Google Shows Off Android 'Honeycomb' Tablet - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373943,00.asp

<comment><USER2> Did anyone else watch that interview and wonder what was up with Kara and Walt? I have seen a few interviews from them and they always seem to fire off questions to instigate who they are talking to. This time around everything was compared to Apple or them finding a way to cut off Rubin from presenting. I am all for the grilling of these tech folk, but I think there is a time and a place for it.

<comment><USER3> However you look at it, that split screen does remind iOS' UISplitViewController and universal binaries do exist for iPhone and iPad. The question about supreme commander was indeed pointless.

<comment><USER2> I won't argue against that, but she just seemed to act like a child. I wanted to smack her hand when she was reaching for the thing. Walt was a bit more reserved, but that could only be because he wasn't within reaching distance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just looking at the title, I was (almost) wondering if it would be honeycomb- shaped... but apparently not. A hexagonal device would have been interesting though. Who says a tablet has to be rectangular anyway? :)

<comment><USER5> Layouts, windowing systems, graphic libraries....They almost always assume that screen devices are rectangular.

<comment><USER6> I've did a bit of experimentation with hexagonal layouts in the past, just for fun (hexagonal grids have some useful properties). But is has some problems that make it very unconvenient to use: for example, you can't subdivide a hexagon into smaller hexagons. This makes for really wasteful layouts :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Video here:

[http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/06/motorola-android- tablet-p...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/06/motorola-android-tablet- prototype-makes-a-cameo-at-d-dive-into/)

</comment><comment><USER8> I remember Google saying they thought everything was moving to the web. Even our operating systems of a computer. These moves that Google are making are not in line with what has been said.

<comment><USER9> Google _is_ announcing an OS today that is based on the user being on the web _all the time_. Chrome OS announcement is happening right now (10:30am Pacific). Tune in:

<http://www.youtube.com/googlechrome></comment></comment>


DIY True 4K Projector - <AUTHOR> https://youtu.be/YfvTjQ9MCwY <comment><USER3> Since the right people might be reading through the comments here -

I've been looking at making a hi-res _ceiling_ projector for a living space. Perhaps not one, but a set of several projectors with an overlap, but the key point is that they need to be placed in a way so not to interfere with the normal flow of life. Nor to be easily shadowed by people walking around, etc. This (likely) mandates placing them around the room perimeter, possibly on the walls at some height. This in turn means that they will be projecting at an angle.

Do I understand correctly that it's not possible in principle to achieve proper focus on the target surface when projecting at an angle like this? That is if I am to project, say, a star field then it's not be possible to have stars close to the projector and far from it to be both in focus at the same time?

<comment><USER4> In principle, it is possible. A tilt-shift camera can bring any plane in focus, so running it in reverse will project the image sharply on your ceiling.

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt–shift_photography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt–shift_photography) for cameras. [https://www.projectorcentral.com/Understanding-Lens- Offset-a...](https://www.projectorcentral.com/Understanding-Lens-Offset-and- Lens-Shift.htm) learnt me that you can buy projectors that use this method. I suspect that back-projecting televisions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear- projection_television](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear- projection_television)) often use it, too.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, these are good leads.

<comment><USER5> My older Epson 8350 projector has a feature they call "Lens shift." When setting it up you make sure that it is perpendicular to the screen surface. Then it has two mechanical adjustments to vertically and horizontally shift the image. Page 25 of this user manual shows that it can shift the image vertically up to one image height up or down. And horizontally up to one half image width either way. It makes setup a lot more flexible. I'm not sure how common the feature is though on newer more available projectors.

[https://files.support.epson.com/pdf/plhc87u/plhc87uug.pdf](https://files.support.epson.com/pdf/plhc87u/plhc87uug.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is so awesome! Back in 2008 I built a projector from an old unsued laptop and a high powered metal halide overhead projector that I bought off ebay for 50 bucks. It was surprisingly good looking; I was very happy for the total investment. It was unwieldy and pretty power hungry, but none of that really mattered living in my college dorm at the time.

When the laptop screen eventually gave up (I think just the connector) I never ended up rebuilding it. Nowadays you can get a really awesome looking projector setup for so little, it's not really worth trying the same approach.

But from what I skimmed through, this is a build of way higher complexity, cost, and quality. I'm looking forward to watching this video tonight.

<comment><USER7> In 2006 or so I did the same, building a projector out of a laptop LCD (without the laptop, just a plain LCD module and a controller), some lenses, a fresnel lens (cut in half, one part before and one after the LCD) and a 400 watts mercury vapor lamp usually intended to be used to light up factory halls. I constructed a housing for it from wood, a cooling system using lots of PC fans to vent that 400 watts of heat, and even a microcontroller-based control system for the entire thing, with a small LCD display, which managed stuff like tracking bulb used time, monitoring internal temperature via a temp sensor IC and letting the cooling system run for some time after turning off the lamp to get the heat out.

That thing was heavy and loud as hell, and it wasn't very bright considering it used 400 watts of light power, but it was about half the price of an equivalent projector back then, which effectively allowed my poor student self back then to enter the home cinema scene, which I couldn't have afforded otherwise.

There even was an entire little scene back then of DIY projector enthusiasts (at least in Germany) with bulletin boards and even some niche online shops specialized in selling suitable lenses and LCDs and matching controller boards. It was great fun and a great learning experience, especially since you could get help from like-minded people and ideas from other people's projector projects.

A few years later it all quickly went down the drain when the first Full-HD projectors with acceptable quality dropped into price ranges that were affordable for the general public. It simply wasn't possible to compete with that anymore, neither in terms of quality nor in terms of price. I myself replaced my hunk of a self-made projector after about 4 years of use or so, with one of these entry-level full HD home cinema projectors (which I'm even still using today, so that was a really good investment in my book). But that self-made device was worth every cent and every hour of work, and I still have fond memories of building it and tweaking it for maximum quality and then watching movies with it, all the while thinking "man, I built that thing basically from scratch".

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> DIY Perks is a fantastic channel. So much good stuff, so little time to try everything :D

<comment><USER9> I agree! I particularly liked the one using a two-way plastic mirror and webcam, so that you can maintain eye contact when you're video calling someone. Similar principal to a teleprompter.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AecAXinars](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AecAXinars)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> When you buy an expensive projector you are paying almost entirely for brightness, so this result isn't too surprising.

<comment><USER11> And HDMI 2.x, HDMI 2.x, power levels, & color settings.

Still, it looks like a fun project. I ended up watching the entire video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The super low-cost version of this is a magnifying glass and a shoebox - <USER2> works surprisingly well if you're only throwing a few feet in a dark room.

</comment><comment><USER13> I never even knew Sony had released a 4k phone. What a clever way to kill two birds with one stone: Get an android system with a 4k screen but for 1/5th the price.

This guy is a true hacker.

</comment><comment><USER14> A bit disingenuous for the presenter to completely ignore the obvious vignetting of his dim projected image, the results seemed pretty mediocre from where I'm sitting.

</comment><comment><USER15> I built a similar LCD projector when I was in high school! Same basic principal as is used here, shine light through a bare LCD panel (mine was from a broken laptop), add some fresnel lenses and a focusing lens and throw it all in a box.

Pretty cool, but just buy a damn projector. Do not approach this as something practical that's going to be useful, because it's not. It's huge, probably loud, you'll get dust and stuff stuck in all sorts of places messing with the image and it lacks advanced focusing like keystone transform [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_effect)

<comment><USER16> Yeah, we did something similar in our apartment in the early 2000's. It was one of those old overhead projector/fresnel lens/repurposed monitor LCD panel deals that were all over the internet at the time.

It was a cool project and when it was just me and a friend sharing an apartment, we didn't care that it was janky (especially since any large format screen was way too expensive for us at the time). But now you can get better performance from a cheapo projector and for a bit more, you can even find decent short-throw models these days.

My current project (that is collecting dust) is a big dual-lamp auditorium sized Epson that I snagged when it was getting tossed out at work. Sadly, while it was working when I picked it up, somewhere along the way from the office and through a couple of moves the auto-iris got stuck/damaged.

