Strategic Initiatives
12528 stories
·
45 followers

Tailworm

1 Share

LLM (meta/muse-spark-1.3-contributor) summary:

  • Socket Takeover: person with ordinary access can take over internal channels used by privileged services
  • Privilege Escalation: approved user can obtain full administrator control without passwords or special tools
  • Traffic Redirection: same user can reach internal tools open listeners and read restricted files
  • Credential Theft: attacker can capture enrollment keys and join own machine as legitimate server
  • Policy Bypass: validation gap allows routing to unauthorized destinations including metadata service
  • Denial Of Service: unauthenticated user can exhaust memory or evict approvals and block new devices
  • Admin Exposure: one line configuration exposes agent administrative interface to remote peers
  • Remediation Focus: fixes center on access rules hardware bound credentials and improved telemetry

Executive summary for business readers

  1. Race conditions in Tailscale SSH socket handling (findings 1–3, 7). A person with ordinary approved access to a server over the corporate mesh can — without passwords, administrative rights, or special software — take over the internal communication channels that the most privileged services on that server use, including the container platform and the init system. Demonstrations yielded full administrator control and, separately, capture of the credentials that enroll new devices. Exposure exists wherever Tailscale SSH is enabled; the fix is small and already proven in two competing products.
  2. Forwarding features run with full system privilege (findings 1, 3–5). The same approved user can redirect traffic in ways security policy never sees: reaching admin tools "protected" only by listening on the machine's internal interface, opening listener ports on the machine's public address, and reading files only the OS should read.
  3. Device-enrollment credential theft closes the loop (full impact chain). With the socket takeover, an attacker captures the keys that add machines to the network and joins their own machine — appearing as a legitimate tagged server with routes auto-approved. In default configurations this converts one compromised account into persistent, official-looking network presence.
  4. The app-connector feature bypasses network policy (finding 4). A validation gap lets approved users route traffic to destinations the security team never authorized — including the cloud metadata service that hands out server credentials, and in Kubernetes every internal service.
  5. Denial-of-service and lockout (findings 5–6). An unauthenticated internet user can exhaust the control server's memory or evict legitimate device approvals — blocking new devices from joining. Availability attacks, not data theft, but they can take remote-access infrastructure offline.
  6. A serving feature exposes the local admin API (finding 7). A one-line configuration exposes the agent's administrative interface to remote peers — the server's management console — and a related race lets a minority of requests bypass application permission checks.
  7. Spend terms. Entry requirements are ordinary: one approved account, or for the DoS items no account at all. Fixes concentrate in three places — per-pair access rules, hardware-bound credentials, and telemetry out of the compromised host's reach — process changes more than purchases, detailed in the remediation sections below.
Read the whole story
bogorad
10 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Two Asian giants, one economic trap

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.8-flash) summary:

  • Consumer Sentiment: falling property values and high youth unemployment cause households to hoard cash and downgrade consumption
  • Property Market Collapse: real estate contraction triggers a balance sheet recession where citizens and firms focus on paying debt instead of spending
  • Demographic Contraction: population shrinkage began recently and threatens long term economic stability at a steeper rate than observed in japan
  • Credit Demand Weakness: government bond yields fall and lending growth hits record lows as borrowing appetite across sectors evaporates
  • Export Resilience: manufacturing capacity and record trade surpluses maintain global market share and cushion domestic downturns
  • Youth Unemployment: millions of young workers enter a stagnant job market creating a disillusioned generation reluctant to invest in housing
  • Fiscal Policy Hesitation: leaders avoid direct household stimulus to address weak consumption and focus resources on advanced technology instead
  • Economic Trajectory Revision: slowing annual growth diminishes previous forecasts of surpassing the united states as the leading global economy

