81–90 of 407 posts
YOU need to be out there beating the drum for a major exception to this. With out laws to ban raiding (and we dont have those on the federal level) this is a bad policy. It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale.
> Second, we need to prioritize forceful remedies to foster competition
If history does show us something its that outside a pure monopoly (ATT) these business have a shelf life. Roll the clock back 60 years, US Steel had the same market share as apple. ATT was a thing (and as a monopoly got smacked). But no one talks about GE or IBM or RCA as major players in tech... and they were tech giants of their day.
I am all for restrictions on these sorts of enterprises. But the bigger major step we can take is taxing them appropriately, not letting them all get the pass they have. Shift the tax burden to the largest players and you make room at the bottom and solve a host of other issues.
As for the rest of these proposals, it sounds like a lot of bureaucracy. I feel like we need to revisit our history and re-read our Orwell desperately, were literally repeating the mistakes of the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vanta/Drata and other are starting to build solutions that are somewhere in-between checkbox compliance and real security. To the extent they integrate with your cloud providers and security tools, they can validate you have secure settings, active monitoring, and have remediated the things that have been flagged in a timely manner. Doesn't mean you are secure, but does ensure some baseline tablestakes.
> To the extent they integrate with your cloud providers and security tools, What happens when Vanta/Drata are compromised? A mass-exploit of their customers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well said, also applies to many human dynamics - friendships, relationships, work relationships, etc. Ceding power is a ratchet and you either put your foot down to start with or it grinds away.
Hard disagree. Healthy relationships include negotiating when potential boundaries are in question, or if things change that require re-aligning boundaries. It's reasonable to give more to the other party from time-to-time, and reasonable to discuss with the other party if it becomes a point where it feels unfair. Instead we (Americans) take an unnecessarily adversarial stance against what our government could do, en…
I don’t agree with the last comment, maybe I am a cynic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
perhaps our government has become less competent? Having worked in the federal government briefly (and growing up in a place with lots of feds), it makes perfect sense that our government is generally incompetent/low-capacity. In the wake of the civil rights movement, lots of government civil service exams became presumptively illegal. The pay bands are also pretty trash. If we wanted a competent government, we shoul…
> If we wanted a competent government, we should have far fewer people paid a lot more and hired in a more aggressively merit-based process. Our current government is from an era without computerization where you needed lots of grunts to process things like SS claims, etc. That is simply not this era. This. IMHO, the military's regular reassignment also solves a lot of bureaucracy-at-scale problems (even if it create…
> And finally, we need more steps like the FTC’s recent move to ban all employee noncompetes (no carve outs, no limitations, no exceptions). YOU need to be out there beating the drum for a major exception to this. With out laws to ban raiding (and we dont have those on the federal level) this is a bad policy. It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. > Seco…
It's well and good to advocate for change within the industry (large and small) but realistically, all of this is missing the forest for trees, or equating symptom with the cause. The only way out of this long term, is to take money out of politics, repeal citizens united, revolving doors and other methods of lining politicians' pockets.
It is frankly challenging to reconcile 1st amendment protections and a CU repeal. I'm not sure what the solution is, but think recent events should show that govt can abuse campaign finance law to pick winners and losers in the town square.
Reconciliation: Companies aren't human entities.
Non-human entities aren't entitled to 1st amendment protections.
Campaign finance is equally simple: run your campaign on public funding. Give all candidates who meet a threshold equal amounts of money.
I have yet to hear a convincing argument about what benefit a democracy receives from campaigns having different amounts of funding. That feels like the tail wagging the dog (your supporters fund you, so you can spend that money to buy more supporters).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Season 9 Erlich: "Oh my god. It's an AI play. That's the frothiest space in the Valley right now. Nobody understands it but everyone wants in. Any idiot could walk into a fucking room, utter the letters A and I, and VCs would hurl bricks of cash at them.”.
That was well done
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we wanted a competent government, we should have far fewer people paid a lot more and hired in a more aggressively merit-based process. Our current government is from an era without computerization where you needed lots of grunts to process things like SS claims, etc. That is simply not this era. This. IMHO, the military's regular reassignment also solves a lot of bureaucracy-at-scale problems (even if it create…
What makes you believe the military is immune to "bureaucracy-at-scale" problems? From my vantage point, it may have both large bureaucratic issues and massive churn. (And it's not immediately clear to me that the former isn't partially a result of the latter.)
The smartest people I've met either have plum book positions, military officers, or work as prosecutors.