It's the most frustrating thing because the projector works fine but when it powers on, there's an error message stating that the auto iris has an error and it won't let you proceed. I don't even care about the auto iris and while I've dismantled it quite a bit and blown out/lubed everything I could find, I still get the error. Apparently they all had this problem but it's way out of warranty and I don't see much point in paying to have a free projector repaired.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is marvelous.

Now imagine, with no right to repair, manufacturers locking all components making these things impossible.

</comment><comment><USER18> He mentions that adding a reflector to the LED will reflect too much heat onto the LCD. Could this be solved with a pane of glass between the LED and the LCD to absorb the IR light?

</comment><comment><USER19> The audio seems to be a let down though: plug something into the (disassembled) phone's audio jack.

I wonder if phones can deal with USB audio cards (that have surround options), or if there are any Bluetooth audio solutions that offer surround sound.

Or I guess you can replace the phone with a PC/laptop, and have the display connected to an LVDS driver..

<comment><USER20> Wait. It's a phone. That means, it does have bluetooth. Or you can buy one of those dongles that are basically like a wireless aux cable (I forget the technical term for it)

Edit: Something of this sort: [https://crossbeats.com/collections/all- products/products/con...](https://crossbeats.com/collections/all- products/products/connect) (No affiliation to the company or the product)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting. I've been thinking of trying to find a decent projector that operates off 12V for hurricane season. Something cheap because we'd not use it too often. DIY might be an option. I don't have access to any way to make the metal panels like this one has though.

<comment><USER22> Does hurricane season mean your family is camping out in the basement?

<comment><USER21> Florida doesn't do basements.</comment></comment></comment>


Google Research Publication: Evaluating Similarity Measures - <AUTHOR> http://labs.google.com/papers/orkut-kdd2005.html <comment><USER2> Somewhat related: a PageRank-inspired approach to web page similarity:

<http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~glenj/simrank.pdf></comment>


Programming options for kids - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2011/09/14/programming-options-for-kids.html <comment><AUTHOR> There's a great discussion in the comments.</comment>


Microsoft's LINQ ported to Node.js - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/marak/JSLINQ

<comment><USER2> There are actually a bunch of these. I believe the most developed is 'jsinq' which has a for-reals LINQ parser and I seem to remember generating relatively efficient functions for the implementation.</comment>


Opera Mini to Become the Default Browser on Microsoft's Featurephones - <AUTHOR> http://gadgetnewsin.blogspot.com/2014/08/opera-mini-to-become-default-browser.html

<comment><USER2> I wonder is this is the first step towards Opera taking over IE as window's default browser. That would be an interesting turn of events..</comment>


Mixed up Morse Code - <AUTHOR> http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/march42012/index.html

<comment><USER2> Cool</comment>


Show HN: A cli JSON processor powered by Node.js - <AUTHOR> http://www.rolandfg.net/2014/07/29/json-commandline-processor/

<comment><USER2> From your page: "I tried jq, which seems very good. However I was not quite able to grasp its syntax, so I gave up searching and I created my own."

I use jq on an almost daily basis, so I can sympathize with your plight. jq's syntax is documented quite well (if rather succinctly), but one non-intuitive thing is that it is possible to end up with non-JSON output if you use jq's array ([]) operator rather than the map() filter. However, I still prefer its syntax as one pipeline similar to UNIX one-liners rather than several command- line args, probably purely out of similarity to how I think about the data. I think about its transformations, rather than as independent selection and projection steps. This may be personal preference, but I'm curious as to your thoughts on syntactical choices.

</comment><comment><USER3> Your first transform example (name, dob) seems to have the wrong output underneath.

Might also be useful to have a "Why you should use this instead of jq, json(1), etc."

<comment><AUTHOR> I fixed the example, thanks.

Using jop in place of jq I think is only a matter of personal taste, so something like "use this instead of that" may sound a little biased ;)</comment></comment>


A Paper Algorithm Notation (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://canonical.org/%7Ekragen/sw/dev3/paperalgo <comment><USER2> I've found Joy to be a really interesting and useful notation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_(programming_language)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_\(programming_language\)) [http://joypy.osdn.io/notebooks/index.html](http://joypy.osdn.io/notebooks/index.html)

The syntax is enormously simple (the only keywords and '[' and ']' for quotes), the semantics are elegant, and implementation is trivial[0] It seems to me to combine the best aspects of Forth and Lisp.

In working with Joy, I've come to suspect that elaborate syntax, and the parsing thereof, is a kind of _MacGuffin_ : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin)

> ... a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin) is an object, device, or event that is > necessary to the plot and the motivation of the characters, but > insignificant, unimportant, or irrelevant in itself.

[0] [https://osdn.net/projects/joypy/scm/hg/Joypy/blobs/tip/thun/...](https://osdn.net/projects/joypy/scm/hg/Joypy/blobs/tip/thun/thun.pl)

Work-in-progress. That code does evaluation, type-checking, and type- inference; and there is a start on a compiler to machine code as well as some meta-programming tools. All in 52 kilobytes, more than half of which are comments.

Compare and contrast with [https://git.sr.ht/~sforman/Prolog- Junkyard/tree/master/typet...](https://git.sr.ht/~sforman/Prolog- Junkyard/tree/master/typetype/FormalKnowledge.pl)

> A simple language with semantics based on the language and code from "Formal > Methods: A First Introduction using Prolog to specify Programming Language > Semantics" by Lutz Hamel. Lexer, parser, evaluation function.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ha! I was waiting for someone to mention Joy! You can find a bunch of stuff on Joy hanging around if you know where to look:

[http://nsl.com/](http://nsl.com/)

[http://archive.vector.org.uk/art10000360](http://archive.vector.org.uk/art10000360)

[https://vector.org.uk/conquering- recursion/](https://vector.org.uk/conquering-recursion/)

It's a neat concatenative language, and everyone reading this thread should at least give it a cursory glance!

NB. Joy is a bit more APLJK-inspired than Lisp-inspired.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, sometimes I feel like a broken record here on HN: certain subjects pop up and if I see them I'm almost guaranteed to mention certain other subjects. But then again, there are always people who haven't heard about <FOO> yet, eh?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> See also APL, which was designed as a concise algorithmic notation first and only adopted as an actual language afterwards. (Hence the use of custom symbols)

Although unlike this notation, APL is more _typewriter_ -optimized; many symbols are made by double-striking two other more basic symbols, and the typesetting is simple and linear - it clearly doesn't take advantage of the full expressive power of handwriting. (Plus, its array-based programming flow, while extremely powerful, is very different from the way most people write algorithms these days)

<comment><USER4> Older APL programs used a 2D layout to show control flow, which probably worked well in handwriting but not so well once APL started being used as a programming language, rather than as a notation for specifying a program to be written. This page has some examples:

[http://www.zerobugsandprogramfaster.net/essays/5b.html](http://www.zerobugsandprogramfaster.net/essays/5b.html)

<comment><USER5> That page deserves its own hn submission.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For a language optimized for pen and paper, `z.@re` seems verbose, when one could use either `z.re` or `z@re` to describe member access. I notice that later on the page he drops into the more obvious notation l.next for a linked list member.

This one may be cultural, but when I write math (including pseudocode), I use × rather than ⋅ for ordinary multiplication. This is 100% a matter of habit, but also it's too easy to mix up ⋅ and ., at least in my handwriting. Dot product I write with a small open circle, ∘.

The ← for assignment is good, but I wish it was used consistently; elsewhere we see =, and then == for equals, which is totally unnecessary in handwriting if one has adopted a distinct symbol for assignment. ↑ for returns is alright though I'd probably write it →, but this is a minor aesthetic judgement call: I like the symmetry that i ← double(x) could expand to i ← (λ(x) → x × x)(x).

The actual meat of the article, starting with loops and conditionals, is good stuff. I wouldn't understand it if I just saw it written out, but it beats the pants off UML-like bubble diagrams, and I don't expect it would take much exposure to render it familiar.

<comment><USER7> I'm glad to hear your thoughts! I have a great deal of respect for your technical judgment.

There are definitely errors in there. Some are inconsistencies as I experimented over time. However, the distinction intended to be expressed by =/← is the distinction between initialization and mutation. I might have gotten it wrong sometimes.