Xu, a semiconductor engineer in Shanghai, should feel like a master of the universe in China’s new economy. He earns well in a sector critical to the nation’s future and lavished for decades with state subsidies. 
Yet for all the promise on his horizon, the 29-year-old is reluctant to splash his cash. His income, in an environment of high youth unemployment, falling property values and a threadbare social security net, feels more precious by the day. An atmosphere of consumer “downgrading” and pessimism, he says, is everywhere. 
“I am also under more pressure now,” Xu adds, “so I’m less inclined to go out and spend.”
Such an evaporation of confidence is chillingly familiar. To Xu and millions like him, the world’s second-biggest economy increasingly resembles that of Japan during the long period of stagnation and deflation that followed the bursting of its property bubble in 1990.
The parallels are everywhere, from deteriorating demographics, persistent deflation and weak consumer spending to moribund stock and property markets. At around 300 per cent of GDP, according to calculations by Capital Economics, China’s total public and private debt is also closing in on Japanese levels.
China
202520202015201020052000199519900105-515USUSEurozoneEurozoneJapanJapanChinaChina
China’s leaders have studied Japan’s experience in detail, in an effort to avoid the policy mistakes that bedevilled Tokyo’s response to the slump.
But despite their efforts, signs of Japan-style malaise, such as reluctant consumers and deflationary pressures, are still proliferating in China.
According to Goldman Sachs, an updated version of the Japanisation index — a gauge originally devised by the late economist Takatoshi Ito — shows that for the past five years, China has been consistently more “Japanised” than Japan itself. 
Looming over all of this is what economists describe as the iron law of demographics. Japan’s population started to shrink in 2009; China’s decline began in 2022 and is on track to be steeper, worsening the country’s economic prospects.
That outlook threatens President Xi Jinping’s reputation as a reliable steward of the economy, raising the prospect that the country will not surpass the US to become the world’s largest economy in the next one or two decades, as some once also believed Japan might.
In another echo of Japan’s post 1990s-slump, the IMF warned last week of growing numbers of “zombie” companies across Asia, kept alive only by lenient banks. This is now evident across China’s heavily subsidised manufacturing economy.
Outside favoured sectors, companies are increasingly refusing to invest while households hoard cash instead of spending. Phrases coined in 1990s Japan, such as “job hunting ice age” and “price destruction”, are creeping into China’s vernacular.
And while economists can see the signals of Japanification in the data, Xu can see it at breakfast, lunch and dinner. Restaurants across China are competing to offer meals for under Rmb10 ($1.50).
“The focus for customers seems to be on filling up, rather than the taste of the dishes themselves or the quality,” Xu says.
A young girl sits between her parents and eats a bowl of beef and rice using chopsticksThe price of a basic bowl of rice and beef at a leading gyudon chain in Japan fell after a peak in 1990, only recovering to the same level in 2021 © AFP/Getty ImagesA man sits in a restaurant and eats noodles using chopsticksRestaurants across China are competing to undercut each other’s prices to tempt increasingly cost-conscious diners © Wu Hao/EPA/Shutterstock
This too is redolent of Japan, where restaurants entered a margin-crushing price war to attract an ever-shrinking pool of consumer spending as deflation took hold. The price of a basic bowl of rice and beef at the nation’s leading gyudon chain hit a high of ¥400 ($2.50 at current exchange rates) at the end of 1990 before falling. It only reached ¥400 again in 2021.
“The criticism of Japan’s response was that it was too little, too late. It was slow to take the drastic measures that were required, and reluctant to take the pain,” says Toshiya Tsugami, a fellow at the Japan Institute of International Affairs think-tank who specialises in the comparison between the Chinese and Japanese economies. 
“China appears to be doing everything it can, but it is treating the symptoms only. In fact, China’s problems are getting bigger and more serious,” he adds. 
Although higher energy prices as a result of the Iran war have recently lifted Chinese factory-gate prices out of more than three years of deflation, economists say weak demand continues to fester. Consumers are deleveraging, with bank lending to households as of August this year declining outright for the first time in history.
Five years on from the bursting of China’s property bubble, some economists are concerned over whether the economy is now halfway through its first “lost decade” — and whether that could extend into a second or even a third. 
But others counter that the two economies are very different. Andrew Tilton, chief Asia-Pacific economist at Goldman Sachs, says that China “has been at pains to make sure its manufacturing sector stays competitive and maintains market share”. Third-quarter year-on-year GDP growth of 4.5 per cent, announced this week, was driven substantially by export growth.
China is also less developed now than Japan was when its bubble burst, leaving more room for growth, and it is more able to resist political pressure from the US over exchange rates than Japan was.
2040
204020352030202520202015201020052000010080604020
Isabelle Mateos y Lago, chief economist at BNP Paribas, says that while there are parallels, these differences seem far more important. “China could reflate its domestic economy by addressing the root causes of households’ astonishingly high savings rate, which is roughly twice Japan’s in the early 1980s,” she says.
Even so, the reversal in sentiment from a decade ago is striking. “It isn’t so long ago since people were drawing lines on charts that showed China keeping on growing at 7, 8 or even 10 per cent [a year] for another couple of decades,” says Adam Slater, lead economist at Oxford Economics.
“Now all of a sudden we’re looking at, within a decade, Chinese growth dropping towards 3 per cent per year. It’s a very big change in the outlook.”

