While I agree on the core idea, I found the way you went about saying it pretty embarrassing.

Haha yeah, it comes off as pretty insecure, from the looks of it the person writing has no reason to be insecure either.

To be honest, as the author, I am pretty insecure. That sounds like an accurate reading.

I feel like anyone that is in a industry that is being encroached on my AI should be insecure. That's not a bad thing, and we need to take it on board, realise what it means, and how we can move forward.

Im in half data and half software engi...and I have no clue how to best move forward for what it's worth haha. Just know I need to, in some direction, with how the tech is going. Definitely can't keep going like it's still in the pre-AI days.

Don't be so honest; better said, don't confuse honesty and volunteerism this way. I was about to call it beautifully written, and now I'm going to call it beautifully written in what I regard as a voice to which you are wise to aspire.

(Of course, you would be well advised to review my comment history on this website before deciding how much of a commendation that constitutes, versus how much a warning.)

second hand embarrassment in peak form.

You would, though, wouldn't you?

What do you think about it being a preventative measure against future SBFs?

Isn't there tons of evidence that this simply doesn't work?

I mean, I don't know this SBF guy, but do you think he thought there would be no punishment if he got caught stealing 8 billion dollars? I think his plan was not to get caught.

It seems pretty likely this was an intentional leak meant as a viral outrage based advertising campaign. The content is not just ridiculous but also underdeveloped for someone who actually believed it. And since I'm now reading it here on HN I suppose it worked.

I don't think it was "outraged-based" as it was "ridicule-based". Like, who actually got angry over the Gravitational Pull of Pepsi that leads to Pepsi Proposition instead of just mocking it relentlessly?

Fair, but the point stands.

Maybe, but Arnell was rather eccentric and, by several accounts, had very much bought into his own BS.

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20120113061332/http://www.thedai...

[2]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-the-firing-of-weird-design-...

He sounds charming:

“ Arnell has been compared to movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, meaning you could fill a book with horror stories about his cruel behavior—screaming at people, even hitting them. "He has this remarkable capacity to be both the most intoxicating character—lovable, brilliant, seductively intellectual—and then turn on a dime and be staggeringly cruel," says a former business associate, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of alienating Arnell. This person recalls Arnell humiliating employees by making them get down and do push-ups in front of clients. "He is unencumbered with any sense of morality. Until you experience it firsthand, it's just completely and utterly unfathomable."”

Makes sense, psychopaths often have an innate gift for spinning bullshit and manipulating people into going along with it. He's in the perfect industry for this.

It’s just not a lot of money in most cases. Often in the hundred to few thousand range. And there is usually a data sample, such as the schema and the first 100 rows, or a demo. Of course, those aren’t strict guarantees but it does make faking it all more difficult.

Escrow was pretty popular on Raidforums, high reputation forum users would not only escrow transactions directly but also do things like pseudo-publicly validate or invalidate claims by checking a sellers data or tools against their own collections (presumably the benefits of being a professional hacker escrow and seeing lots of data).

I have a hard time believing that’s a legitimate statistic. Even being a normal daily smoker would equate to a lot more than 2%.

That's averaged in with a lot of people who don't smoke at all.

That’s because it’s for the $250 deposit.

I know that’s what one would expect, but it’s not true. Many large ransomware distributors have a solid record of keeping their word and established relationships with the negotiation firms. Trustworthiness and honesty lead to more payouts and they have no interest in your data or doing you harm, just getting paid.

When the time comes to retire, a criminal can sell the brand name they have built, sell the accumulated data they have backed up, or keep the backup as a bargaining chip. Of course, they might have already needed to leak all the data to the local authorities in exchange for protection. Or their employees might have made copies. Unlike kidnapping, data can be ransomed many times. You are paying just to delay the leak, hopefully until after you have retired and it is someone else's problem or people have stopped caring. And if you never publicly announced the leak, hopefully until after you are dead and nobody can sue you for securities fraud or similar.

That can replace PCI compliance then. Sounds like a better option

Good point. I bet the ransomware guys don't care how often my laptop's password expires.

I don’t know the specifics of federal authority when it comes to internet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it fell under interstate commerce, which is how they justify federal drug laws.

The Y axis is dollars, not BTC.