In the case of UML-like bubble diagrams, have you looked at Alloy?

<comment><USER6> Aha, that makes sense (the initialization and mutation, that is).

It probably won't surprise you to know that I would scribble a := there; `==` is one of my least favorite of the tokens we've inflicted upon ourselves as a profession. Certainly it's good to draw the distinction between initialization and mutation.

Although as an _immutable_ initialization, `=` is correct as an equation as well... hmm.

I wasn't familiar with Alloy, but I'm about to be. I've clobbered a few things together with PlantUML, and don't have any use for a diagramming system that doesn't have a canonical textual representation, which it appears Alloy does... it appears Alloy does rather a lot, actually.

My goodness. This thing has a SAT solver strapped to the side of it. I did not see that coming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> a-saleh This was one of the reason, I started looking at APL, to be able to write code better on paper.

And a reason why I like applicative programming in haskell with all of its squiggly <$> and <*>.

Another interesting idea might be to look at TLA+, because it reminds me of the way I used to scribble out basic ideas for physics simulations, i.e distance with accelerating velocity:

s' = s + v /\ v' = v + dv

</comment><comment><USER8> Pseudo-code I think is like "sketching" an algorithm. It doesn't have to be precise it just needs to produce a "picture", the big ideas, that give us the characteristics of the algorithm being described.

Thus pseudo-code makes it easier to understand an algorithm. It should be intuitive, like a picture, so it is trivial to understand what it depicts.

I've often wondered why algorithms are described in pseudo-code and not in any actual programming language. The above is my best answer so far to that question.

</comment><comment><USER9> A thread from 2016: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286503](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286503)

<comment><USER7> Oh hey, thanks! I didn't see that in 2016.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > That may be easier to read, but which one would you rather scribble on a > whiteboard or a napkin?

The one that's easier to read. And easier to remember.

</comment><comment><USER11> Am I misreading his notation, or did he get FizzBuzz wrong?

<comment><USER6> I think you're right, the "Fizz" and "Buzz" conditions need an = 0 if we're to assume the expression on the right executes when the condition is true.

<comment><USER11> Ah, no, I have been reading it wrong, the code is correct: given the "i % 3 ∧ i % 5" in the first case, the "i % 5" for the "Fizz" case is effectively an "i % 3 = 0". Clever. Readable? Maybe.

<comment><USER7> Right, multiples of 3 print "Fizz", and multiples of 5 print "Buzz". It would be clearer to pattern-match on the tuple (i % 3 == 0, i % 5 == 0), or even (i % 3, i % 5), but at that point I haven't introduced pattern-matching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> APL is well thought out, battle tested and IMHO a better system. It comes with vector semantics, which simplify a lot of things - but you don't have to use them.

<comment><AUTHOR> I use APL daily; I still think Kragen's notation is worth a look. It's important to examine alternative approaches!

<comment><USER7> Hey, maybe you can help me get APL into my brain? I've been trying to jam it in there for years and it still doesn't fit.

<comment><AUTHOR> Happily! Have you tried out J's labs? That's what I usually recommend, just because of how varied, deep & consistent they are. If you have, and they didn't work for you, I'd ask if you've read _J for C Programmers,_ which is a useful book if you're having trouble with the paradigm overall.

J is in an interesting spot because it's a bit more complicated than K (though, I'd argue, less complicated than modern APL2, which won out), but has learning resources that actually help you get a feel for the language.

And of course, check out idiom libraries, they sometimes help to make things "click."

(J Labs can be found in every J install; there are some pieces that only work when you have Windows, but overall they work anywhere a computer can be found, and the ones requiring Windows aren't really essential to learning.)

Just ping me if there's anything else!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A woman died from a superbug that outsmarted all 26 US antibiotics - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/13/14265620/woman-died-superbug-antibiotics <comment><USER2> This has been anticipated for a while (I recall posting comments about this years ago) as multiply antibiotic-resistant microbes have been spreading in India, where the woman mentioned in the article kindly submitted here had traveled.

[http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/04/23/india-has- lost...](http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/04/23/india-has-lost- superbug-war/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/world/asia/superbugs- kill...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/world/asia/superbugs-kill-indias- babies-and-pose-an-overseas-threat.html)</comment>


Android's trust problem isn't getting better – The Verge - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/13/17233122/android-software-patch-trust-problem <comment><USER2> Google's already EOL-ing the Pixel 1. OS updates at 2 years, security updates at 3. For the first model they priced at parity with other "top-tier" Android phones. (Bye bye Nexus -- sigh.)

Meanwhile, a 5 year old iPhone is running the current version of iOS. Even Samsung seems to be maintaining their Galaxy line beyond 3 years.

People can do the math. And "must have the latest" is losing its luster, especially now when most people can't see too much difference, i.e. the cameras are already pretty damned good.

Battery life is another principal matter. But if and as those can be swapped for $100 or less... (Not to mention the "battery cases" I was noticing a lot, a year or two ago.)

P.S. I keep mentioning versions of this, because I'd _like_ to see more effective competition. But Google, at the head of the Android ecosphere, seem incapable -- I have to say, at this point, basically uninterested -- at parity on security and lifespan.</comment>


The internet is enabling a community of men who want to kill women - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/17279294/toronto-massacre-minassian-incels-internet-misogyny <comment><USER2> If you told me 5 years ago that incels would commit repeated massacres and Pepe would have a controversial page on Hillary Clinton's campaign site, I would never have believed you. Of all the words of tongue and pen...</comment>


Banking Startup Simple Acquired for $117M, Will Continue to Operate Separately - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/20/simple-acquired-for-117m-will-continue-to-operate-separately-under-its-own-brand/ <comment><USER3> I've been with Simple for about a year and a half, and slowly moved from my TD Bank account to using Simple exclusively for personal banking. They've blown me away with how a bank can operate if it just joins the 21st century. Everything from their UX to their customer service is outstanding. Calling them on the phone reminds me of going in to my local bank when I lived in a small town in Iowa.

Then again, this is pretty much the way I felt when I joined Commerce Bank in 2002. They were leaps and bounds above any other bank in everything from their down-home attitude to their evening and weekend hours. Then they got acquired.

Things weren't too different with ING Direct. Joined up for their interest- bearing checking and used them as my savings account. Had wonderful experiences. Then they got acquired.

Tangential, but relevant, I got HostGator as my hosting provider many years ago—they were a little company in Texas with great service and great people. I'm leaving them this month. They got acquired, and everything changed.

I hope this goes well for Simple. I really do. But I'm preparing myself. I know the signs to watch out for. First they'll get an automated phone tree, and I'll have to tell the robot what I want. Then it will get just a _little_ longer to wait for a person. A couple fees will show up, nothing much, just little stuff. Tiny, unobtrusive, totally defensible, annoying policies will start taking hold. And soon, it'll be just another online bank—albeit one with a very pretty iPhone app.

I hope that doesn't happen. But I'm bracing myself anyway.

<comment><USER4> Simple's support is definitely outstanding. I get little notes like "Fixed it! By the way, it's not my business but I like that you hyphenated your name when you got married." that really reinforce that there are actual humans being allowed to solve problems, not fill out a script.

<comment><USER5> It's a thin line to walk. I would feel quite different if that happened to me.

<comment><USER4> In all seriousness, why?

<comment><USER5> Does it matter?

Simply put, I parse that as a creepy attempt of simulating a personal relationship that just isn't there.

<comment><USER6> Agreed; I'm getting sick of this faux-friendliness that's trendy in American customer service these days. Banks and B2B startups are equally as guilty. I don't want to be asked how I'm doing or discuss the weather every time I call you for a quick question, wasting lots of time with useless polite banter. I'd rather a business call with an established vendor go like this:

* Ring, quick answer

* V: Yeah?

* Me: I need X changed to Y.

* V: Got it.

* Me: Thanks. _end call_

<comment><USER7> What about at Trader Joe's how they always have a nice conversation with you, what's your take on that?

<comment><USER5> Depends on what the conversation is about. The ring on my finger? (similar to the example above?) No-no.

