The implication is that venture capitalism and large/entrenched investment firms in particular can consider diversified investment in innovative startups to be their "moat."
I'm not entirely sure I agree, but I see the line of reasoning, and I can in a way validate in my own mind how some might see this statement as genuinely profound.
For it to be a competitive "moat" (a forbidding competitive advantage), don't they have to be making money? As an asset class, venture capital has comparatively pitiful performance.
The top VCs --- the ones that actually generate reliable market-beating returns --- certainly have a "moat": the best dealflow. But that's unrelated to the snark from the comment upthread.
VC doesn’t need to be the asset class benefiting, does it? Doesn’t most of the cream and benefit of innovation in the startup space end up getting purchased by first the big tech firms (Cisco, Oracle, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google), second the S&P500, and rarely the public markets?
I remember the panic of the ‘90s about the coming disruption from internet technologies, but at best it has been a horizontal revolution, rather than a vertical one, and the same wealth and power centers have survived.
You would think that a new, superior set of technology and process would revolutionize, say, the hiring process. Instead, the brute force of lots of money provides a moat where HR, hiring managers, teams, and candidates are protected from meaningful disruption and progress.
All that said, my comment is almost certainly nonsense. I was referring to the broad sway of competitive advantage and the inertia of inadequate equalibria (more nonsense, surely). If you believe I am not properly building a warrant against the technical meanings on investment analysis terminology, you are right.
Those over-funded under-profitable startups increase demand for labor, acting as a hurdle for the smaller boot-strapped companies trying to hire people. It's a moat in favor of the entrenched companies with easy access to capital
Myself, I enjoyed the entire book, but I understand the let down feeling some here are expressing. The first part is immediate, gripping, intense, and hard to go through it (but you don't want to stop, because it is so good).
After all of that resolves, it's pretty hard to emotionally connect with the rest of the story, since you are exhausted from all that came before. The final act is worthwhile and interesting, it's just a pretty big change in direction.
The built-in VPN clients support old broken insecure protocols (PPTP) and expensive, hard to implement and hard to deploy protocols (IPSEC-LLTP), whereas public vpn providers tend to use simple, secure, easy(er) OpenVPN for the bulk of their connections. So you need a addon client to use them for their best features.
Very good question. The answer is, of course, 'it depends'.
What is depends on is how much horizontal scale you expect to have. At a small scale, you can use something like postgres as a centralized broker of sequence. A single postgres cluster can sequence a lot of records in a hurry, no problem.
At a larger scale you might need to decompose your domain into multiple, independently ordered aggregates. Now you have multiple choke point brokers, each of which can handle a lot of records, but which don't block each other.
Step it up another notch, you can use a consensus algorithm (paxos or raft) to get a cluster of machines to agree on the state of the sequence, and perform optimizations such as assigning blocks of sequence by shard and node.
I recommend not over building your event storage architecture until you measure your actual needs. There are cheap ways and huge expensive ways, and building too much is an easy way to make your project fail. Also, one of the nice things about a sequenced set of events is that it is pretty easy to replay into your new, faster event storage later once you've had the happy problem of too much success.
As a Brit who finds this sort of thing completely scary/abhorrent, I often wonder what it is about our culture that makes this so. I think a big part of it is the class-system, which has its roots in feudal structures from millennia past, and is still very much alive and well today. We all grow up to develop an innate sense of class (I look up to him, I look down on him etc.), and for the majority of people, they do trust the upper classes. The royal family has approval ratings through the roof, we have an Etonian PM and largely Etonian cabinet. We just don't have the same distrust that most countries seem to have. On the ground, this comes across as "well it's probably for the best, they know what they're doing", when trying to discuss matters like these.
Also, I'm assuming there's an injunction out about this - can't find it reported anywhere in the UK press.
The UK has never had to deal with a truly oppressive government, at least not within anything like living memory.
There's also the problem that nobody outside of the software engineering community really understands what the tech can do, or what GCHQ is capable of. My mother's primary comment on the whole thing was, "well we're much too boring to spy on" and that's a sentiment you see a lot. It reflects a misunderstanding of how cheap it is to create robotic law enforcement on top of the 5-eyes infrastructure.
In fact all non-establishment groups - CND, anti-nuclear power protesters, anti-globalisation protesters, trade unions, animal rights activists, UK's own Occupy movement, anarchists, even worthy intellectual left-leaning blogs, and so on - were and are routinely infiltrated and manipulated.
There's nominal press freedom, in that it's possible to call politicians rude names.
But if your movement or leaders become powerful enough to have a hope of influencing policy and to challenge establishment cash flows and power relationships, expect some blow back.
Highly unlikely this happens very often at all. Counter-intelligence by the FBI (the primary intel agency dealling with domestic political organizations) is very thorough. It would take an extremely skilled person to get through their interviews, background checks, mandatory polygraph tests, etc.
