They are pleased that, to their knowledge, they employ over 100 parents. First of all, it's fricking telling that a company isn't even aware whether or not its own employees have kids, and has to resort to eyeballing insurance numbers. That kind of screams "doesn't give a crap," especially for a company which otherwise seems to feel a need to invade every aspect of its employees' lives.
Google says HubSpot has 785 employees. i.e. 12.7% of their workforce has children. 75% of U.S. adults have children and only 5% do not want children. Granted that number might be lower in Singapore, but it's higher in Ireland.
So this is basically a definitive admission that HubSpot is a workforce that is incompatible with having children, hostile to them, and in all likelihood actively discriminating against parents. And it doesn't take much probing to see why.
Mr. Shah editorializes on the "over 40" statistic that it "needs work," but apparently not the fact that only 12% of its workforce is managing to raise a family (at least for the time being).
They didn't just have an IP address. Police had an IP address and timestamp of a video of child-rape, as provided by 4-chan, said IP address belonging to an ISP as provided by MaxMind, and said ISP confirming its ownership of the IP and providing a subscriber name and address for that IP and timestamp, indicating that the posting originated from a cable modem at a residential location.
If you don't find child rape to be compelling, substitute an email plotting a bomb attack, a suicide note, etc. etc.
Police are supposed to ignore that, and what, ask for a signed confession? They don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they need probable cause that there is evidence of a crime. Tor is deliberately designed to frustrate what police call "evidence." The police are perfectly justified in searching that location for evidence that might lead to the source of the criminal activity.
Solution: rent an empty room and place TOR exit node equipment there. When the police comes, it's just a computer room with no logs or files cached locally. They can do all the searches they want.
Also, TOR should have a blacklist of CP sites to filter out as much of the bad traffic as possible. It doesn't do anyone any good to allow CP on exit nodes. Even if the sites are using https, the exit node could sample a few pages to pass the data into a CP classifier and whitelist/reject the site. This classification work could be aggregated over many exit nodes to maintain an up-to date filter. In the end, if we can assure TOR node hosts that their IPs will not be used for CP, it would ensure more people are willing to offer their resources to the network.
The entire story here is about crime, specifically in the USA. All criminal defendants in the USA are entitled to a trial by jury on all factual elements of the offense to reach a verdict, unless explicitly waived by the defendant. Most defendants waive a trial (usually by plea of guilty), but relatively few who go to trial waive a jury.
Judges do rule on pretrial proceedings including warrant applications; although in federal and some state jurisdictions grand juries still return indictments on felonies.
That said it is wrong that judges do not decide criminal cases. Besides ruling on evidence and instructing jurors, they can also acquit, dismiss, or declare mistrial without the jury.
N.B. Right to jury may not apply to so-called "petty" and/or non-criminal offenses which can carry as much as 6 months jail.
> Has there ever been a recorded case where the request was denied, except maybe for even more shady reasons?
Yes. And most are never reported, since law enforcement will either fix what was wrong with their application, pursue a different line of investigation, or drop the investigation.
Perhaps you are thinking of FISA court surveillance requests in the national security arena. Those have been revealed to have an extremely low denial rate. But nonzero. And that's a different space than criminal search warrants.
Perhaps as important as the level of judicial scrutiny of warrants in the first instance, and their denial rate, is subsequent review. An improperly granted warrant is invalid. A party with notice of an invalid warrant can move to quash it. A criminal defendant implicated with evidence from an invalid warrant may be able to have the "fruit of the poisonous tree" suppressed.
Your alternative is ridiculous; saying the police can conduct so many searches without respect as to whether or not there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the search will yield evidence of a crime.
The point of the warrant is to force police to show probable cause to a neutral arbiter. That, plus judicial review and the suppression rule, plus federal §1983/Bivens claims, provide a powerful check on arbitrary behavior by law enforcement. Of course most warrants are granted; for the most part police don't waste time going to judges saying outright "Joe Bloggs is suspicious, unlikable, and has a Green Party yard sign. We want to go turn his house over just to harass him with a fishing expedition." If the police are corrupt and abusing warrants, what would their motivation be to use them properly just because they had some arbitrary quota? If they use them properly, what purpose does a quota serve?
The idea that having to show a defensible reason to a judge with a paper trail is worse, betrays a complete ignorance of the legal system, and how much worse it could be in a really authoritarian society that doesn't have meaningful constitutional protections.
As you correctly guessed, I was arguing about surveillance warrants and not physical searches. So I am to blame not only for being off-topic but also for causing confusion by not even being clear about if.
For physical searches, I agree with all your points.
Searches are visible and can be questioned if invalid, so there is incentive for good (or at least acceptable) work on both sides of the warrant application. Besides, physical searches are inherently bottlenecked by manpower, so an artificial quota would not improve anything over unlimited warrantless searches, whereas a warrant requirement certainly does.
In the immaterial world of modern electronic surveillance, important things change (invisibility, no natural upper bound, it having so much more utility for illegitimate use than detectable physical intrusion). I do believe that there, unbounded rubberstamping approval could easily reach a level where a blind artificial quota would be the lesser evil.
I am surprised that you would not be well-served by a math degree from a half-decent institution, and very skeptical that your degree has not actually helped you obtain your career, versus not having any baccalaureate degree at all.
