I lost my cash app account to "gambling or against TOS" because whatever blockchain analysis they did found that it touched something they didn't like.
Was fully verified, personal info handed away to the max.
No inquiry, no interaction. Just "nah, you're done."
The irony here is that them holding the crypto is 100% a-ok (and selling at a profit etc). Which goes back to discussions of coin taint.
They discovered that the coin they had was "bad" but that didn't stop them from dealing with it. And so the gov will continue to hammer + fine.
The "compliance program insufficiencies" is a dog + pony show. All they can do is take everyone's info (they do), and keep a list of known addresses and see how many naughty addresses whatever crypto was affiliated with / how close / etc and then shut it down.
They've put up a bit of a resistance, because while they shut accounts down, they still let the cash leave. It's just a bit disingenuous to have a "violatable policy" that isn't provably illegal in any way.
All offramps are the same, and scrutinized the same way. Some just have their hand tighter in the glove
SARs are nothing new, and the limitations and what triggers them keep changing.
One of these eMoney services just recently lowered the threshold for them feeling compelled to bother you for proof/more info to a couple hundred dollars.
I'd love to see your documentation on where it was ever claimed that 4chan was an experiment in anonymity creating a usable filter for quality?
Completely anonymous online polls are impossible, I'm thinking the goal is to have effectively non-publicly identifiable polling with the ability to disallow double voting. Seems absolutely trivial if Every Relevant Citizen was set up with their own API / digi-thumbprint.
This feels grossly incomplete, and not a barrier to an attack of even remedial sophistication. ie, low latency from any given machine doesn't have any relationship to external controlling connections to the machine.
I also don't see anything addressing the "1 external IP for n number of people" being addressed.
It's also a bit bizarre to have multiple references to "the speed of light" when this wouldn't work for someone remote desktopping in
"This isn't a popularity contest... so anyway, here's how voting works" is a bit silly, and right there on the front page is "yesterday's winners" which is more than a bit disingenuous.
What if I vote for nothing because all of the products are bad? Why do I care about a user leaderboard for with streaks and their voting history? No noise?
People are so concerned with having an actual downvote button but not-so-concerned with how gameable upvote only systems are.
One of my favorite newsletters just gives links with one-line description. Done. What if this site just listed 10 products a day. No voting, no "judgment" by anyone except the person curating the links.
What if 100 products come out in a week. How do you choose?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You raise some valid points. I'm working to strike a balance between giving visibility to products and avoiding the "popularity contest" vibe, and I'm definitely open to refining how that works.
As for the leaderboard and voting history, I understand your concern. The idea behind it is to encourage meaningful participations, but I get how it could feel like extra noise.
Also right now, it's first come, first served, with makers able to schedule their launch up to 30 days ahead. This keep things fair and transparent, ensuring everyone gets an equal opportunity without having to compete for visibility.
If the platform grows, I might explore other ways to keep things manageable whether that's a curated selection, specific categories, or something else BUT for now, the goal is to maintain a simple and fair system that gives everyone a shot.
I wish they didn't, because they're bad at their job and "them caring" puts them as a peer for experts and people who both care AND are competent/experienced via design by committee and inclusion. Their incompetency is explained away as "unique point of view."
So perhaps the entire piece is an exercise in overgeneralization, where you assume that everyone has a baseline amount of competency. That curb could have been designed by a very caring intern, who is awful at what they do. They were managed by someone who had 100 other deadlines that are more important. They care about that curb, but they care about 100 other things with more priority.
We're in the era of Good Enough.
I find it's an impossible thought experiment to judge doing 100 things Good Enough is better/worse than doing 1 thing perfectly and ignoring 99 other things. Add a token / currency to the mix, costs + returns on investment. And now you have something substantial to judge.
There is a massive difference between actively not caring and passively omitting attention.
Peppered into the diatribe is direct, aggressive, not caring. But that doesn't validate the general stance.
Make a consultancy called Caring Company that makes companies/products/projects more efficient at same or less cost.
My institution has hired multiple consultancies to fix structures and form new ones... the entropy of pay grade and how to prioritize thousands of tasks in parallel doesn't "get solved" because someone finds that some employee is just bad at what they do. And what do you do when you find you can only hire those employees because you don't pay enough for better, because your products' incomes don't match the skill level required?
Is this an AI response? Has the dead internet lured me in, again? Or, more likely, do you just not care as well?
Every example in the linked post is either "not caring" about the work being done OR aggressively "not caring" due to main-character syndrome/individualism of modern American society. AND on top of it, every political fix is a _feel good_ fix instead of actually fixing the fucking problem.