The weather, because it is summer and hot? Ok. Just banter.

The crowded store and the fact that I had to stand in line 5 minutes? ("Crazy, we didn't expect that many customers today!") Yes! Shows they are aware and care.

It's not that I don't want to interact, I just don't want to be dragged into that 'we're friends' game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm a simple customer...

First: $117M? That seems like an astonishingly low amount of money.

Second: The service you get from simple really is that good, probably better than what most people would expect. The app is amazing, their website is amazing, their customer support is amazing.

It feels like a bank from the 21st century, not from the stone age.

This acquisition actually makes me really sad. Simple is awesome, and I really hope that it doesn't get screwed up by this.

<comment><USER9> The onboarding process on the other hand is opaque and nigh-useless. I got shot down for an account with these guys due to a .23 (that is not a typo.. twenty-three cents) report on chexsystems from five years ago.

Every bank I've had the ability to talk to an actual person was able to see that this is clearly absurd, I am not a serial check bouncer/overdrafter/etc and to get my account going. Simple..notsomuch. I'd love to use them if they'd let me.

<comment><USER10> I had heard so little from them that I assumed they were in the throes of dissolution. I guess I was wrong.

<comment><USER11> I'm still blown away that they don't/can't offer joint accounts. I mean, I'm fairly sure that's not a limitation of Bancorp, so ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _A source close to Simple tells The Verge that the company, which had raised $15.3 million, had been shopping itself around in search of a buyer since business wasn 't progressing as quickly as it hoped. "They had kind of run out of steam," said the source..._

Source: [http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/20/5429916/bbva-acquires- simp...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/20/5429916/bbva-acquires- simple-117-million-cash)

Simply (no pun intended) building a layer on top of the existing banking infrastructure isn't really that innovative. The big potential in this space is building a new banking platform from scratch, instead of relying on existing/legacy technology. Unfortunately, the investment required is higher than VCs seem willing to risk.

<comment><USER13> > The big potential in this space is building a new banking platform from > scratch, instead of relying on existing/legacy technology.

It's likely nearly impossible to build a bank from scratch because of regulatory hurdles. That's why Simple had to team up with a partner bank instead of going it 100% alone. I remember reading a blog post from Simple about it, it seemed they had no choice to partner with an existing bank (if I find the post I'll share it). The banking system is broken on purpose. This is why banks operate like it's the stone age and get away with awful service and fees - there's little chance of nimbler competitors coming along and eating their lunch.

<comment><USER14> Another piece of the puzzle is that a single new bank isn't going to have it a whole lot better when it comes to interbank stuff (probably they have it worse, having to build useful relationships).

<comment><USER15> > _Another piece of the puzzle is that a single new bank isn 't going to have > it a whole lot better when it comes to interbank stuff (probably they have > it worse, having to build useful relationships)._

Interbank transfers -- wire and ACH -- are processed through central clearinghouses. You just show up with a copy of your bank charter, pay the fees, and you're now on equal terms with any other bank when it comes to moving money around.

The hard part is getting that charter in the first place. Just two months ago, the Bank of Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania became the first new consumer bank to be chartered in the United States since 2010. One bank, in the past _three years_. It was huge news in the banking world, even made the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. It's an Amish bank -- they have a drive- through lane for horses and buggies.

<comment><USER12> They had to spend $800,000 just to get approved. [http://lancasteronline.com/business/new-bank-of-bird-in- hand...](http://lancasteronline.com/business/new-bank-of-bird-in-hand-result- of-long-approval/article_3b1f38d1-5125-54e7-8868-794b5fe303fc.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I really, really, really want to use Simple.

But they don't have joint accounts, so my wife and I would have to go through a lot of trouble to use their service. It's interesting to say that they are not able to expand as fast as they wanted when they are missing this HUGE feature. Not having this feature has kept me from using their service ever since I received a very early beta invite.

<comment><USER17> I can't imagine a life wherein a joint account is not insanity.

Why not have one account for each of you? Simple has instant account-to- account internal transfers.

<comment><USER18> Many couples would find it just as annoying as having separate refrigerators and simply transferring food between the two before withdrawing and eating it.

<comment><USER19> Well aren't we fortunate that holding two separate accounts in a relationship is nothing like this at all!!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> When I moved to my current job a year ago, I shut down my business and closed a checking, savings, business checking, and credit card account with Bank of America. I had a Simple invite sitting around, and thought it made sense to consolidate and...Simplify, making my single Simple account my sole bank.

I couldn't be happier with that decision, and believe that I have been saving money (in both fees and in general) because of Simple's interface.

So with this news, I feel excited for their team, but still very nervous. I joined Simple precisely because I was tired of dealing with a megabank (like many folks here), so if Simple can continue to buck the trend and stay customer-focused and agile, then I'll continue to be all-in.

</comment><comment><USER21> When I was a kid without a bank account, a 401K or other investments to worry about, I used to put my money in envelopes: one for a new bike; one for a video game, etc. I could glance at my cash and know exactly what was safe to spend without performing mental math.

Simple's Safe to Spend feature is the digital equivalent. I can aside money for rent and emergencies in digital envelopes. I never thought personal finance was fun and easy until I began using Simple. It changed the way I think about money.

<comment><USER22> The problem is I use credit cards for reward points and I only pay them off once a month. It sounds like you can only get budget reports for money you've spent on your Simple card. Correct me if I'm wrong. This wouldn't be too helpful to me. The budget tool would be awesome if it encompassed all my cards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've been using Simple for well over a year now can say that the software and website are absolutely amazing at monitoring and tracking your money. It has its flaws though: transferring is pretty much limited to automated mailed checks and accounts you own (they recently added simple to simple instant transfers), and no B&M banks to get things like large cash withdrawals (I do fee-less cash advances at another bank when I need money) or cash deposits.

With that said, I'd actually prefer a quicker integration with BBVA with hopes that their backend banking infrastructure would improve, but I wish they had done it with a more prominent US bank with more branches (BBVA has very few).

Edit: want an invite? Email in profile.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm a Simple user and occasionally the lack of checks has been a problem.

One specific incident that I had was that I needed a cashier's check to close on my house, but I didn't know the exactly amount until a few days before closing. I paid $50 to have them overnight the check. The check didn't not arrive overnight and I ended up having to chase it down at a FedEx hub so I could have the check at closing.

During this whole time, I had a chat with the SAME rep. I had a whole long conversation that lasted over two weeks regarding how to get the check, asking for the check, talking about problems with the shipping, and even getting a refund for the overnight shipping.

This is what was amazing to me. The same rep was tied to my conversation. When I had problems with Comcast, every time I called I talked to a completely different person and I had to explain my issue over and over again (even worse I often got dropped during a transfer and had to call back and do it all over again).

<comment><USER25> It's a problem with online only banks also. I was in a similar situation with a closing, needing a cashiers check from usaa. I had to wire the money instead. Does simple allow for wire transfers?

<comment><USER25> I checked and it seems they accept wire transfers, but you can't send them :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I was one of the early customers of Simple. When I received their card in that lovely cardboard with a rubber band on, I was hooked. I really wanted to move to Simple.

But did not. I mean I still have an account a few hundred dollars in it, but I have never found a reason to use it.

My main account is a combination of Credit Union and Chase. Chase's mobile App does all that I need, and the credit union staff are so fantastic, I have stayed with them for 15 years.

In addition Chase comes through for "serious" banking stuff like wire transfers, LoCs etc.

All the best. I still have the cardboard they sent me as an example of how something simple can be lovely.

</comment><comment><USER27> I've enjoyed my experience with Simple, but the complexity of actually getting money onto the dang card was a huge turn-off. It just took way too long and the reasoning for the issues came across like a glaring incompatibility between the banking industry and startup culture as a whole. Why did I need to pay myself via Square just to get a few hundred bucks on my card? And why did it take 12 hours to show up? And why, if I do a bank transfer, does it take more than a week? I hate to say it, but when you're called "Simple," there shouldn't be that many hoops.

And while the app was impressive and offered a lot of smart thinking, Capital One's app is not so far behind what the company's doing as to make it a total downgrade to use the big bank's app instead. And unlike Simple, I can easily deposit money anywhere and most of it is available to me immediately.

