Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more jbuhbjlnjbn's comments login

How does forced vacation for a minimum of 2 weeks prevent fraud?


Frauds are very often hidden or disguised as "bad investments" (yeah banks do mistakes as any other human beings) and covered with money from "slush funds". When they are on vacations, rogue traders cannot cover their intentional bad investments, losses, close warning notifications and so on. More kn this topic here https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/1995...


Two reasons: lots of fraud requires continual maintenance, and when you're away someone will presumably take over your duties and might notice what you're doing.


That's your issue with the whole story, the host did not analyze the profile picture for "red flags"?

From this and the many other stories about AirBnB and its "support", best advice seems to be to immediately close your account, request your data to be deleted and never use any of its "services" again.


Nice hit piece.

>but it is inevitable

And then there is no sensible explanation as to why.


Is it just me, or are these articles weirdly framed to insinuate that this is our near future and we should come to terms with it?

Maybe if I have to, before I starve, I will eat bugs. But not if I can help it.


The fact that they’re supposed to taste like prawns (shrimp) is greatly in their favour, I’m not too sure what is meant by like though.

I’m a bit put off by food that has to be made to look like something else.


Generally, doing sports is a good way to let your mind relax.

Apparently the way to handle intrusive or nagging thoughts are mainly two ways.

The first way is to realize that thoughts come and go. They are backround noise. Not every weird thought, or worry, that pops in your head is "you". One can observe the thoughts, from a mental distance, without judgement, without owning them.

The second way is to actively distract yourself. Either by doing something that occupies your full attention. Or, not following a line of thought, conciously, actively thinking about something else. You can try to make it a habit of not actively thinking too much about the things you cannot change. Instead, actively think about the things you CAN change.


There is a different explanation about the 'power posters' - not that they are "insane", but that it's their job. They get good amounts of money for doing what they do.

As an addition, for the extreme cases it's most likely not a single person, but multiple people, posting under the same name.


Very ironically/interestingly, this was case for the big anti-american posts from mainland China:

Infamously anti-west personality Sima Nan: "Being anti-American is work while visiting the U.S. is life" https://youtu.be/Q0y84Oi3VW8

Short summary, his wife and child are U.S citizens, and he visits them often, but his entire career is made up of bashing the west, western values, and putting the ccp on a pedestal, and he's made a small fortune on this career... until his turn came.


Some of them probably are effectively paid advertising teams. That doesn't really explain some of the people you used to get on forums though. Why pay someone to write 24/7 micro-serial "Transformers" fan-fiction?


Anyone who has been on the internet for awhile quickly realizes that the “all the posters I don’t like are paid shills” argument doesn’t hold up well at all. It’s often a cope - “my side/the good side would obviously be winning if it weren’t for these paid shills”.

There are way too many true believers who are terminally online and you can find almost anything out there.


Weird Internet used to be a few places. Now it (more precisely, the ideas) is everywhere, and reported on as if it is perfectly normal, because "journalism." This ends up legitimizing it further, even if it is painted as weird, as some ideas benefit from any sort of exposure ("the man is oppressing us by painting it as bad!").

Terminally online users are the problem. Until we regard their neurosis, addiction, and proclivity for unreality as a real problem, this will only get worse. Pulling on this string will drag several much harder problems along with it, such as equitable access to mental health care.


> Anyone who has been on the internet for awhile quickly realizes that the “all the posters I don’t like are paid shills” argument doesn’t hold up well at all. It’s often a cope - “my side/the good side would obviously be winning if it weren’t for these paid shills”.

> There are way too many true believers who are terminally online and you can find almost anything out there.

There doesn't have to be a single explanation, though. It can be paid shills and obsessives.


Eh. It can happen. I know someone who's paid to moderate [1] a "grassroots" brand subreddit. It's just that "you're not real" is easier to believe than "you genuinely think Donald Trump is the prophesied Jewish messiah." Barring conclusive evidence (which rarely [2]) people gravitate in one direction.

