zlacker

[parent] [thread] 35 comments
1. wnisse+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-07-20 00:14:16
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.

replies(9): >>bragr+h >>wooooo+u >>bagels+P >>pc86+51 >>m4jor+U5 >>neilv+E8 >>dghugh+wh >>PostOn+rj >>ldargi+ok
2. bragr+h[view] [source] 2023-07-20 00:17:52
>>wnisse+(OP)
Well just doing the math, they must have conceived after his diagnosis, so presumably that was baked in sadly just knowing the actuarials on pancreatic cancer.
3. wooooo+u[view] [source] 2023-07-20 00:20:17
>>wnisse+(OP)
Everything is high school. A rebel thumbing their nose at the system must be punished, while the conventionally corrupt deserve the benefit of the doubt.
replies(2): >>javajo+w4 >>goodpo+6O
4. bagels+P[view] [source] 2023-07-20 00:23:14
>>wnisse+(OP)
Doesn't that statistic depend heavily on how old the child is to begin with?
replies(1): >>witten+zM
5. pc86+51[view] [source] 2023-07-20 00:25:38
>>wnisse+(OP)
> a 57-year-old man in the US has only a 50% chance of living to see their child reach 23 years of age

Perhaps a clearer way to put it: a 57-year-old man in the US has a 50% chance of living to 80, which doesn't seem quite as shocking of a statement.

replies(3): >>hnick+72 >>riffic+y2 >>jonhoh+k3
◧◩
6. hnick+72[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 00:34:26
>>pc86+51
It might also be loaded with the assumption the man has a child - I'd assume outcomes are different for those with and without? I wonder by how much.
◧◩
7. riffic+y2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 00:38:01
>>pc86+51
yo if people like looked at an actuarial table they'd have a better idea what that means
◧◩
8. jonhoh+k3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 00:43:44
>>pc86+51
How many men are having their first child at 57? I’ll be well under 57 when my oldest child is 23.
replies(3): >>pc86+ve >>rvba+oB >>glimsh+8R
◧◩
9. javajo+w4[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 00:54:42
>>wooooo+u
Wow, this comment is the most profound thing I've read in a while on HN. I find myself a) intuitively agreeing and b) trying to pick it apart. Society as a whole seems to have a very complicated love/hate relationship with rebellion and rebels. But with Mitnick it's like he personified Chaos vs law enforcement's Order in an almost mythological, Jungian sense that goes beyond any utilitarian justification.
10. m4jor+U5[view] [source] 2023-07-20 01:09:08
>>wnisse+(OP)
>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.

To me it seems more like he wanted to have a child with his wife before he passed so they planned it out so it would happen.

11. neilv+E8[view] [source] 2023-07-20 01:36:43
>>wnisse+(OP)
I'm sure the child will grow up knowing that they were wanted and loved.

Obituaries mention surviving family members by convention, but otherwise leave very personal matters to the family.

The death of someone can be a reminder of our own mortality. Maybe a later HN post can work through some of those thoughts.

◧◩◪
12. pc86+ve[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 02:31:50
>>jonhoh+k3
I'm not sure what that has to do with the parent comment.
replies(1): >>oefnak+Ze
◧◩◪◨
13. oefnak+Ze[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 02:35:10
>>pc86+ve
I on the other hand, don't understand why that first comment brought up children at all. Did Kevin have his first kid at 57?
replies(2): >>callal+Og >>witten+bM
◧◩◪◨⬒
14. callal+Og[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 02:51:42
>>oefnak+Ze
The third sentence of the linked article tells us that his wife is pregnant.
15. dghugh+wh[view] [source] 2023-07-20 03:02:25
>>wnisse+(OP)
I think it's pretty amazing to be 57 and expecting a child. I'd be thrilled. I'm 54 no kids and I wish I could have great relationship with a woman that is so good we had a child. Seeing how sick he was and sterility is a possibility from cancer drugs I think Kevin would be thrilled about the child as anyone would be.
replies(1): >>layer8+432
16. PostOn+rj[view] [source] 2023-07-20 03:26:06
>>wnisse+(OP)
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...

replies(4): >>witten+NL >>dang+qe2 >>unethi+Cp2 >>wnisse+Jp2
17. ldargi+ok[view] [source] 2023-07-20 03:37:12
>>wnisse+(OP)
On the flip side, his child will grow up knowing he had the coolest dad ever.
◧◩◪
18. rvba+oB[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 07:12:21
>>jonhoh+k3
I guess it is more of a millionaire thing.