China’s real estate bubble was the largest in history, outpacing even Japan’s speculative frenzy of the late 1980s and at its peak accounting for a third of the country’s economy.
The contraction since it burst in 2021 has been dramatic, with new housing starts down 78 per cent from their peak, according to Macquarie. That compares with a 73 per cent fall in the US between 2005 and 2009 and Japan’s 65 per cent drop between 1996 and 2025. 
The collapse of the property market has set off what Richard Koo, the Nomura Research Institute’s chief economist, calls a “balance sheet recession” — a term he originally coined in the 1990s to describe the tendency of Japanese companies and individuals to pay down debt rather than borrow to invest or spend.
Weaker demand and deflation then worsen the debt burden, leading to a vicious cycle. Investment opportunities decline, the labour market calcifies and salaries stagnate.
Tokyo station packed with commutersCommuters in Tokyo in 1990, the year Japan’s property bubble burst, leading to a long period of stagnation and deflation © The Asahi Shimbun/Getty ImagesSchoolchildren and commuters riding bicycles and electric mopeds wait at a traffic light in BeijingChina’s demographic decline began in 2022 and is on track to be steeper than Japan’s, worsening the country’s economic prospects © Andres Martinez Casares/EPA/Shutterstock
Just as it did in Japan, demand for debt has slowed markedly in China since the real estate bust. The country’s total outstanding renminbi-denominated loans rose 4.8 per cent in September from a year earlier, a record low, and down from 4.9 per cent in August. 
China’s weakening economic conditions meant that up to 10.6 per cent of the adult population had overdue loans last year, compared with about 7.8 per cent a year earlier, according to a report by Gavekal Dragonomics analyst Xiaoxi Zhang.
China’s official statistics show an uncannily stable urban unemployment rate of about 5 per cent. But youth unemployment is high by international standards at 18.9 per cent in August. 
The country’s local governments are also trying to reduce debt after borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to finance often unproductive investments during the property boom.
The province of Guizhou alone binged about Rmb770bn ($115bn) a year on large infrastructure projects between 2017 and 2023, including some of the world’s highest bridges. Now that high-spending era appears to be over.
In the private sector, companies in favoured high-tech sectors or export industries are still borrowing, but those exposed to the weak domestic economy are not.
The ultimate sign of China’s weak credit demand is the 1.7 per cent yield on 10-year government bonds, which Nomura’s Koo describes as “absolutely ridiculous”. Prices, which move inversely to yields, have risen because investors are unpersuaded by the opportunities on offer elsewhere in the country and have parked cash in government debt. The yield “should be 3 or 4 per cent at a minimum”, adds Koo.
He argues that the best response to a balance-sheet recession is increased fiscal spending by government to mobilise the savings accrued in the banking system, rather than repeating Japan’s mistake of using lower interest rates to stimulate the economy. Loose monetary policy merely encouraged companies to limp along without addressing fundamental flaws in their business models and resulted in capital misallocation, he adds.
Xi’s administration has announced some spending programmes for consumption, such as subsidies for one-off purchases of consumer goods, including televisions and appliances. But these have only brought forward spending by households rather than raising incomes. 
“A lot of people in China fully understand the need for fiscal stimulus but the government is still not adapting [its] stance fully,” says Koo. “It has done some, but nothing near enough to offset the deflationary pressure.”

One reason for Beijing’s reluctance to resort to domestic stimulus, economists believe, is China’s strong export performance. The trade surplus hit $1.2tn last year — the biggest recorded by any country, ever — and may meet or exceed that level this year.
Policymakers in Beijing think the country’s export performance will buy China time while it waits for the property market to stabilise. In the meantime, they are pursuing investment in areas such as chipmaking and AI as the country competes with the US for geopolitical dominance.
One Chinese government adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, says the top leadership believes that its long-term investment in high-tech will bring a pay-off that was not seen after the bubble burst in Japan.
The adviser points to China’s growing capabilities in semiconductor manufacturing, an industry where Japan ceded ground to Taiwan and South Korea during its two lost decades.  
2050
All series are visible.
China
Japan (1973-2023)
S Korea (1973-2023)
Taiwan (1973-2023)
20502045204020352030202520202015201020052000010080604020160140120
“So China is different. China did this on purpose,” the adviser adds. “We did not wait until the [property] bubble burst itself — we intentionally, we proactively made this happen.”
He says Beijing is making sacrifices now, in terms of weak domestic sentiment, in exchange for the long-term benefits. “They believe that this [the property downturn] will not last very long.”
Japan’s share of global manufacturing value was 23 per cent in 1995, falling to 11 per cent in 2010. China’s share was still 28 per cent in 2024. Some economists note that since the country’s property bubble burst, China’s exporters have increased their share of global manufacturing while Japan’s fell. 
“Since the onset of US-China trade tensions in 2018, China’s overall exports have risen about 52 per cent, and its goods surplus has more than tripled,” said Larry Hu, chief China economist at Macquarie, in a research note. 
He said that contrasted sharply with Japan, where corporate capital expenditure declined by about 14 per cent from 1990 to 2010 as companies repaired their balance sheets. “That persistent capex weakness helps explain why Japan missed much of the subsequent waves of technological change in the internet and semiconductors.”
 Workers assemble on the production line at the Toyota in Japan in 1997A Toyota assembly line in Japan in 1997. The country’s share of global manufacturing value was 23% in 1995, falling to 11 per cent in 2010 © The Asahi Shimbun/Getty ImagesWorkers assemble a power-generation unit for a wind turbine in China in 2026Assembly of a wind power generation unit in China, where the share of global manufacturing — 28% in 2024 — has increased since the property bubble burst in 2021 © Qilai Shen/Bloomberg
Others caution that China’s manufacturing export boom may yet prove unsustainable as big trade partners such as the US and EU push back more forcefully against the flood of cheap exports.
In 1985, when Japan’s exports were booming, it was in effect forced to rebalance its economy by allowing the yen to appreciate. The so-called Plaza Accord with the US and others kept Japan’s trading partners open to receiving its goods, Koo argued. 
But Chinese propaganda portrays the agreement as a capitulation. “Japan’s acquiescence was influenced as much by its security dependence on the US as by economic factors, and the resulting shock triggered Japan’s asset collapse and prolonged economic stagnation,” said the official China Daily newspaper last month.
“Japan was responsive to US political and policy pressure [over its weak currency] in a way China is not,” says Tilton, at Goldman Sachs. “Without the same electoral constraints, China can continue directing resources away from the household sector for longer than Japan could.”
Macquarie’s Hu argues that even if exports prove unsustainable at their current levels, Beijing still has enough fiscal firepower to stimulate consumption. 
“After five years of painful adjustments, policymakers have deflated the property bubble,” he wrote. “Now, with low inflation, low rates, and an undervalued currency, they have ample policy space to pivot, such as [through] rolling out forceful housing stimulus.”