I'd guess it's a mix, with a little straight money, a lot of obsession, and a middling amount of compensated cat herding.

[1] The playbook being basically "discuss reasonable criticism, remove unreasonable criticism" ie "nobody talk too much about that battery fire, but don't make it look suspicious."

[2] "On the Internet, you know everybody who disagrees with you is a dog."


Transformers is not nearly niche enough to warrant being used here


There's another side to it as well, the people who want it to be their job, and just see it as another avenue to deliver contest similar to a stream.


On the one hand, we have freely shared information. On the other hand, meta information obtained by digital stalking (or, in some cases, literal stalking). The later is absolutely not ok.

I agree regarding the freely available information (which often involved self-made drama). There is nothing bad about archiving it per se. With one interjection: some of this information is decades-old. While the right to forget does not exist on the internet, if people reflected on things, admitted they made mistakes and changed their perspective, it should be possible for any sensible webmaster/reader, to allow some kind of redemption.

This was exactly the case with byuu - he realized past mistakes, openly admitted and wanted a somewhat fresh start. But KW's webmaster did not allow it. At this point I percieved KF as openly cruel and kind of showing their true colors.


> But KW's webmaster did not allow it.

From what I've seen it wasn't as straightforward as that. The operator, Null, shared the email exchange and there seems to have been less than 24 hours between Byuu's first message and his last.

Null's last message was this, after which he went to bed (apparently, idk the timezones involved in this). It doesn't seem like a "no".

> I feel like you're being genuine. There's a fear here that you're just trying to prank me to show people "look, Josh just wants money", but it's one of the small subsets of concerns at play here. > > So hear me out: Send me your resume, I'll make you a counter offer.

https://archive.ph/R1oRN


According to the same article, the guy never went back. Good for him, and I hope he stands firmly by his principle.

" But Cunningham, who believes the company only acted “because the story got so much attention,” says he hasn’t used his account since its reactivation. He believes the company sees its customers as “data points” rather than individuals. “If somebody is showing in their policies that they really don’t care about the individual, I think it’s just a really dangerous thing,” he said.

“He was removed by mistake,” the Airbnb spokesman told MarketWatch when asked about Cunningham’s case. “We reinstated his account and apologized to him for the inconvenience.” "

A heartfelt apology with some conciliatory gesture would be the absolute minimum after such injust horror story. But no. All rbnb did judging from this, is damage control of the viral story, and they even failed at that.


To intrude in the privacy of unclothed people, then later spin the story in such a way, reveals a quite sinister mind.


The "social norm" is more a convenient business norm to pay petty wages.

The more you question this norm, the higher the likelihood for change to more healthy business practice.


Some folks I know who wait tables earn in excess of $750/1k a week…for basically part-time work.

I am sure they would be all for a $15/hour minimum wage, as long as tips were still on the table. However, $15/hour and “we don’t accept tips” sign…you would get a big nope. I doubt you could convince them that it would be better for them to earn $300 for their 20 hours of work.


Of course tips should still be allowed.

In Europe we are still tipping, but the waiters do not depend on it. This is a much sweeter situation if you ask me, voluntary good service, vs. forced good service, when you have to worry about rent for the next month.


The outrage is that people are under the assumption that these wait staff in the US are NOT earning minimum wage. That is incorrect. Wait staff will earn the minimum wage for the time worked, because if tips+pre tip wage is less than the legal minimum, the employer makes up the difference. They have a real benefit over the other minimum wage earners because they can earn more…much much more in some places.

The question of should their employer pay them more per hour? Well, I think the market does a pretty good job of managing that, especially now that in many places in the country restaurants are having a hard time finding the help they need. If I need a server, and my offer is I’ll guarantee them at least $10/hour…that is going to attract workers to me over the restaurant next door offering only $7.5/ hour. If I am fully staffed with good servers, I can attract the customers who will pay my tip earners for me compared to the place next door with lousy service.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: