The fact that someone is willing to pay them that much suggests that your valuation of their labor is not universally shared.

And for some strange reason, the person you're replying to is _not_ one of the highly paid executive remuneration consultancies.

Gee, wonder why they only accept advice from people that tell them to give executives more money?

This does not account for collusion.

No, they are not.

Just checked, by EU law, banks cannot charge more for a SEPA euro transfer than they do for a local transfer within your own country.

... which boils down to 0 fees on any side for any transaction I've ever done, across quite a few countries in EU and to/from Switzerland. I don't think any sane retail bank dares to charge anything, people would migrate to competition in an instant.

I have an account in Denmark which charges for outgoing transactions, 3 DKK. (€0.40.)

I think I have the choice to pay a monthly fee, nominate it as my official account for receiving my salary, or pay for the transactions.

I choose the last option as it's a backup account, and I make perhaps 1 transaction per year.

Some business accounts charge a 20 to 50 cent flat fee. I think mine does. Retail basically never, yes.

Yes, this is pretty standard for business accounts.

there were some exceptions though, like in Greece, where banks charged for every sepa transaction. not sure if that's still the case.

Exactly. Many countries have switched to an opt-out system for organ donation for this reason.

Most people aren't in the habit of wasting their time making choices about things they don't care about.

So your suggestion is to be a hermit?

What is the point of communication if not to change what others think?

I prefer smaller portions. If you want more, you can always buy two.

> The features of successful systems

The tragedy of the commons is what happens in the unsuccessful systems.

The point is that the issue isn't the commons (lack of direct ownership), it's culture and accountability for actions (the existence or lack of responsibility). TTOTC rides on the idea that systems, as a rule, fall into chaos and anarchy without a clear owner, but that's simply not true.

Fun fact: the guy who reported it (Andres Freund) works for Microsoft.

Another fun fact: Moscow is in the same time zone as the Middle East.

The middle east is not one time zone

https://whichtimezone.com/me/middle-east-map/

I know.

Other fun fact: Microsoft and Mandiant have never had any problem doxing Russian APTs when they caught them.

> it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid United States passport.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1185#b

So that seems like something that should be easily dealt with in a few minutes - request that they present their US passport, apprise them of the fine for entering without having obtained a US passport, and/or turn them away since their entry would be illegal. None of these require hours of questioning in a back room.

I'm tired of this trend of people using a violation of the law, especially administrative style infractions, as a justification for arbitrary horribleness.

What if someone thinks they can personally fix the loading time of a multi-billion dollar game, while having no access to its source code?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26296339

The difference there being that they did.

The GTA fix shows humility, literally the first sentence of the "recon" section is "First I wanted to check if someone had already solved this problem". Geohot wasn't interested in if anyone had tried and failed to "solve search", or why it might be a difficult problem. He assumed that Twitter were a bunch of idiots.

The whole approach of the GTA fix author is curious and humble. Very low ego.

> I find myself on the fence with proposals like these. They have good intentions but they do not solve an issue at its core.

It's clearly a joke à la RFC 3514.

I couldn’t tell. I struggle with such subtleties.

I probably should’ve checked ‘454545’ in the ascii table. Seeing how it translates to ‘---‘ could’ve hinted towards that, but the clever use probably would’ve been applauded instead without thinking it was a joke.

Ah well. Egg on my face I suppose.

RFCs have four digit numbers. This will likely change within a month or so; RFC 9945 was recently assigned so it won't be long. I wonder what RFC9999 and RFC10000 will be?

RFC9999 obviously should be to propose RFCs having 5 digits

I'm probably neither creative- nor connected-enough to do it myself, but somebody should see to it that either RFC9999 or RFC10000 is funny as hell and lands on April 1st.