" to "horrific and Dilbertesque".
I was just thinking after searching for an emoji on Google and copy-pasting it into a document for the hundredth time: "surely there's got to be a better way than this".