An "era of good enough" makes no goddamn sense in response to this article. NONE of the things listed are good enough. None of them.
I would argue that incompetence is a form of not caring.
It means that one just does, maybe even more then necessary because one doesn’t actually understand what their responsibilities are. And to be not detected it’s better to seem very busy and very caring.
> I would argue that incompetence is a form of not caring.
It is not.
It can be a product of not caring, and what is actually not caring can be mistaken for incompetence, but incompetence can coexist with dedication (the idea that it cannot seems is a face of the "effort is all that matters, there are no real differences in capabilities" myth), competence and concern are not at all the same thing or inherently linked such that either necessary implies the other.
One man's incompetence is another man's profound skill. OK maybe not actually, but let's just say that some people are quick to apply a label of "incompetent" to people who think a little differently, or who are perhaps only 10% less knowledgeable, or to people they imagine are less knowledgeable.
Measuring results is notoriously hard in this industry. Any metric can be easily manipulated, and many qualitative aspects of software are not quantifiable. Moreover, the people who get to decide the metrics will tend to choose them in a way that gives an advantage to themselves.
In my 15 years, I’ve had a lot of interns, and a lot of indirect interaction with other interns. I can usually spot a genuine one in about a day at this point.
I'm sure there are also a lot of competent smart people who may happen to have other issues in their lives affecting their output. Maybe they are burned out, have some family drama, have health issues, etc.
I for one am glad if 10 interns get a chance even if only 1 turns out to be truly useful. It's a matter of empathy and I hope it prevails because what real purpose do we have without it.
The "era of good enough" here really resonates with me, I've been in product and people mgmt and there's a lot of tension between "optimal amount of quality for the business" vs "optimal amount of quality for the user", esp in B2B or other contexts where the user isn't necessarily the buyer. The author sort of blows off "something something bad incentives" but IMO that is the majority of it.
On top of that, people have genuinely different preferences so what seems "better" for a user to one person might not to another.
And then on top of that, yeah, some people don't care. But in my experience w/ software engineers at least, the engineers cared a lot, and wanted to take a lot of pride in what they built, and often the people pushing against that are the mgmt. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes not, that whole thing can get very debateable.
I've only used "good enough", and have only ever seen it used, when enough margin beyond bare minimum exists to make it "good enough", which requires caring.
I suppose it depends on the personal definition of good enough, but I like to reserve "bare minimum" for those who truly do the minimal work, teetering on line between functional and non-functional.
As the software archeologist on call for literally anything going wrong with anything IT operations related for a large publishing house that unfortunately had an IT department since the 80s and a web presence since the 90s, I'd like to extend a generous "fuck you" to all the people who have not cared to document a single thing in the past 30 years.
I would assert that it's fairly well established that all of those problems are modified (if not entirely solved) by changing resource allocation, and those with more resources modify the systems more, to their liking.
Asking "problem solvers" (effectively a non-category since every living human solves a variety of scale and scope of problems) why they're not "solving the big or 'real' problems" is disingenuous: there are a variety of reasons why. greed, selfishness, etc. are easy to point out as the evil motivators but quality of information, access, and ability to allocate impactful resources are also in play.
All of that is 100% true and like you said we could choose to allocate resources in a way to certainly fix the hunger problem and the housing shortage but we actively chose not to. In my opinion it's because here in the US our politicians have been bought by capital and largely represent the interests of capital owners. If your fed and have a roof over your head you're way less desperate and ultimately less likely to have to take a job that pay scraps. A large number of Walmart employees are on welfare for example. We, the people are effectively paying for Walmart employees so the billionaires can have even more money.
Was fully verified, personal info handed away to the max.
No inquiry, no interaction. Just "nah, you're done."
The irony here is that them holding the crypto is 100% a-ok (and selling at a profit etc). Which goes back to discussions of coin taint.
They discovered that the coin they had was "bad" but that didn't stop them from dealing with it. And so the gov will continue to hammer + fine.
The "compliance program insufficiencies" is a dog + pony show. All they can do is take everyone's info (they do), and keep a list of known addresses and see how many naughty addresses whatever crypto was affiliated with / how close / etc and then shut it down.
They've put up a bit of a resistance, because while they shut accounts down, they still let the cash leave. It's just a bit disingenuous to have a "violatable policy" that isn't provably illegal in any way.
All offramps are the same, and scrutinized the same way. Some just have their hand tighter in the glove
reply