That’s just one article, but there are plenty more. Do a basic search for "not hiring Gen Z" or something similar and you’ll find tons of examples. It’s easier for people to believe AI is to blame rather than take the answer straight from the hiring managers mouths.
They don’t want to hire Gen Z because they see them as more hassle than they’re worth. I’m not saying whether that’s true or not, but that’s how a lot of managers and business owners feel right now, and you don’t have to look very hard to figure that out.
Clickbait. Leak has irrelevant and useless data. Why anyone would bother to "steal" this data I have no clue. Almost all of it could be collected if you scraped the site over time.
I am assuming its different for everyone. I have had digital delivery products (think cd keys) that were absolutely pointless to fight.
I have also had service products and at least 50% of those are rejected even with concrete proof of the customer literally saying they received the product as advertised.
Heres what I ended up realizing. Your dispute isn't with the cc's or with stripe its with the customers bank. The bank has basically no incentive to side with your business over their customer.
I never saw that table before but that is absolutely pathetic. The best case scenario (5 stars) is a 60% chance of winning a dispute?
Depending on the amount of money I would write off disputes. Sometimes we take to small claims court and present literally the exact same evidence we do to the bank and we have won 100% of those.
I have found it is better to try and vet the customer before doing business with them but depending on the business this isn't always possible.
The system is rigged to be honest. Friendly fraud is multi billion dollar problem that banks have no motivation to solve.
I see literally no benefit to challenging the disputes, assuming you don't care about getting the money back and would rather not waste the time/energy on the challenge process.
The ONLY thing I might be getting wrong in my case is this: Perhaps Stripe has some kind of "internal monitoring" metrics that tracks how users respond to disputes, and maybe there's some kind of "accept vs. challenge" ratio they use to assess account standing and risk likelihood. If that is the case, my assumptions may be wrong here and this may be the wrong strategy. Would love to hear input from somebody at Stripe on this question. Wasn't the Stripe cofounder crawling around on this site last week answering some questions? Where's he at now? lol
You have hit the nail on the head but it doesn't even need to be wifi and it also doesn't have to be that complicated. They see that two devices are in the same area for a long period of time so they serve ads for other peoples web history. Jarringly enough ever since I had this realization I sometimes see ads for things that reveal something meant to be private of those I had just spent time with. Also, seeing peoples ads when they make desktop recordings of their screen can be extremely telling..
Agreed. We have many "old" people that use our website and I can tell you for a fact that the "click here" is less confusing than some random blue link (which at this point has lost it's meaning because of seo keyword stuffing).
Not to mention "click here" is a call to action and a random blue link is not. Call to actions are important.
Who is more likely to build ontop of some obscure code base called "Hash Cash"? Some random people that trolled the same forums or the original creator of it?
Imo this "secret" is known by many people as I have seen so many censorship and misdirection campaigns throughout the years if people mention Adam being the one.
Him being Satoshi also makes bitcoin core seem more legitimate. He can guide his creation without being formally known as satoshi.
It is obvious. Especially if you have ever been a solo dev for an extended period of time (like adam was)
There is a ton more evidence but seems like no one really wants to dig into Adam.
Adam literally stopped updating hash cash and a year later Bitcoin is released... check his website on archive.org.
Its ok. I like that there is still conversation as to who it is. It gives protection to him since there likely wont be anything concrete (if hopefully he was slick enough)
Clearly not him. He initially dismissed Bitcoin and jumped on the bandwagon when it started making headlines due to its fast rising price. Plus, Adam Back seeks fame, he would happily claim to be Satoshi if it was really him. He was even criticized early on for seeming to take too much credit for Bitcoin[0].
My guess is that it's someone who was not particularly well-known prior to Bitcoin.
+1 to Adam Back. Who is more likely to build ontop of some obscure code base called "Hash Cash"? Some random people that trolled the same forums or the original creator of it?
Imo this "secret" is known by many people as I have seen so many censorship and misdirection campaigns throughout the years if people mention Adam being the one.
Him being Satoshi also makes bitcoin core seem more legitimate. He can guide his creation without being formally known as satoshi.
It is obvious. Especially if you have ever been a solo dev for an extended period of time (like adam was)
There is a ton more evidence but seems like no one really wants to dig into Adam.
Adam literally stopped updating hash cash and a year later Bitcoin is released... check his website on archive.org.
Its ok. I like that there is still conversation as to who it is. It gives protection to him since there likely wont be anything concrete (if hopefully he was slick enough)
Indeed there's really nothing positive to be had from coming out as Satoshi at this point regardless of who it is. Criminals and governments will be falling over each other to try to get their take.
One addendum here: If I was personally Satoshi, I would come back and try to convince everyone to switch to proof of stake instead of proof of work and then subsequently disappear again. If you need a non-politicized reason why (something other than climate change), just go with my joke one of solving one of the outcomes of Fermi's Paradox (distant civilizations don't send signals because all energy is used to mine cryptocurrencies).
