Doesn't this assume maintaining existing usage patterns? There could be enough flexibility in workloads that with an economic incentive they will be run at peak production times with only the necessities being turned on at other times.
As Brian Krebs reported in the "dumpster fire" article the response site was setup by their PR company. Perhaps they did not want to give away ownership of part of their domain... For security reasons
If you release your tools under GPL it is less likely anyone will get paid to improve them. If you release under MIT, commercial users will try to upstream their changes so they can continue to benefit from trunk development as well as avoid the maintenance burden.
Your second paragraph makes it seem like those weren't really humans - "cleared out", really? And having been decimated by plague diseases makes shooting the survivors equivalent to crossing a border illegally so you can work a better job? Maybe my knowledge of American history and politics is poor but those do not seem like the same thing at all.
Might be interesting to look at the study itself. It doesn't say if it was summer or winter when it was undertaken. I wonder if results would be much different for other non-electrified people
Could argue that industries with low startup costs are much less likely to suffer a proliferation of Apache Struts.
Increased competitive pressure to improve an information product might bring the side effect of more modern technology, but who knows the overall impact it would have on security.
Maybe, but the underlying problem is not a particular technology, or even technological in general; it lies in having a system built on false assumptions about the confidentiality of SSNs and other data.
Suppose we have a solution to the underlying problems. It would undoubtedly be difficult and costly for the financial industry to adopt it, and a startup that implements it will not be in a position to force its adoption. About the only thing that could would be regulation - but I'm not holding my breath.
And a big fuck you to everybody that has made efforts and sacrifices to improve their credit rating, they can take the same (higher) interest rate as everyone else?
> And a big fuck you to everybody that has made efforts and sacrifices to improve their credit rating, they can take the same (higher) interest rate as everyone else?
If it becomes harder to get credit then there will be less inflation (or allow the same amount of it to be caused by government printing money instead, which allows lower taxes), either of which means less need for credit to begin with. Moreover, less need for credit means less credit fraud, the cost of which is paid by everyone.
The concept that credit is a good thing is perpetuated by creditors. Credit is a competitive advantage when you're the only one who has it, but when everyone has it it's just an arms race. It's better for everyone (except creditors) for everyone to have less of it.
I don't know if there should be more or less credit, although it sure seems like an improvement to reduce fraud and have less people up to their ears in debt.
Even if the companies running the system have serious problems, it still provides a mechanism of trust. Most people are likely to experience at least one event in their life, for example an unexpected expense or some long term investment, which would easier to navigate if credit were available.
Replacing the credit score system with the subjective judgement of a creditor introduces arbitrary, discriminatory bias into the system.
If credit is a competitive advantage then isn't hurting its fair availability is somewhat an own goal as long as the USA remains part of a global economy?
> Most people are likely to experience at least one event in their life, for example an unexpected expense or some long term investment, which would easier to navigate if credit were available.
For unexpected expenses that is the purpose of insurance. For investment opportunities that is the purpose of savings.
Finding a sensible investment opportunity that provides a risk-adjusted return higher than the interest rate on borrowed money is very rare, because why would the investment company use you as a useless middle man instead of borrowing the money directly from the lender?
> Replacing the credit score system with the subjective judgement of a creditor introduces arbitrary, discriminatory bias into the system.
The existence of bias is independent of the existence of credit reporting.
> If credit is a competitive advantage then isn't hurting its fair availability is somewhat an own goal as long as the USA remains part of a global economy?
Geography mitigates most of that. An engineer in China is not borrowing money from a Chinese bank to bid on a condo in San Francisco because he isn't in San Francisco to live in it. And to the extent that foreign speculators do that, we could prohibit it -- require US real estate to be owned by US citizens or corporations owned by US citizens. They do it to us.
But the more important point is that availability of credit is not the same as availability of money. As an economy expands the money supply has to increase to prevent deflation. The primary way this currently happens is borrowing -- Alice deposits $1 in the bank, the bank loans it to Bob, now Alice and Bob each have $1 in their accounts but in the bank's vault there is not $2, there is only $1 and a promise from Bob to pay $1 plus interest.
An alternative way to create money is for the government to do it by fiat. If they create a dollar then they can charge Bob a dollar less in taxes, or provide an extra dollar in UBI. So as long as the government increases the amount of money they create by fiat by the reduction in the amount that banks would be lending, Bob has the same amount of money in his pocket to buy things with -- but now he is not paying interest on it to the bank.
> Finding a sensible investment opportunity that provides a risk-adjusted return higher than the interest rate on borrowed money is very rare, because why would the investment company use you as a useless middle man instead of borrowing the money directly from the lender?
I guess this must be news to all the businesses that reguarly operate on credit.
The only thing like an "investment" most people are going to buy on credit as individuals is a house, and besides being an investment it's also a place to live in. Arguably that's more salient than the speculation opportunities.
> Deflation will certainly make fewer people take out loans, but not necessarily because they are living high on the hog without them.
Deflation is caused by the economy growing faster than the money supply. Increasing the supply of money counteracts this. Both banks and the government are allowed to do this. Banks create money when they make loans; suddenly you have more money in your account but there is the same amount of cash in the bank's vault.
Creating too much causes hyperinflation, so more of one requires less of the other. If the banks lent less money the government could create more.