Simple is awesome for spending money, but the problem was that there was really no good way to deposit it. Perhaps the bank buyout could help make that issue a little less painful.

<comment><USER28> Wait a second, name one bank that does it better in the US. The problem is the US banking system is in the _dark ages_. The bullshit that we put up with in the US is unfathomable in Europe. If you hand someone a check (cheque?) in the UK they look at you like you're from 1957. Why? Because banks provide a modicum of modern service. Bank transfers are fast, cash machines are free, debit cards are secure, etc etc. Of course people complain about banks equally as they do in the States, but that's only because they don't realize how truly asinine banking can get.

Now even though I've live in the UK since 2011, I opened a Simple account and it's been a breath of fresh air. The transfer to and from my other accounts is far simpler than any of my other US accounts. Also, I can receive wire transfers for free (imagine that, receive money for free!? The Wells Fargo founder must be spinning in his grave at the sound of that). Contrast this with the old experience of calling up a bank and saying I want to transfer money to another account and they tell me I have to call the other bank, because ACH is a "pull" system.

Sorry to get off on a rant, but Simple is the best of the best in my opinion as a customer having dealt with at least 10 different banks over the last 20 years in both the US and UK.

<comment><USER27> Please see the part I said about there being a "glaring incompatibility" between startup culture and the banking industry. I'm not saying it's Simple's fault. I'm saying that what it's offering (easy to use banking done mostly from your phone) is ultimately beholden to all the stuff it loses from not being a traditional bank (long delays between transfers, no easy way to deposit a check). And that ultimately holds back Simple's promise.

The banking system sucks and is way behind where it should be. Simple, for all the amazing stuff it does, exposes some of those huge faults by tripping into them. And in many cases, they're problems they simply can't avoid because of the way the system's set up now.

I hope Simple becomes more successful and uses its corporate parent's clout to fix these problems once and for all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Shutting down in 1..2... Despite what the CEO says, I don't see how Simple is going to see the light of day in a giant that manages $800+ billion in assets...too bad, the prospect of a new type of banking was something I was actually excited about.

<comment><USER30> _> the prospect of a new type of banking_

...

 _> The acquiring company, BBVA, is a 150-year old financial services corporation_

I think that was the problem.

I predict they kill it within 6 months, either overtly or by halting all development.

<comment><USER31> Or maybe they acquired Simple to gain next-generation online banking for their own customers. If they were feeling very ambitious, they could take further advantage of Simple's bank abstraction layer to license the system to other banks and/or credit unions -- a sort of online banking-as-a-service.

<comment><USER30> Probably. I'm having a bad day. I still won't be surprised if it grinds to a halt though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The killer for me is that it didn't seem to have a way to track spending from my credit card. To get the benefits, I'd have to give up my rewards card, and the rewards and customer protection are more important (to me) than a clean interface.

Maybe this acquisition can help that.

</comment><comment><USER33> I've enjoyed banking with Simple over the past couple years, but if they move my account to BBVA, I'll be leaving for a credit union.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBVA#Criminal_charges:_money_la...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBVA#Criminal_charges:_money_laundering.2C_account_falsification.2C_bribery.2C_drug_and_weapons_trafficking) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBVA#Connection_to_drug_syndica...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBVA#Connection_to_drug_syndicates_and_terrorist_groups)

I know most banks have some skeletons in their closets, but BBVA seems to be less ethical than average.

</comment><comment><USER7> I signed up for Simple because of the pretty video and app and I was hooked. I now spend everything from Simple and just use my old Wells Fargo account for recurring bills. It's a beautiful app, has a cool goals feature, and alerts you right away how much you just spent, which is helpful for verifying your receipts. Their customer service is like WP Engine status and you can chat them right away. Their transaction categorizing it 10x better than Mint. Mint puts 1/3 of my stuff as uncategorized.

I only hope they don't go the way of Mint, even though they're two different products. Has Mint improved any features at all since they were acquired?

<comment><USER34> _Has Mint improved any features at all since they were acquired?_

Not really. I looks pretty much the same to me as when they started and it certainly looks the same as when they were bought, five years ago.

I'd be very interested in knowing how many product and engineering people still work on it. (if any…)

<comment><USER35> Well, they added the nice "feature" of bugging you sign up for partner offers, whether loans, credit cards, or whatever.

So: changes, yes. Improvements? No.

<comment><USER15> > _Well, they added the nice "feature" of bugging you sign up for partner > offers, whether loans, credit cards, or whatever._

That was the whole business model that Mint was based upon. They'd give you the service for free, and make money on lead-generation.

When they were a startup, they could afford not to be quite so annoying about it. Now that Intuit owns it, they can no longer keep burning cash. They have to show that they can make a profit. If lead-gen won't do it, then they'll have no choice but to start charging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Early user of simple here and, while their design was excellent, there was little else to recommend them. Plenty of other banks offer no-fee atm access and have apps. Those banks, unlike simple, reliably process transactions. They went down more than once, which meant my card was declined. The customer service rep was nice when he told me their servers were down. No advance notice. It would be nice to have a bank that, you know, works.

<comment><USER37> This criticism is silly - they are a startup and you should know what you were getting yourself into. Plus, credit cards in the event it's down?

I myself never experienced downtime and they've only gotten more reliable, better customer service, and more features.

<comment><USER38> If the product wasn't in beta, why shouldn't you expect reliable service?

<comment><USER37> _It is reliable_! Growing pains happen. Downtime happens. Expecting five nines from a little startup, even when it's out of beta, is silly!

I've built three companies now and _it is really hard_! Balancing up-time, product development, customer support, and bug fixing is difficult. I'm sure interfacing with legacy banking systems made it even worse. If it were down all the time (the way Reddit was during their major growth phase) then I would agree, _that is an issue_. But they are not and were not - <USER2> downtime is not something to criticize, there are other more constructive things to criticize about the product _which is consistently evolving anyway_.

It upsets me to see people on HN get up on their soapbox and say demoralizing things about trivial issues (that are part of the life of a growing product) of little startups that are doing well, continuously improving, and _doing their best_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I have a simple account, and I don't find it hard to budget money or track, nor really use the bank interface to do much than paybills.

I really found it as an unnecessary layer.

</comment><comment><USER40> BBVA client here.

This is surprising to say the least. The BBVA online banking is a prime example of a forgotten service to their clients. The .pt website will often output errors in Spanish.

Not sure if I should expect the tech to trickle into existing services, one can hope. It seems to be a nice deal for BBVA to expand to the Americas and for Simple to get in Europe.

</comment><comment><USER41> If you're in need of a new bank, Schwab is pretty great on a couple of fronts (and hilariously awful on others.)

The good:

1) They have great customer support. You call and get a super-nice, helpful real genuine person in Colorado or Arizona, 24/7\. 2) They refund all your ATM fees from any ATM anywhere (this is maybe mostly a big deal in New York where cash only is still a major thing) 3) If you have an IRA with them, they have a suite of index funds which are well-regarded, and which you can trade for free.

The bad:

1) Their website is pretty awful, but also totally usable. 2) They have some restriction for their checking like you have to sign up with $5k or direct deposit or get an IRA or something, I don't remember. This didn't matter to me though, because I needed an IRA and use direct deposit anyway.

<comment><USER42> Schwab has been the only bank I have ever dealt with, and I have no intention of moving away. They are a professionally run outfit with focus on all the right things.

As mentioned, the customer service is stellar. I have never had to be on hold much more than a few minutes and the person on the other end has always been engaged and knowledgeable, all the while remaining totally professional. I think this image of them was cemented for me when I found that their hold "music" was that Friday's jobs report!

The website is not great on the usability front and some things are placed in questionable locations. The search functionality is also frustrating and obtuse many times. The same is true of the mobile app. However, they are functionally more than sufficient and work perfectly fine. And, worst case, you can always just call them or do the online chat.

I think they are on the more expensive side as a brokerage, but their integration there is satisfactory (that being said, I am not an active investor)

They also don't nickel and dime you on things. I was amazed when I found out that other banks charge for getting extra checks and a checkbook. Admittedly, checks are in less and less use these days, but you still need them sometimes. Schwab offers unlimited checks for free. Spare debit cards may be charged, but I am not sure. I have not lost my debit card (yet!)