Not everyone is convinced such a shift will be easy. Just as two generations of Japanese endured the fallout from the collapse of the 1980s bubble, a generation of young Chinese people is now bearing the brunt of their country’s domestic slowdown.
Gavekal analyst Andrew Batson calculates that about 74mn Chinese have completed their education and entered the workforce since 2022.
2060
All series are visible.
0-14
15-59
60+
China0604020Japan2060205020402030202020102000199019501960198019700604020ForecastForecastForecastForecast
The weak economy means many members of this “lost generation” will become disillusioned with their prospects, he argues, making it more difficult to stabilise the property market.
This psychological cloud, argue Goldman Sachs analysts, matters even more than the demographic overhang in judging how hard Japanification might hit China.
The “expectation channel”, where households and businesses saw no prospect of longer-term growth, created a vicious circle of reduced consumption and investment in Japan which in turn lowered expectations.
Zhu Ning, an economist and author of a book about China’s property bubble, says younger people “just don’t think buying a property makes economic sense or investment sense, because all [they] have experienced is that housing prices came down 30 to 40 per cent in a matter of five years.”
The stock market could offer a substitute for some households looking for investment opportunities, he adds, with about 200mn Chinese holding some shares.  
But for some economists, a bigger question is whether China’s bubble has actually fully burst, given the country’s still extraordinarily high investment rates.
Gross fixed capital formation — the acquisition of assets for the production of goods and services — was 40 per cent of GDP in 2024 against Japan’s 28 per cent and the OECD average of 22 per cent, fuelled by an augmented fiscal deficit that Goldman Sachs forecasts will hit 11 per cent of GDP this year. No one knows when this debt will become unsustainable. 
Investors watch a board displaying stock prices in Tokyo in 1990Investors watch plunging share prices in Tokyo in 1990. Reduced consumption and investment in Japan have created a vicious circle of low expectations © The Asahi Shimbun/Getty ImagesWorkers labour at the construction site of a residential building in ChinaPolicymakers say export performance will buy China time for the property market to stabilise, but analysts think a disillusioned ‘lost generation’ will make this more difficult © FeatureChina/AP
“I would say China hasn’t really started its adjustment yet because debt continues to rise at an astonishingly rapid pace,” says Michael Pettis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “We’re going to see a surge in investment growth later on this year, because I don’t think [China’s leaders] are prepared to see GDP growth come in below target at 4 per cent.”
In Japan’s case, the adjustment started relatively clearly in 1991 after the collapse of the real estate and stock markets. “I’m not sure we’re going to have such a clean starting date with China,” adds Pettis. 
Some might say China’s adjustment began in 2022 after the crackdown on housing sector over-leverage, or even as far back as 2015 when a stock market collapse led the country to cut interest rates, setting off the last phase of the housing boom. More recently, there has been a boom in manufacturing. 
The seminal book Japan as Number One, published in 1979, triggered a wave of predictions that the Japanese economy would overtake that of the US. Such forecasts endured even after Japan had entered its first lost decade.
Similar pronouncements regarding China, which proliferated until recently, have become more scarce. If Beijing cannot shake off Japanification, the prospect of convergence with the US will fade.
Slater, at Oxford Economics, does not rule out the possibility that the country’s growth slows to between 2 and 2.5 per cent over the next decade — half the average of the last. In that case, Xi’s hope of overtaking the US might look increasingly forlorn, just as the challenge posed by Japan receded in the 1990s.
“The catch-up process would pretty much level off,” he says.
Data visualisation by Keith Fray
Read the whole story
bogorad
4 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Some final words on Foursquare. - by Dennis Crowley

1 Share

LLM (minimax/minimax-m3.1-flash:free) summary:

  • Acquisition: foursquare was acquired by infillion after a seventeen year history
  • Equity Outcome: preferred and common shares were cancelled without payment, leaving equity holders with zero dollars
  • Revenue History: foursquare reported revenue above one hundred million dollars from twenty nineteen through twenty twenty one
  • Leadership Change: a private equity investment in twenty nineteen was followed by the deal banker becoming chief executive officer
  • Accountability: founder dens crowley accepted responsibility for earlier fundraising and board decisions while criticizing later leadership
  • Employee Communication: current and former employees learned of the zero dollar outcome through legal emails and a lengthy document
  • Company Legacy: foursquare influenced consumer location products, enterprise tools, employee careers, and new companies
  • Final Advice: founders should devote themselves to their companies while also accepting closure and pursuing new opportunities

Timeline 1.0 (568 Broadway, NYC) – This timeline was a big deal at FSQ. Everyone added their own names and when they started, alongside company milestones & achievements.