Proof of stake doesn't solve the problem bitcoin set out to solve.
A proof of stake system is essentially just a rehash on the earlier centralized digital cash systems where a quorum of key holders engage in a consensus that determines further updates to the system (including the set of keys allowed to authorize further updates).
We didn't need Satoshi to come up with that, that idea was already known.
I don't follow your reasoning. It seems to me that at an abstract level, Satoshi set out to solve the problem of government meddling in currencies by creating a distributed digital currency not managed by a governmental agency with a predictable and well documented amount of money supply growth. Whether it uses a PoW or PoS approach seems irrelevant to that goal? PoS can lead to centralization if larger stakeholders have more influence over the network, but the same problem applies to PoW as well, and the large miners' substantial influence on Bitcoin development politics feels more like corporatism than distributed consensus. I haven't really been following things lately, but Ethereum seems to be transitioning to PoS as a distributed system just fine?
Neither approach seems perfect, the important difference to me is that one approach, sans some technological advance like fusion energy, presents a major ecological problem that has existential risks for humanity.
Adam Back. Ever notice how anytime anyone mentions his name as possibly being satoshi they get buried? Not a coincidence. Plus Adam had no work history during the dates that Bitcoin was created. Had created the system that bitcoin is based on and never produced the emails of him and Satoshi that supposedly existed. Remember the first email from Satoshi mentions he got "your email from Adam Back". Google also manipulated the search engine results for "Satoshi is Adam Back" for years and basically censored the results for that query.. The list goes on. He is the most obvious candidate and likely the reason he was chosen to head core (I mean he literally wrote hash cash which is basically Bitcoin version 1)
It is absolutely not Adam Back. The bitcoin protocol is not based on Adam Back's work (though Adam loves to claim otherwise). When Adam came to the bitcoin scene in 2013, he harbored some very large misconceptions about the incentive structure and capabilities of bitcoin.
No. Satoshi IP leaked in LA when Back wasn’t there. Back’s stylometry is way off too. Those two should be enough for you to figure it out with some digging
I assume a person like Back is familiar enough with opsec that he could intentionally change his writing style, and also "accidentally" leak his IP, (via a VPN), when he is somewhere else in the world.
He would have also had to mimic another cryptocurrency researcher's stylometry that ended up matching far better. Which do you honestly think happened:
A: Back is Satoshi, mimics X (who has many other reasons to be Satoshi) for hundreds of emails.
B: Back isn't Satoshi, X's stylometry matches Satoshi.
Without taking a position either way on who Satoshi is; Yes, of course he would have.
Clearly 'Satoshi' intended from the outset to obfuscate their identity.
Given that axiom many behaviours become probable, including referencing a true identity (or three*) in the paper.
* Satoshi could, of course, be Yet Another Nicolas Bourbaki with a shared voting key of sorts; that's an easy explanation for relative silence over the years if a group cannot or will not reach consensus on action.
I think what some are failing to realize is that many businesses are only now finding out that they are one step away from losing access to their websites. Before this wp engine vs Matt spat many of us genuinely thought that wordpress was a community project and not something that one individual could pull access to on a whim. They wrongfully assumed they had ownership of their website. That they held the cards. This is an eye opener for many of us. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong. I know for a fact that I wont let my company grow too big before moving away from wordpress and I am sure there are many more like me. Wordpress is not what I thought it was. That is ok. I just have more information to make better decisions now.
Why go through trademark rather than licensing agreement for access to wp.org resources?
If they are in violation of trademark why not just file a case against them?
Why the selective enforcement of your trademark? Doesn't that essentially void your trademark?
If wpengine renamed would you leave them alone or is the trademark dispute just a form of leverage?
What entity is at the heart of this dispute? Wordpress foundation, automattic, wp.org, or you personally? Is there any difference between those entities or are they essentially the same when it comes to this dispute?
I am a wpengine user. Why should I trust my building needs to the wordpress ecosystemgoing forward if access can be revoked for what appears to be any reason?
I’ll be blunt, people don’t want to hire Gen Z because of bad past experiences with that generation.
When 1 in 6 companies are "hesitant to hire Gen Z workers," then yeah, obviously unemployment is going to be higher for them. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-6-us-companies-reluctant-10...
That’s just one article, but there are plenty more. Do a basic search for "not hiring Gen Z" or something similar and you’ll find tons of examples. It’s easier for people to believe AI is to blame rather than take the answer straight from the hiring managers mouths.
They don’t want to hire Gen Z because they see them as more hassle than they’re worth. I’m not saying whether that’s true or not, but that’s how a lot of managers and business owners feel right now, and you don’t have to look very hard to figure that out.