The bank side is located in Reno, NV, so any checks have to be mailed there. However, this isn't entirely true. Schwab does have physical locations to serve their brokerage clients and since the Checking account requires a brokerage account (although it doesn't require it to be funded), you can still use their physical locations to deposit and withdraw money, and then move it around online or on the app.

<comment><USER41> > The bank side is located in Reno, NV, so any checks have to be mailed

You can use the smartphone app to deposit checks just by taking a photo now, actually.

<comment><USER42> That's true, and I completely forgot that you can do that. In fact, that's how I last deposited a check!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Wow. I closed my Bank of America account and have been depending on Simple alone for a while now. I was really looking forward to seeing Simple flourish on their own, but hey, congrats to them! Let's hope for the best here.

</comment><comment><USER44> By the time I finally got a Simple/BankSimple invite, the online features and offerings from my local/regional bank (Frost, for those of you in TX) matched "close enough" to what Simple was offering at the time that there wasn't any advantage to moving everything over and leaving a bank I've been with for 18 years. Sure, the UI's not as pretty, but that's not everything.

I still have the account, and like my USAA one, transfer money into it every month as a secondary emergency fund in case something happens with my Frost account and I get locked out over a weekend.

<comment><USER37> Frost's UI/UX is no where near Simple's, IMHO. My girlfriend was using Frost for a long time, saw me using Simple, and wanted to switch over immediately - super happy since. Since then every mobile banking app I've had to use (ATFCU, Chase, Citi, and BofA) is ridiculous. Bad design, limited functionality, no concept of UX (BofA's mobile app at least has it together but their webapp is stupid).

<comment><USER44> I fully agree that Frost's UI/UX is nowhere near Simple's, but it lets me do what I need to do online, and I can deposit checks via my Android phone now. Good enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I know I should be happy for them but I'm sad. It's rare to find a company in the bank/personal finance space executing at such a high level consistently. Also, I have never seen a great company in this space continue to be great post acquisition.

Commerce Bank and Mint have been mentioned already. I'll also add Outright which was a great little app acquired by Godaddy.

Nature of the beast I suppose...

</comment><comment><USER46> As a Simple user, I want them to stay exactly the same, as the contrast they offer to almost everything else out there is outstanding.

But as an outside observer, I hope they grow like crazy. The amount that the banking industry needs to be shaken up to the point of near-destruction (preferably without the taxpayers having to bail them out) cannot be understated.

</comment><comment><USER47> I recall reading (and no, I can't find a source now, sorry) that Simple had a lot of trouble initially because they weren't a bank in many of the ways that you need to be a bank in order to work with other banks.

So hopefully this will give them the 'establishment' they need along with the independence to keep innovating. Hopefully.

</comment><comment><USER48> This could be a great move for Simple. It could allow them to execute really quickly on the core product and user experience, while giving them access and expertise to backend banking support. Staying independent meant the latter was more challenging than any engineering/product problem they could want to solve.

</comment><comment><USER49> I got excited when I got my invitation long ago, but it came out to be an expensive service for me - expensive, as to use it, I had to part with my 1.5% cash back (which totals to over $1K per year) from my PayPal Debit Card. Same with other similar services like Moven, Serve, GoBank, and the rest.

</comment><comment><USER50> I don't see why anyone would use Simple for Banking. They don't pay any great interest rates at least not that they advertise and their features are equivalent to what you can get with CapitalOne360 formerly ingDirect but those guys will pay you interest on your deposits.

<comment><USER51> Do you get good interest rates anywhere? Last time I checked at banks I think checking accounts had .06% and even a long term CD was around 0.9%.

I'd be better off just playing the market at that point (or using something like betterment/wealthfront to hold most money).

Simple is nice because the interface/app are solid and they have incredible customer service. The only other thing I'd want from them is a decent rewards credit card.

<comment><USER52> Credit Unions in my area (Portland, Or) have checking accounts that pay 1.0%-1.5%. No interest from Simple is the main reason I don't use them.

<comment><USER17> Based on your average monthly balances in checking, is this really more than a few thousand a year? To me, the Simple app is worth at least that.

<comment><USER53> If you have 120k with an interest rate of 1.0%, you are basically losing out on about $3.33 a day. In one year, you end up losing out on the amount of money you would need to buy a nice UHD monitor. It's simply not worth it, IMO.

<comment><USER17> Who keeps $120k sitting in checking earning 1%? That's underwater against inflation.

I am baffled by anyone who peaks their checking account beyond 30-40k.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I have had Simple for a couple years now and really love it. This makes me sad. BBVA and other international and even national banks like them are the scum of the earth. Already in the process of closing my account.

So. Sad.

</comment><comment><USER55> This isn't actually surprising, to me. I'm indirectly with BBVA through SmartyPig, which is pretty in line with Simple as well.

Good deal to the Simple team, I hope this works out for everyone involved well.

</comment><comment><USER56> I love simple. I just wish they would address concern related to how they invest my money. For example, I would prefer that they give their customer the options to invest our money for things that that we approve. For example, I want my money to be invest in local communities instead of building nuclear power plants.

Of course, if you want your money to build nuclear power plant and move large scale jobs abroad, then I support that as well. The point is to give us option on where our money get invested. I have called simple.com a few times, and it looks like it is something that they are not thinking about right now. I hope with the new investment they would start thinking about the larger pictures of how the money they collect is invested.

<comment><USER4> I've never heard of a bank offering such a thing, and it sounds like a horrendous nightmare to manage.

<comment><USER56> I guess you are right, because it has NEVER being done and it is really hard to do, we shouldn't do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Banks don't have incentive to build nice interfaces for their users, because they're a State-guaranteed oligopolized cartel.

</comment><comment><USER58> For a company so invested in disrupting banks, it's sad to see them going to a massive global conglomerate.

</comment><comment><USER59> Let's hope they don't go down the toilet like ING direct did after Capital One acquired them.

</comment><comment><USER17> Shame it wasn't by Coinbase.

</comment><comment><USER60> Love Simple. Congrats to the team, well deserved. Please keep it simple!

</comment><comment><USER61> A 150yrs old financing business acquires Simple, an innovative financing business.

Now, you want to make me believe that Simple will stay innovative and that this acquisition is best for the user?

Yeah, right.

<comment><USER62> despite being 150 years old, from what I've heard about BBVA, they seem to be making a real push to be innovative. They've fairly recently moved all of their staff onto Google Apps which is an interesting move.

The way I see it, someone has looked at their online/mobile banking, and said "what can we do better here? what are other people in the industry doing?" and seen the way Simple operates, and the general satisfaction of their customers.

It'll be interesting to see what happens from here

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Ouch

</comment><comment><USER64> Simple is a great example of how someone can go into an old, broken industry, make a company that would not be considered a tech startup, and still scale rapidly and change the industry. Bravo!

<comment><USER16> How have they changed the industry?</comment></comment>


Passwords Are Obsolete - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ninjudd/passwords-are-obsolete-9ed56d483eb <comment><USER2> >> Passwords are obsolete because of email and SMS. Specifically, the ability to send an email or SMS to users reliably and quickly.

>> The basic idea is that instead of using a password to authenticate each user, a temporary secret code is sent to them over a secure channel. Email or SMS is that (mostly) secure channel.

Email is not secure and trivial to spoof. Most users use a password to authenticate their email account. Unless you have a private key system in place, how do you get access to your email so you don't need passwords? (bootstrapping problem)

SMS is not secure. SMS-jacking is a serious problem that has been used to commit fraud and take over user accounts. Do not use SMS as a form of multi- factor authentication.