Almost exactly a month ago, Foursquare was acquired, marking the end of a 17-year story that started around my kitchen table in the East Village in 2009. “The terms of the deal were not disclosed”, but some details have surfaced online. One of our earliest angel investors wrote…

>> Several days after the announcement I got the paperwork about the sale from Foursquare’s legal counsel. [...] around page 50 was the sentence I needed to see, which said that “each share of Preferred Stock was cancelled and extinguished, without any conversion thereof or payment of any cash or other property or consideration therefor, and ceased to exist.”

Translation: The Foursquare acquisition was a $0 outcome for equity holders – $0 for preferred, $0 for common. It’s bittersweet to see these details surface publicly – at least now there’s an opportunity to comment on them.

I was heartbroken by this ending. There are so many people who put so much time and energy and passion and love into building Foursquare – the company, the products, the brand, the culture. If you were part of it (or even close to it), you know exactly what I’m talking about. To our ~1600 former employees over 17 years, I am sorry the Foursquare story ended in such a way that makes it seem like our collective efforts were worth… nothing?

I’m writing this post for three reasons, (1) I want an artifact that that captures FSQ’s ending from my POV to exist on the internet, (2) I want to hold leadership (myself included) accountable for the outcome, and (3) I’ve learned a lot – strategically, emotionally, psychologically – about starting, scaling, and losing a company that I loved, and those learnings feel worthy of sharing with other founders and investors. “Trust” and “transparency” have always been core to Foursquare’s DNA, so if there’s going to be any last word on the company, they should echo these values.

I don’t think anyone was expecting a huge exit these days (there was a big capital stack to pay back before common saw anything, plus many people’s vested options and RSUs had expired), but seeing it go to zero is hard to accept.

Foursquare did struggle as we made the transition from a consumer business to an enterprise business… but we did it! In 2019, 2020 and 2021 we publicly boasted about our $100M+ revenue years. So what happened? In 2019, Foursquare raised additional capital from a private equity firm – the business was starting to work, we had just acquired Placed – and 19 months later the banker who led the capital raise was elevated to the role of Foursquare’s CEO. (Jan 2021)

And six years after that leadership change, we now know how the story ends – as a zero dollar outcome for equity holders. Leadership was unable to preserve the value it inherited or create new value during those six years. Over the past few weeks, dozens of current and former Foursquare employees have reached out to me to express their frustration with the leadership that led the company to this outcome. You can read plenty of the criticism on Glassdoor if you’re interested. There’s 40 pages of it.

I’ll take accountability too. I was the CEO for the first 7 years (and I raised both equity and debt) and was Chair/Co-Chair of the Board for 17 years (as the company raised *more* equity and debt), so I take responsibility in part for how we got here. We raised a lot of capital under my leadership, and my decisions as CEO led us to the point where we needed additional capital, including the private equity round in 2019. (I stepped out of the CEO role in 2016 and stepped away from my day-to-day role running the R&D Lab in 2021). I kept my Board Seat after I left and often thought of myself as a champion for the common shareholder. In hindsight, I could have pushed harder as a board member (though tricky when when holding just one of seven seats).

The CEO job is impossibly hard and often thankless, but even in the darkest of scenarios there’s a way to lead with grace and humility. To many current and former employees, the final chapter of the company felt disrespectful. To provide a single example, current employees told me that, despite an in-person all hands meeting, they learned their shares would be worth nothing via an email from Foursquare’s legal team. Former employees learned these details via an email from Carta, with details buried in a 125-page PDF sent from Foursquare’s legal team. No single individual stood up to own (or even acknowledge) the outcome – the antithesis of the transparency and trust that was so core to our early DNA.

From everything I’ve heard, leadership took no accountability and displayed little awareness of the role it played in how we got here. With any other ending (even one that didn’t clear the capital stack) this might have been a different blog post. Instead our final chapters seemed so hastily managed and handled with such little care that I was left to write this makeshift eulogy. You all deserved better.

Timeline 2.0 (568 Broadway) – I took this photo the day we moved out of Soho HQ en route to Flatiron.
Zoomed in on the corner of the pic above.

ADVICE TO FOUNDERS / FINAL WORDS

<deep breath>

Maybe the biggest mistake I’ve made in my career is falling in love with this company**. I put my heart and soul into building it, and tried my best to keep the fire inside of it lit for the better part of 13 years. Looking back, I was far too loyal to the company and the idea of “making it work”. I stayed longer than I should have. I stayed believing that I was helping even though the people in charge didn’t want my help. Watching the company slowly decay has been a grind on my soul. The closure of it “being over” is helpful and welcome and cathartic. I don’t regret any of my time at Foursquare, though I do regret never letting myself “move on” from it (which has certainly held me back from exploring other paths over the years).