The poster above mentioned that Mitnick had more than 9 million shares of some company sold for ~25 dollars each. That would be ~225 million.

◧◩
19. witten+NL[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 09:12:59
>>PostOn+rj
Right who needs a father figure when you have cash....
replies(2): >>PostOn+j01 >>dang+ge2
◧◩◪◨⬒
20. witten+bM[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 09:16:02
>>oefnak+Ze
Reading between the lines of the article he battled cancer for 14 months, but his wife is currently pregnant with their first kid. So they chose to have a kid knowing he was a 57 year old with an aggressive form of cancer.
replies(2): >>espreh+k31 >>kevmo+q41
◧◩
21. witten+zM[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 09:20:02
>>bagels+P
Child are typically born zero years old.
replies(1): >>bagels+Sn2
◧◩
22. goodpo+6O[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 09:41:31
>>wooooo+u
That's very specific to US society. Authorities treat computer intrusion more seriously than many violent crimes because it can affect companies and the government.

Companies and the government can spy on people all they want (see Snowden) but the reverse is punished severely (see Assange)

◧◩◪
23. glimsh+8R[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 10:14:58
>>jonhoh+k3
Interestingly, I'll be 57 when my child is 23.
◧◩◪
24. PostOn+j01[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 11:53:00
>>witten+NL
We don't live in an ideal world. That doesn't mean it's not worth living in.

The man didn't hang himself, he got a case of severe bad luck. I'm sure he'd be here doing the father figure stuff if he could, but if he can't, that doesn't mean the kid shouldn't have been created, and really, that's their family's own personal decision to make.

Ultimately, he did a good job for his family and the kid will be fine.

People shitting on him on the day he died for choosing to have a kid that he leaves very well taken care of just seems wrong in several different ways.

I mean, we could all be at work trying to provide for our theoretical kids right now and we're sitting here saying dumb shit on the internet instead.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
25. espreh+k31[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 12:16:47
>>witten+bM
Per other comments his cancer was in remission for a portion of that 14 months as well.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
26. kevmo+q41[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 12:23:34
>>witten+bM
Yikes.
◧◩
27. layer8+432[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 16:48:48
>>dghugh+wh
The question is about whether the child will be thrilled to have a father who died before they were born.
◧◩◪
28. dang+ge2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 17:39:20
>>witten+NL
Please make your substantive points without snark. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
◧◩
29. dang+qe2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 17:39:50
>>PostOn+rj
Please make your substantive points without calling names. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
replies(1): >>PostOn+AI2
◧◩◪
30. bagels+Sn2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 18:22:43
>>witten+zM
Okay, but most 57 year olds aren't having children at 57, most will have children well before that, if at all.
◧◩
31. unethi+Cp2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 18:30:43
>>PostOn+rj
What?
◧◩
32. wnisse+Jp2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 18:31:01
>>PostOn+rj
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.

replies(1): >>PostOn+dK2
◧◩◪
33. PostOn+AI2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 19:49:28
>>dang+qe2
You're right; I could've said that without calling it "a BS sentiment".
replies(1): >>dang+nL2
◧◩◪
34. PostOn+dK2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 19:59:31
>>wnisse+Jp2
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.

◧◩◪◨
35. dang+nL2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 20:06:23
>>PostOn+AI2
Thanks for the kind reply. We got emails saying I was off base on this one so clearly it wasn't an obvious call!
replies(1): >>PostOn+hX2
◧◩◪◨⬒
36. PostOn+hX2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-20 21:03:45
>>dang+nL2
That's interesting that people felt it worth the time to email.

I think what's going on here is that some people (myself included) find it extraordinarily offensive to question someone's right to procreate, whether they're "good enough" by some metric to have done so. Are you young enough, rich enough, smart enough, tall enough, moral enough, etc.

Of course, the offense can be a combination of being offended on behalf (of Mitnick in this case), and also projecting (what if we lived in a world where people questioned whether I should have children for reasons of age, wealth ... or worse reasons.)

I think we live in a world where we need all kinds of people from all kinds of parents; when we start to pick at who "should" have children, we risk losing something.

[go to top]