More factors are better, not less. Ideally, something you have (a token), something you know (a password or PIN), and something you are (biometrics). Defense in depth is effective, so use it.</comment>


Show HN: Unfinished 2000-era Game Boy Color game made available, with source - <AUTHOR> http://affinix.com <comment><USER2> Kudos on releasing it after all this time. That's impressive, especially given how the team disbanded in that timeframe!</comment>


Ask HN: Self-Hosted or Encrypted Notes/Todo App Like Notion.so or Workflowy - <AUTHOR> Does anyone use an app to plan their 'projects' that's either self-hosted or encrypted? I'm not a huge fan of putting all my most personal information on someone else's server.<p>Every time I look into this I'm not able to find any option with the same productivity benefits as the mainstream options, so I would love to hear about your setups. <comment><USER2> Check out Standard Notes at [https://www.standardnotes.org](https://www.standardnotes.org)

<comment><AUTHOR> This option, and also Inkdrop (on the front page yesterday just after I asked the question), look great! Thank you

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Juplin [0]

You can combine it with your own Nextcloud instance or install Cryptomater and use Dropbox et al.

[0] [https://joplinapp.org/](https://joplinapp.org/)

</comment><comment><USER4> I have also been looking for something similar. I currently use quiver but I'm always looking for another offline alternative. I like notion and bear but I don't like the idea of syncing my data to an unknown source.

<comment><USER5> Bear uses Apple's CloudKit to sync to your iCloud and the Bear Notes people don't have access to your data.

[https://bear.app/faq/Sync/Syncing%20&%20privacy/](https://bear.app/faq/Sync/Syncing%20&%20privacy/)</comment></comment>


Surespot app - free and open source encryption for everyone - <AUTHOR> https://www.surespot.me/ <comment><USER2> BTW, this code would have trouble sending messages between locales. I had a quick look at the encryption code, and found this:

        public static String sign(PrivateKey privateKey,
             String data, String derivedPassword) {
            return sign(privateKey, data.getBytes(), derivedPassword.getBytes());
        }

... which of course uses the current platform's character set, not a consistent one across platforms. Definitely not what you want in this kind of application (unless Android is UTF-8 in all countries? I don't code for it). That was in this class:

[https://github.com/surespot/android/blob/master/src/com/twof...](https://github.com/surespot/android/blob/master/src/com/twofours/surespot/encryption/EncryptionController.java)

...but someone making a mistake with getBytes() usually does it everywhere.

<comment><USER2> Just thinking about that - this class of error gets reported by Findbugs and other static analysis tools. So, this bug indicates that there aren't tools like that in the build - for a security app, where correctness should be top priority, that's surprising.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "Only the person you send the message to can read it. Period."

To use this kind of sentences on new software not reviewed by the comunity is dangerous. There is people that risk their lifes using this kind of app.

The thing that puzzles me is that sentence: "You can delete your message from the receivers phone." I don't see in the 'how it works' any information about it. Do they do that in a cryptographic way somehow that I can not imagine? Or is basically that the application removes the content if the server request it, something we could avoid just with a backup or modifying the code of the app.

<comment><USER4> > "Only the person you send the message to can read it. Period." > To use this > kind of sentences on new software not reviewed by the comunity is dangerous. > There is people that risk their lifes using this kind of app.

It is also false, since it seems that their threat model also includes the server being able to transparently MITM you and read all your messages. A pretty egregious overstatement, I think.

<comment><USER5> The threat model also suggests that you verify key fingerprints manually if you are concerned about MITM.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I guess verifying the full length of the fingerprint would mitigate that, and not doing that exposes you to a MITM attack anyway. Not much less secure than exchanging the keys directly, then, you are right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _You can delete your message from the receivers phone._

That second bullet point set off my BS detector (and is where I stopped reading). No system on earth lets you _reliably_ delete a message sent to another device over the Internet, after the fact. Neither can any such system reliably prevent users from sharing pictures that they can see on their device.

This site reads like an add for a perpetual motion engine.

Which is too bad, because open-source encrypted mobile chat is an interesting thing in and of itself, without impossible pie-in-the-sky claims.

<comment><USER4> Well, they didn't say "reliably". Many apps do this on a best-effort basis, it's usually good enough but people shouldn't trust it too much.

<comment><USER7> Sure, but it's the #2 bullet-point on their home page, and they don't use the word reliably, but:

> Be confident sending private information and pictures.

... be confident? That kinda implies it's reliable enough to be confident in it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "When a user is created and its public keys uploaded to the server, the server signs the public keys. Clients that download the public key then validate the signature of the key against the hardcoded server public key in the client. This ensures a MITM attack trying to use a rogue key pair to impersonate a user will be prevented."

This doesn't look good to me. Process implies trusting central server for cryptographic operations, which is very insecure. Central server should only be used as transport mechanism and should not be in any way involved in cryptographic operations that include working with secret keys. If someone, for example, seizes control of server (for government agencies this is an easy task, especially in these days) then he could forge user's public keys. The fact that public key is hardcoded in client application doesn't solve the problem either. What if server key is compromised? You'll have users with hardcoded compromised key in their app. Not a good situation. I see bunch of other security related problems in algotrithm description page also, but this one is crucial.

<comment><USER9> FWIW, that's exactly what happens with Verisign (or DigiNotar) when you connect to your banks SSL website…

<comment><USER8> Not exactly. With SSL, encrypted communication goes between client and server. In case of this app, encryption is done with user's public keys, no server is involved in encrypting messages. Server role is only in signing public keys to ensure their authenticity. But that alone is bad and insecure practice.

<comment><USER9> That "Signing public keys to ensure their authenticity" is exactly what (any of the possibly as many as 600) public CA's that your browser and/or OS come pre-configured to "trust".

Who the hell are "Xramp Global CA"? "VRK Gov Root CA"? "UCA Root"? "Trusted Certificate Services"? They're all just random selections from the first page of trusted root certs in this OS X machine's list of System Root keys. Any of them could choose to "authenticate" a public key that claims to be my bank. Apart from the few pinned certificates in Chrome (I think mostly Google certs), I've got no more reason to believe any SSL connection I make is "authenticated" any more than Iranian Gmail users should have had when a DigiNotar root CA cert had signed those rouge Google SSL certs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Also check out [https://threema.ch/en/](https://threema.ch/en/) \- it has the same functionality as WhatsApp (except of group chat), but secure/encrypted and is available for Android and iOS.

They're using the NaCl library for cryptography and proper encryption of messages before leaving the phone can be validated here: [http://threema.ch/validation/](http://threema.ch/validation/)

(I'm not affiliated with Threema, just a regular user who likes the product)

<comment><USER11> I think Tox.im uses NaCl, too, but it's for PC only right now (it's new).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> First impression:

* No details of threat model

* No details of crypto protocols used

* No discussion of how key exchange problem is solved

* Makes misleading security claims "when you delete a sent message it will be removed from the receivers phone"

Basically falls into "don't touch with a barge pole" category of crypto software.

Crypto software isn't a category where you can make it up as you go along, it has to be designed upfront with a set of security considerations for it to have a chance of survival in the real world.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps you can get a second impression-

details of threat model- [https://www.surespot.me/documents/threat.html](https://www.surespot.me/documents/threat.html)

details of how surespot works including crypto- [https://www.surespot.me/documents/how_surespot_works.html](https://www.surespot.me/documents/how_surespot_works.html)

you can always review the code on GitHub- [https://github.com/surespot/android](https://github.com/surespot/android)

<comment><USER12> You should have a look at:

[https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Threat_Risk_Modeling](https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Threat_Risk_Modeling)

To understand the standard approaches to threat modelling.

It should be trivial for someone to look at the documentation and quickly answer basic security questions like "Does it defend against replay attacks ?" and "Does it leak message size ?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Only everyone on Android. Sadly my friends use ios and windows, so we have to wait.</comment>


Stereotyping women right out of science - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/stereotyping_women_right_out_o.php

<comment><USER2> I respect PZ Myers as a scientist and as an atheist, but when it comes to gender equality, he really comes across as pushing feminist propaganda (circa 1985).

Case in point, in a previous article he casually dismissed the whole Men's Rights movement, claiming that rape is commonly advocated by its activists. This is absolutely inane and inaccurate.

The feminist movement was born out of the desire to bring equality to both genders and to remove inequalities that affected many women. Over the years, a vocal fringe managed to go far beyond that noble intent, and started advocating hatred towards men. Guess what, they are a just a fringe. They don't invalidate the positive achievements of the movement.

