While our lives are fragile, our numbers few, and our ability to destroy each other great, the capabilities that our technology gives us to survive and spread shouldn't be underestimated.
Cloud skepticism was never on the level of blockchain skepticism.
Cloud solves a real problem of scalable and efficient resource allocation and provisioning for distributed applications, as you note, in both public and private cloud settings, a problem and concept well-understood in the research community that long predates "cloud" as an enterprisey business buzzword.
And as applied, e.g. to centralized financial institution ledgers, cloud skepticism has born out. Workhorse mainframes are still doing bread-and-butter work in mission-critical settings just fine. Where they are "modernized" it is not always to anything resembling "cloud" configuration.
Blockchain, on the other hand, "solves" the invented problems of cypherpunk, crypto-libertarian fantasy. There is essentially no application where it has met with unqualified success or demonstrated advantage outside of the criminal underworld. Bitcoin did very much help make monetized ransomware a thing, so there's that.
Yet it is a giant leap backwards for security and irreversible transactions are a deal-breaking bug in the real world of finance. Mistakes and frauds have to be unwound.
"Finders keepers losers weepers" is a playground rule.
> You will if you try to trade bonds in the conventional way, which is a huge pain in the ass.
And that's a bunch of horsecrap. Do you buy stocks in your name too? No. Ordinary investors hold securities in street name with a brokerage.
I've bought corporates through Vanguard Brokerage Services, which actually doesn't have a great reputation for being friendly to buying individual securities. It's a click of the mouse and $2 per $1K face or half that if you have a large account. You can also call up the fixed income desk and do it over the phone. No problems.
For anyone for whom it's not obvious. The point is not that he spiked her chances to get hired for rejecting his advances, or that she wasn't treated fairly by in the remainder of the interview process.
The point is that he hit on her when she was expressing interest in a job, an advance backed by not only an (even if ultimately unfounded) fear that her application MIGHT be spiked if she rejected his advances, but a strong impression that ACCEPTING these advances would GET her the job.
Sex and romance in the workplace is always fraught, but this is why above almost all you never, never initiate them with someone in your chain of command or when they are attempting to move into it.
Contrary to what others are saying it is still in and of itself probably not a crime in most jurisdictions but it is a serious civil wrong that can cost immense money and goodwill, besides being just wrong.
And if you're the CEO of the organization, well, you should be appropriately compensated already.