I've worked with software engineers senior to myself who had B.A.s or Ph.D.'s in math and no degrees with the letters C and S in them, including a few younger, fairly recent graduates.
I do have the magical letters "CS" in my degree, but I also have a second major in mathematics. While I must confess I hardly use a fraction of the math I studied on a daily basis and have forgotten most of it, it has served me well and there have been numerous times I would have been lost without it.
Pardon, but you seem a little bitter. I suspect you have no idea how good you have it, compared to say, most graduates with a degree in humanities from an expensive liberal arts college.
All that being said, if your intended career path is software engineering, I would tend to agree that studying software engineering is the best education to prepare for it.
They seem extremely bitter with little justification, to be honest.
> I suspect you have no idea how good you have it, compared to say, most graduates with a degree in humanities from an expensive liberal arts college.
Poli Sci degree from an expensive liberal arts college checking in. Ask me how many sub-$40k/yr programming jobs I've taken because they're all I could get with a Poli Sci degree.
Within USA/Canada, learn to identify death caps and destroying angels. If you stay away from any mushroom that you aren't sure is one of these two, don't eat any wild mushrooms raw (very few mushrooms are good raw anyway), and don't gorge on anything that isn't obviously identifiable, your odds of doing yourself any permanent harm are very low.
That's not to say all other species are "safe." Obviously, you should only collect species that you can identify. But amanitas are basically trivial to identify (know their tricks, cut mushrooms in half to check for hidden/immature gills), and if you don't eat Amanitas (again, in USA/Canada), it would be a truly freak incident if you actually died of poisoning. You're more likely to be eaten by a bear.
If you are incapable of this, then not only do you have no business foraging for mushrooms you probably shouldn't be preparing your own food. Number of people killed or disabled due to foraging poisonous mushrooms is nothing compared to those killed by improper food preparation and handling, but you don't see people quaking in their boots in the poultry aisle of the grocery. The article cites five deaths in five years in all of California. How many people died of salmonella and botulism in that time? How many mushroom-phobes would be so reckless as to drink "raw" milk?
A lot of supposedly poisonous mushrooms are in fact edible, especially when boiled.
100 million Americans struggled from chronic pain in the 1990s? (linked video) One in three men, women, and children, suffered from pathological, chronic pain? How can they quote a ludicrous statistic like that straight without comment?
Or is that straight statement supposed to distort some watered down, meaningless figure factoid like 100 million people have lingering pain due to some cause at some point in their entire?
Literally halfs of dozens of research projects and ones of promotional installations served! Nearly threes of dozens attended conferences, at which twos of booths were no doubt tabled, perhaps both by you, one of the only persons who apparently used Plan 9 commercially.
I'm feeling nostalgic enough to go launch an inferno instance now just on principle.
It's unadopted, but this does not mean it is bad. GNU/Linux is the worst of all and survives only because it's widely adopted, and better-marketed. Many who turn to Unix world first encounter GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux is, quality-wise, inferior to both Plan9 and BSDs, it's a big hack, but it came before, and got adopted first.
Now I downvoted all your comments in this thread for they are unconstructive both in the negative and the positive directions. This is a fanboy-like attitude, where you ignore the fact I explained above, and attack other comments. You take quantity over quality.
BSDs and other systems have their user bases. Those may be small, but they exist. Both GNU/Linux and BSDs are inferior to the ideal system where most legacy cruft shall be gone, but in order to reach that ideal system we should develop the research projects, the ones with little-to-no use. E.g. Plan9. Or microkernels. The all-utf8 approach is perfect, but it can't easily propagate to the mainline if it is not tested for long in research projects, and the ecosystem adapts in this timeframe. So we'd rather not attack them, but let them happen. They'll always be better than mainline, but lesser-adopted, but when they die, the good parts of them will propagate to GNU/Linux, BSD, etc. Take ZFS for example, it was developed on a Sun system, it's not widely adopted, but its now on FreeBSD and Linux (i.e. btrfs, the same concept), for you to enjoy. Or the research in functional languages. Many of those are not adopted, but many features are now propagating to mainline languages.
"BSD purged copyrighted AT&T code from 1989 to 1994. During this time various open-source BSD x86 derivatives took shape, starting with 386BSD, which was soon succeeded by FreeBSD and NetBSD."
BSD was an OS long before 1989; the open-source BSD's weren't new projects written from scratch, but made possible by purging AT&T copyrighted code from the code base.
Linux (the kernel) only started in 1991, from scratch. The GNU parts that go into a "GNU/Linux" --- the GNU C compiler and utilities from the GNU project --- started in 1984. But that is still later than BSD. 1BSD was released in 1978: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution...]
Seriously, it should be obvious that BSDs mean, in the context of my comment, modern BSDs. The GNU/linux environment was practically usable before those were. Your comment is pure evil rhetoric.
Google says HubSpot has 785 employees. i.e. 12.7% of their workforce has children. 75% of U.S. adults have children and only 5% do not want children. Granted that number might be lower in Singapore, but it's higher in Ireland.
So this is basically a definitive admission that HubSpot is a workforce that is incompatible with having children, hostile to them, and in all likelihood actively discriminating against parents. And it doesn't take much probing to see why.
Mr. Shah editorializes on the "over 40" statistic that it "needs work," but apparently not the fact that only 12% of its workforce is managing to raise a family (at least for the time being).