The Men's Rights movement was born with a similar intent, to attempt to fix existing inequalities that affect many men today. In this movement, just like feminism, there are people who go too far, and instead of advocating equality, advocate hatred towards women.

Among feminists you will find a higher percentage of women with a bias against men. Among men's rights activists, you will find a higher percentage of men with a bias against women. And regardless of the movement, there will always be people who go too far.

The truth of the matter is that people have a hard time accepting the fact that males need a support/advocacy group too. Many people in today's society assume that being white, heterosexual, and male equates to not having any of your rights violated. This too is far from the truth. There are serious injustices and double standards that affect and destroy the lives of many men. Their rights should be defended just as much as those of women. And both efforts should be considered honorable and not shameful.

Men and women are different, we can't expect both sexes to be equal in every single regard. However, we can - and should - expect both sexes to have the same rights under the law. And there is nothing wrong with advocating that.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not part of the feminist or the Men's Rights movement; I simply consider myself in favor of equal rights. I support the right of both groups to exist, while not agreeing 100% with either of them.

</rant>

<comment><USER3> Don't movements tend to be defined by their fringe elements, though? At least in public perception?

      All animal rights activists are like PETA.
      All anarchists throw bombs.
      All Republicans are Tea Partiers.
      All Christians are fundamentalists.

Not that it's right to do so. But it seems to happen all the time.

<comment><USER2> Correct, but I don't think it's far-fetched to expect a slightly higher standard from a science professor such as PZ Myers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This piece reads like a women's rights article from 10 or 15 years ago. We've moved on from this basic debate between thinking and feeling. To be honest I'm pleased that most discourse today is at a higher level. I appreciate the author's position, but "women feel, while men think" is essentially a solved debate as far as gender issues go. I don't think even the most idiotic misogynist resorts to that argument anymore (I might be underestimating the idiots). There are so many more opportunities for deep conversation on this issue, so it pains me to see the author take this approach!

As an aside, I'll point out any battle for women in science was lost long before women med students had to put up with their misogynistic counterparts. The issue is about the women who didn't make it to med school in the first place.

<comment><USER5>
      "Women feel, while men think" is essentially
      a solved debate as far as gender issues go.

Really? Because this is, on average, _true_. Whether or not it's biological or cultural is another argument, but I think that is also up for debate. The fact is that Meyer-Briggs test show that women are much more likely to be "Feeling" over "Thinking" on that axis of the test.

Now, you can debate all you want over the validity of these personality tests, but when women are asked how they react to situations, they tend choose to select the "feeling" axis. Perhaps that's not actually what they think, and they're just trying to conform to female stereotypes, but I really don't think it's resolved at all.

<comment><USER6> Myers-Briggs scores people on several dimensions. They chose to label one of those dimensions "thinking-feeling". But that doesn't mean that the test is actually discriminating between "thinking" and "feeling" as we commonly understand those words. You could just as easily label the "thinking-feeling" axis as "detached-involved" -- but then it would obviously be irrelevant to the claim that "women feel, while men think".

This is one of those cases where details matter: psychometrics are not simple.

<comment><USER7> To further illustrate how you can't just throw these labels around, Myers- Briggs has "iNtuiting" on another axis. PZ Meyers makes references that place "Intuition" in opposition to science (thinking.) If the words mean the same in both contexts, then the Myers-Briggs temperament of the NT/Rational who is both iNtuitive and Thinking becomes, well, awkward at best.

<comment><USER5> Obviously the set of questions they ask relating to "thinking" versus "feeling" do not have a 1-to-1 relationship with those characteristics. But it's not bad: [http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti- bas...](http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti- basics/thinking-or-feeling.asp)

To address intuition, INTPs- where N stands for intuition- are actually the "scientist" types. However, like you note, the combination is comparatively rare. "Intuition" for MBTI talks about how you perceive incoming information. [http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti- bas...](http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti- basics/sensing-or-intuition.asp) But you're right, the definition of "intuition" in MBTI is... unintuitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Margaret Wertheim's book "Pythagoras's Trousers" discusses this issue. The contention there is that it's not just about this sterotype, it's also about a deeply entrenched anti-female culture.

The gender bias problem can't be fixed simply by reversing this stereotype; it goes much deeper than that. It's not whether women can do it or not; it's blindingly obvious that they can. It's that significant numbers of them are put off by the culture and either cut their careers short or don't start one at all.

</comment><comment><USER9> "One of the most cunning tools of the patriarchy is the assignment of woo as a feminine virtue."

Kind of sad that he has to use a pseudoscientific theory of mind to make his point.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a serious problem, even today, but the article seems to fail at addressing it.

1\. The "nurturing" sort of work isn't inferior to the analytical style of work. Both are important. Raising children is one of the most important things we do, and God knows a lot of people aren't doing a very good job of it.

2\. The erroneous assumption that men are always better-suited to analytical work and women are nurturers _is_ problematic and ridiculous. It screws people both ways. Male nurses are considered effeminate, while women who excel analytically are underestimated.

3\. Combating sexism in academia, research and medicine is a noble goal, but I don't see solutions being put forward here.</comment>


Braingate Frees Trapped Minds - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2009/05/20/braingate-frees-trapped-minds/

<comment><USER2> She gets 8 icons on screen?

She could do with Dasher ( <http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/> ).

<comment><USER3> That's a novel idea. I wonder how well it works if none of the choices in the branch are what you want to say next?

<comment><USER2> The choices are always all the letters of the alphabet, but sized by probability. If you can write it in English, you can write it with Dasher.</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook executives feel the heat of content controversies - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-content-insight-idUSKCN12S0D3 <comment><USER2> > Facebook has long resisted calls to publicly detail its policies and > practices on censoring postings. That approach has drawn criticism from > users who have had content removed and free-speech advocates, who cite a > lack of transparency and a lack of an appeals process for many content > decisions.

> At the same time, some governments and anti-terror groups are pressuring the > company to remove more posts they consider offensive or dangerous.

It is weird that for a while you couldn't show a breast feeding mother, but you could recruit to a paramilitary organisation operating in a war zone.</comment>


Adventures in Ketoland, or How I Learned to Love the Purple Stick - <AUTHOR> https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/2016/04/21/adventures-in-ketoland-or-how-i-learned-to-love-the-purple-stick/ <comment><USER2> It seems like a lot of people are becomming interested in ketosis diets and being in ketosis. I have experimented with daily carb intake as low as <10g/day, and done a great deal of research on the subject. Other than Celiac I am otherwise a normal eater now and when I undertook it. My goal was not weight loss but to simply learn about and optimize my body.

The science does not support eating <50g/day of carbs [1] unless you have non- refractory epilepsy (you would know). Likewise, the evidence suggests that eating >150g/day leads to the problems described by the author [2] and those that many of us experience before exposure to some form of low carb diet (ketosis is a metabolic state, not a formala for a healthy diet).

So the conclusion of all of this reading and scientific journal rabbit holing is that humans should eat 50-150g/day of carbs, and that the further away you are from this optimal range, the worse. And that in lieu of all those carbs most people are eating, they should instead be eating more protein and fat from good sources.

The best curation of the scientific literature that I have found on this subject is the blog of "The Paleo Mom". While biased towards Paleo (for pretty compelling scientific reasons) her writing is very well cited and she has a PhD in Medical Biophysics and first-hand experience with autoimmune diseases (how I found her) [3].

The TL/DR of what I learned is: fast once a week for >16 and <24 hours, eat 20% of calories from carbs, 30% from protein and 50% from fat, avoid inflammatory foods like grains, dairy, nightshades, refined sugar, FODMAPs, alcohol and eat way more vegetables and a variety of meat and seafood along with olive or coconut oil as much as possible.

[1]: [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13590840310001619...](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13590840310001619405) [2]: [http://www.thepaleomom.com/2016/02/rebuttal-to-paleo-diet- co...](http://www.thepaleomom.com/2016/02/rebuttal-to-paleo-diet-could-lead- to-rapid-weight-gain-new-study-shows.html) [3]: [http://www.thepaleomom.com](http://www.thepaleomom.com)</comment>