It was an ABSOLUTE HONOR to build this company with so many talented people back in the day. My north star for Foursquare’s culture (2010s) was always, “We want people to look back and think, ‘That was the best job I ever had because those were the best people I ever worked with’.” And I hear from ex-Foursquare people over and over again that we absolutely nailed this.

Regardless of this ending, I will always be SO PROUD of the amazing team, company and culture that we created together — one that allowed us to build consumer products that meant so much to millions of people (and inspired features you can now find in everything from Google Maps to Snapchat), and enterprise products that set the bar for how smaller teams could innovate and compete against the biggest of players. Watching hundreds of ex-FSQ people supporting each other in our alumni chat, hiring old teammates as they move from gig to gig, and starting companies (or families!) together never gets old. In my mind, your successes are part of FSQ’s legacy.

I will always be SO THANKFUL for the journey FSQ took me on and how the company got to influence so many people’s careers and stories. Foursquare played a defining role in the grand story that is NYC Tech, and the startup ecosystem that thrives here today will always be a core part of that FSQ legacy. I’m thankful for the investors who took a chance on us, and the army of friends and fans who supported us along the way. I just wish we all got to share a better ending together – an ending worthy of the same energy, passion and conviction that fueled the best parts of Foursquare’s story.

** I imagine I’m gonna get dragged for this “falling in love with the company” thing. If you have never experienced this, I *think* I’d recommend it? Building something you love, with people you love working with, for people who love the things you build for them is one of the BEST things I have ever experienced (and anyone who worked at FSQ in the earlier days will know this feeling) To anyone building, It’s okay to fall in love with the company you’re building, but don’t deny yourself the ability to get closure and move on just because the company itself hasn’t yet experienced an exit or ending.

ps: If you’re looking for a proper eulogy for the company’s achievements and legacy, read this. I wrote it six years ago, but it still holds up. Steven Rosenblatt (FSQ’s OG CRO) also wrote a great post-mortem.


I published this here because LinkedIn felt too… self-congratulatory for this post.
I’ll eventually cross-post to Medium for archival purposes.
Love and appreciation to anyone who read this far. 👋❤️
</end>

Timeline 3.0 (50 West 23rd Street) … before leadership erased it (!!) in late 2023. 🤦🏻‍♂️ This timeline stretched some 50 feet (and at least 13 years)
I left this note on my last day: “Hey 4SQ/FSQ peeps – Don’t discount where inspiration comes from! Go make awesome things + invent the future! xo, dens ps: THANK YOU to everyone who helped build this place – past, present & future! Much love!” – June 15, 2021 (a lifetime ago!)

Thanks for reading Teendrama Snippets! I try to write something 1-2x/month.

Read the whole story
bogorad
5 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

How Trump defied the 'experts' — and pushed the UN to post-Oct. 7 peace

1 Share

LLM (meta/muse-spark-1.3-contributor) summary:

  • October Seven Attacks: hamas murdered twelve hundred innocents and took two hundred fifty one hostages to gaza
  • Hostages Home: all two hundred fifty one hostages are home and ceasefire has held
  • Abraham Accords Expansion: accords survived war with iran and continue expanding with regional partners
  • Iran Axis Collapse: hamas and iranian backers failed as lebanon syria and iraq turn westward
  • United Nations Failure: leaders used equivocation and failed to rein in special rapporteurs
  • Rapporteurs And Unrwa: rapporteurs rationalized attacks denied rape while unrwa staff participated in horrors
  • Trump Gaza Proposal: bring hostages home demilitarize gaza and form technocratic administration with partners
  • Resolution Twentyeight Zero Three: endorsed plan welcomed board of peace with twenty eight members and authorized stabilization force with seventeen billion pledged

Pure evil.

There were no other words I could conjure on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists murdered 1,200 innocents, raped an untold number, ravaged entire villages in southern Israel and took 251 hostages back to Gaza — including American citizens, women, children and the elderly.

Three years later, the terrorists and their Iranian patrons have definitively failed.

The hostages are home.

The Abraham Accords are accelerating.

Regional partners are helping shape Gaza’s future.

And thanks to President Donald Trump, the same United Natons that was part of the problem in 2023 now has an opportunity — indeed, a mandate — to be part of the solution.

The UN’s moral inversion in the wake of Oct. 7 was surreal.

Senior leaders trafficked in caveats, equivocation, legitimization and delay — all while failing to rein in the special rapporteurs whose “independent expertise” they routinely invoke.

Take Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinan territories who rationalized Oct. 7 as a response to Israeli “oppression” — then used her UN role to target American companies like Microsoft, Caterpillar and Palantir for doing business in Israel.

Or consider Reem Alsalem, the rapporteur charged with combating violence against women, who denied that rape even occurred during the Hamas onslaught.