The FBI are the best trained people in the world at eliciting information from people unwillingly/unknowingly - which is enough of a barrier on it's own.
> There's also the problem that nobody outside of the software engineering community really understands what the tech can do (...)
I think that's the main problem.
The IPB is all about allowing GCHQ and other government agencies to collect all the data they want, but we shouldn't be worried because there will be "safeguards" against the data being accessed arbitrarily.
Those of us who are more technically minded realize that's a false distinction, but most don't.
The Snowden story was vast and limited to the Guardian. In the UK the other media outlets didn't cover it at all, or actively attempted to undermine the reporting (e.g. with stories planted by the British government that were carefully worded to sound like they were from Snowden even if they weren't).
The vast majority of people have not read any of the Snowden leaks and have no idea what they contained beyond "the government spies a lot". So the concept that they might be targeted themselves is just unimaginable to them.
I think the narrative is that the government doesn't spy on her. They also would probably say that they take in the fire hose and only access the communications of the bad guys™
> Also, I'm assuming there's an injunction out about this - can't find it reported anywhere in the UK press.
Does this actually reveal anything new? It was previously known that GCHQ were logging email messages, and MPs use email. The story does not suggest that MPs email are exposed to greater scrutiny.
The headline in every paper should be "Government fails to use email encryption". If the email is not encrypted it could be read by foreign governments, criminals, or the tabloid press. Implying that an email is less secure because it travels outside the UK is ridiculous. It was never secure in the first place!
Bear in mind that MP's correspondence with their constituents is being hoovered up as well. Yes @gov.uk to @gov.uk could be encrypted but constituent to MP email is in some ways more sensitive to GCHQ snooping. The solution remains political.
> we have an Etonian PM and largely Etonian cabinet
This is about money and class. It takes a lot of family money and a sense of extreme security (which comes from class) to tell your son - "Hey, you should become a politician." And for the kid... who knows what kind of mindset it required? Arrogance, winners mentality, thick skin...
The kids I grew up with never had those ideas put into their heads. Hell, most of the kids I grew up with, the parents thought I was bonkers for wanting qualifications, one of the mums told me "In our family, we don't bother with exams and all that rubbish."
This was news about a year ago. I presume it's in Computer Weekly because the current bill is trying to close some gaps in the Wilson doctrine that were exposed at the time.
NSA was caught snooping in a Supreme Court justice's data. (I think it was before he was on the Supreme Court, but nonetheless.) I find it unlikely that they're not intercepting American legislators' data, along with everyone else's.
I'm not sure why people still give spy agencies the benefit of the doubt, when they are almost always caught with lying. Skepticism for what spy agencies have to say should be the default in everyone's minds, especially in policians' minds. Unfortunately, those very same politicians who are supposed to "oversee" the spy agencies are the ones cheering for them the most.
The Chinese directly sensor and tell you what you can and can't do. In "democratic" countries anything that changes the status quo or stands up to power puts you at risk of being targeted; maybe you'll end up in a relationship with a state official or maybe you'll be goaded by someone into breaking the law. Maybe you'll never be able to trust anyone ever again.
There are many things that are curious in the UK legal system. This week, a guy has been sentenced to 30y in jail for gun trafficking. I'm not condoning gun trafficking but in my book smuggling is much more venial offense than rape or murder, and smuggling items that are not even illegal in countries like the US. I am sure many murderers took a lot less than that.
Someone smuggling heroin into the US would expect a sentence of at least 30 years. We happen to think that automatic weapons are at least as dangerous as heroin.
A gun being smuggled into the UK is only going to be used by a criminal (and by criminal, I mean they're committing violent crimes other than ownership of a gun) for killing someone - a gun smuggler, therefore, is providing a killer with a murder weapon with full knowledge of what it's going to be used for.
Smuggling weapons that will surely be used for crimes including murder, and likely enabling many more murders than the smuggler is personally capable of?
> There are many things that are curious in the UK legal system. This week, a guy has been sentenced to 30y in jail for gun trafficking [...] items that are not even illegal in countries like the US
We do things differently here. As a result, we have only had one mass shooting incident in the last 20 years. Our per-capita murder rate is about 1/4 that of the US. We had three fatal police shootings last year, one in 2014 and none in 2013.
You might not like it, but we do. Our system of gun control is overwhelmingly popular.
I don't want to make it another gun control debate, but I do not think it is the prohibition of weapons that make shooting rares. Drugs are equally prohibited and are by no mean rare. Everyone has an assault riffle at home in Switzerland and I have never heard of a mass shooting there. I think it's more a behavioral thing than a gun law thing.
A drug dealer cannot legally import automatic firearms into the US.
The only way they could be imported is by a licensed dealer, for sale to the military or law enforcement.
It's likely you just meant to make a more generalized comparison of the laws, but most people wanting to import the weapons in that article into the US would need to smuggle them.
