zlacker

>>thirty+(OP)
He certainly was an interesting person. It was always amazing the degree to which law enforcement prosecuted his hacking and cracking, when it seems like much more impactful crimes involving computers go uninvestigated. Plenty of people are hounded by threats of violence into leaving their jobs and homes, that seems far more impactful than Mitnick's crimes.

And FYI, while he died unexpectedly young, a 57-year-old man in the US has only a 50% chance of living to see their child reach 23 years of age. I, personally, wouldn't feel comfortable risking leaving a child with a likelihood of dealing with my death at that relatively young age.

>>wnisse+13
None of the commenters expressing this bullshit sentiment will provide their children with 1% of the education, health, freedom, security, etc that Mitnick will have left for his child. We struggle our whole lives to provide, it looks like he already assured that for his family, even into perpetuity if managed well.

It's not like he gave himself cancer on purpose and chose to leave a child with nothing out of spite. He played the hand he was dealt, it seems.

"Mitnick has filed a 13G form with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosing ownership of 9,379,829 shares of KnowBe4, Inc. Class A (KNBE). This represents 6.9 percent ownership of the company. "

" companies announced on Wednesday that they have entered into a definitive agreement, with KnowBe4 stockholders set to receive $24.90 per share in cash, "

"Vista Equity Partners to Acquire Security Awareness Training Firm KnowBe4 for $4.6B"

https://fintel.io/news/mitnick-kevin-discloses-stake-in-knbe...

https://www.securityweek.com/vista-equity-partners-acquire-s...

>>PostOn+sm
He decided to have a child knowing that an average man had decent chance he would be dead before they entered college. Being in remission from one of the more deadly and rapid forms of cancer meant he knew or should have known that the child would likely grow up without a father. That does not seem like support to me.

And Warren Buffet will tell you that you want to give your kids enough money so that they can do anything, not so much that they can do nothing. Have you spent time around kids who know they will be millionaires when they grow up? Really messes with your head. A buddy of mine was supported by his parents as an expat in a resort city and ended up brutally murdering his dad after they clashed about money.

And FWIW, I will be able to give my kid enough money to do anything, have been carefully developing his mental and physical aspects, travel abroad, language immersion, etc. So your attack is inaccurate in my case.

>>wnisse+Ks2
I'm not trying to attack you, just the idea. (I saw the same sentiment from several commenters) I'm just saying I strongly disagree with publicly questioning a dead man's decision to have kids when the kid still has at least one parent and financial stability. There's plenty worse you can do and not a lot better. If he'd lived to 80 would it have been "perfect"? We can't all achieve perfection.

It's virtually always impossible for almost everyone to be able to simultaneously 1] have kids while you're still young 2] wait until you have "enough" money.

Warren Buffet's quote doesn't make sense, because both "anything" and "nothing" are relative. You can "do nothing" with extraordinarily little money. You can also not be able to do "anything" even with billions of dollars (start an asteroid mining company?).

If you give your kids the moon, you just have to make sure they still have motivation and character, it's still possible. Not everyone who inherits money is a layabout.

I can stop now though, I think we just fundamentally have different opinions on this and probably won't budge much.