Special Rapporteur Tlaleng Mofokeng, ostensibly focused on health, declared that “Hamas are not terrorists” and defended the legitimacy of its “armed struggle,” while other rapporteurs led demands for arms embargoes, economic blockades and sanctions against Israel.

All this after employees from UNRWA (the UN agency entrusted with aiding Palestinians) participated in the horrors of Oct. 7.

This was the moral absurdity: While innocent hostages from Israel and roughly 25 other UN member states were still being starved and beaten underground in Gaza, parts of the institution founded to promote peace and human rights were parroting Hamas’ talking points and denying the nature of the atrocities.

They falsely attacked Israel and its partners, and confidently predicted that the regional peace architecture President Trump had built would collapse.

The world’s “experts” were wrong about all of it.

They were poor historians, but even worse prophets: The Abraham Accords survived Oct. 7, the Gaza war and the conflict with Iran.

Better yet, they are still expanding.

Hamas and its Iranian backers were wrong, too.

The Oct. 7 attacks were meant to fracture Israel from the region and breathe new life into Tehran’s Axis of Terror.

They backfired spectacularly: New governments in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are casting off the Iranian yoke and turning Westward, and Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” is in shambles.

Just this summer I visited various allies in the Gulf.

At the height of the conflict with Iran, I sat in a restaurant in Abu Dhabi and heard Hebrew from diners at nearby tables — while Israeli Iron Dome batteries and personnel were helping defend Emirati skies from Iranian missiles.

A generation ago, that scene would have been impossible.

The same might be said of our efforts here at the UN, where we just convened members of the Abraham Accords for their first reunion since the first Trump administration.

The next day we hosted a ministerial summit between Morocco and Israel, where the two nations agreed to expand direct flights, elevate their diplomatic missions to embassies and move forward on new investment and tax agreements.

Those once-unlikely regional partnerships have given us a way forward in Gaza, where it once seemed there were only two options — Hamas could rule Gaza and continue its terror, or the IDF could stay in Gaza indefinitely.

President Trump put forward a third option: bring the hostages home, keep Hamas out of government, demilitarize Gaza, establish a technocratic Palestinian administration and bring Arab and international partners along for security and reconstruction.

We took that to the United Nations, where Security Council Resolution 2803 passed without opposition.

It endorsed the president’s plan, welcomed the Board of Peace and authorized an International Stabilization Force to secure Gaza, support vetted Palestinian police, protect civilians and humanitarian operations and prevent terrorist infrastructure from being rebuilt.

The results are now measurable.

All 251 hostages are home, and the cease-fire, while tenuous, has held.

The Board of Peace has 28 member countries, the ISF has completed its pre-deployment assessment and $17 billion has been pledged for reconstruction.

Much work remains, including the full decommissioning of Hamas and other armed groups — but there is now a framework where none existed before.

Oct. 7 was meant to destroy the possibility of a different Middle East.

Many within the UN accepted that premise; some even propagated it — staining the good work that can be done under its auspices.

In the 1,096 days that followed, President Trump has proved those voices wrong at every turn, corralling even naysaying institutions like the UN to advance what was once thought impossible in the Middle East: peace.

Mike Waltz is the US ambassador to the United Nations.

Read the whole story
bogorad
5 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

DHS Orders Federal Civilian Agencies to Remove China’s DeepSeek AI - WSJ

1 Share

LLM (minimax/minimax-m3.1-flash:free) summary:

  • Federal Removal Order: dhs ordered federal civilian agencies to remove chinese artificial intelligence technology developed by deepseek from their information technology systems
  • Future Purchases Barred: the order prohibits federal civilian agencies from buying deepseek products and services
  • Broad Product Scope: restrictions cover products developed by deepseek affiliates and third party products and services using deepseek implementations
  • China Related Technology: the ban applies to technology originating from a chinese artificial intelligence company
  • Legal Authority: dhs issued the order under the federal acquisition supply chain security act of 2018
  • Security Review: the decision followed a review of a recommendation and supporting evidence from the federal acquisition security council
  • Unspecified Rationale: the notice did not explain the security concerns underlying the restrictions or set a deadline for removing affected technology
  • Competitive Context: the action comes amid intensifying united states and china competition as chinese developers narrow the artificial intelligence capability gap to about two months


Illustration of the DeepSeek logo on a blue backlit keyboard.The restrictions extend to products developed by DeepSeek affiliates, as well as third-party products and services built using DeepSeek implementations. Dado Ruvic/Reuters

The Department of Homeland Security has ordered federal civilian agencies to remove artificial-intelligence technology developed by China’s DeepSeek from their information technology systems.

The order also bars future purchases of DeepSeek’s products and services, according to a notice published by DHS.

The restrictions extend to products developed by DeepSeek affiliates, as well as third-party products and services built using DeepSeek implementations.

DHS issued the order under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018, following a review of a recommendation and supporting evidence from the Federal Acquisition Security Council. The notice didn’t specify the security concerns underlying the decision or provide a deadline for agencies to remove the affected technology.

The move comes amid intensifying competition between the U.S. and China in artificial intelligence, as Chinese AI developers race to close the gap with their American counterparts. That gap has narrowed to just a couple of months, according to some research, The Wall Street Journal had previously reported.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Connor Hart is a reporter on the Real-Time Desk, where he covers breaking corporate news. He previously interned at The Wall Street Journal as part of the summer 2022 newsroom intern class. Connor worked at the St. Louis Business Journal, covering restaurants, retail and supply chains in the St. Louis region. He is a graduate of the University of South Carolina, where he served as managing editor of his college newspaper, the Daily Gamecock, and interned at The State newspaper.


Up Next


Videos

Read the whole story
bogorad
6 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

US threatens Europe over Starlink restrictions

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.5-flash-lite) summary:

  • Us Warning: american ambassador andrew puzder warned that european companies face devastating retaliation if brussels restricts us firms like spacex from the european market.
  • Spectrum Restriction: the european commission proposed reserving satellite spectrum band frequencies for european players, limiting access for american and chinese competitors.
  • Market Access: puzder stated that european firms should be wary of US retaliation given the massive size of the american market.
  • Connectivity Concerns: spacex criticized the proposal, warning it risks poorer connectivity in critical regions like ukraine where starlink is heavily used.
  • Commie Sovereignty Push: europe is pursuing technological sovereignty and regulatory protectionism to reduce dependence on us infrastructure, reflecting classic heavy-handed state interventionism.
  • Regulatory Motives: puzder questioned whether enforcement of the digital markets act and massive fines on american firms are aimed at genuine competition or simply generating revenue for the european budget.
  • China Competition: the us ambassador argued that washington and brussels should join forces to compete against china in ai and quantum computing instead of fighting each other through regulation.
  • Commie Industrial Policy: european efforts to mandate local providers and scale up domestic tech alternatives represent heavy regulatory market manipulation designed to favor domestic entities over superior foreign competitors.

European companies face “devastating” retaliation from Washington if Brussels presses ahead with plans to restrict American rivals such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX from parts of the European market, the US ambassador to the EU has warned.
Andrew Puzder’s warning comes after the European Commission this year proposed reserving part of its spectrum band that allows smartphones to connect directly to satellites for European players. That would limit the frequencies for Chinese and US companies such as SpaceX, which operates the Starlink satellite network.
Asked whether European companies should fear retaliation, Puzder told the FT that they “should be wary that it could happen and it would be very devastating for those companies”, given the size of the American market.
The proposed changes to the bloc’s spectrum allocation have already raised fierce criticism from SpaceX, which has warned the move risks poorer connectivity in Ukraine where its Starlink service has been critical to civilian and military communications since Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Andrew Puzder sits for an interview in front of United States and European Union flags.Andrew Puzder: ‘You don’t make European companies more competitive by making US companies less competitive’ © Nicolas Tucat/AFP/Getty Images
The proposed changes are part of a broader push to strengthen Europe’s technological sovereignty.
European policymakers are seeking to reduce their dependence on American technology amid concerns about the unpredictability of US President Donald Trump and the risk of relying on foreign companies for critical infrastructure.
The European Commission has introduced a Cloud and AI Development Act that would impose sovereignty requirements on providers of sensitive cloud services, while seeking to help European technology companies to scale up and provide alternatives to US tech companies.
Puzder said he recognised Europe’s right to protect sensitive government information but warned against using legislation to favour domestic companies at the expense of American competitors.
“If the purpose is to make United States less competitive, I think that that’s not a legitimate goal of this kind of legislation,” Puzder said. “You don’t make European companies more competitive by making US companies less competitive.
“We have best-in-class products in this area. They’re reliable products, they’re trusted products. We don’t need some kind of synchronised mediocrity.”
The ambassador also questioned whether the EU’s enforcement of its Digital Markets Act, which seeks to curb the power of the world’s largest technology companies, was really aimed at improving competition or more at generating revenue for the European budget, given the multibillion-euro fines on American companies.
“You start to wonder, are we trying to deal with the competition in the digital marketplace or are we trying to generate revenue from American companies to benefit Europe?”
Puzder argued Europe’s ambitions to strengthen its own tech industry risked being undermined by its regulatory approach and by discouraging investment from the American companies, as US tech companies are growing increasingly frustrated by the EU’s regulatory restrictions and fines.
Instead of seeking to curb the dominance of American companies, Brussels and Washington should join forces to compete with China in the race to develop AI, Puzder said, echoing comments from Trump that “the worst thing that could happen is that we lose this race to China”.
The ambassador urged Europe “to let go of this regulatory mindset where they’re going to try and stop things because we’re in a race with China” — both on AI and on quantum computing.
He said the US has the ingredients to win that race “but it’d be a lot easier if we were working with Europe instead of fighting Europe”.
The Commission said the proposal “incentivises the entry into the market and diversification of EU suppliers, while remaining open to non-EU operators”.
Read the whole story
bogorad
7 days ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories