GT Bankruptcy Provides Rare Look at Apple's Relationship with Suppliers - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2014/11/07/gt-bankruptcy-provides-rare-look-at-apples-relationship-with-suppliers/ <comment><USER3> I don't see much controversial here. Apple's practice has long been to underwrite capital equipment for their suppliers, so that the supplier can afford to manufacture the item that Apple needs. This makes sense because the supplier is the one with the expertise to make the product. For instance, when the machining for the iPhone 4 case was not producible with current equipment, only equipment designed for making prototypes, Apple bought 1,000 of these very expensive machines for Foxconn.

Apple is not a sapphire manufacturer, but GT is, and this afforded GT the opportunity to go into this business with minimal capital risk. GT has expertise that Apple does not.

It sounds like GT thought the new process was ready for production and all they needed was the furnaces and plant, and then they failed to bring the plant on line and produce what was needed.... and is now blaming Apple for it.

Since Apple provided the money to build the plant, an exclusivity agreement doesn't seem "onerous" in the least. The "below market" prices allegation also seems appropriate-- given that GT purported to have a new technology that changed the economics making sapphire viable for new uses. The main challenge with sapphire is that it is expensive, and hard to make large pieces-- such as you would need for the front display of an iPhone.

The idea that Apple wielded "all the leverage" is silly. GT could simply walk way. There is no leverage in the case when the other party is not beholden or forced to do business with you. If GT had such a killer new process as to make phone faces at reasonable prices, then they could have gone to Motorola, Samsung or other potential customers. How does Apple have all the leverage when there's no requirement for GT to sign the deal?

It really sounds like this company bit off more than it could chew, couldn't meet the obligations it agreed to, and is now having sour grapes.

<comment><USER4> Bankruptcy isn't "sour grapes", it is the expected result when Apple's concessions were insufficient to extricate the company from its troubles. From the reading of this article, it appears that Apple's terms boxed this much- smaller company in, leaving them with insufficient margin for error. This sentence is particularly telling: "Apple chose the facility, negotiated all the contracts to design and build it, and GT had no direct contact with the Apple subcontractors." Perhaps such a contract should never have been agreed to, but it is an example of heavy-handedness by the stronger partner in the relationship.

<comment><USER5> Their is nothing so far revealed that indicates any heavy handedness on Apple's part. So far, all we've seen is a contract that two parties entered into of their free will, both seeking to profit from said contract.

Now, if it turns out, Apple had threatened GT with financing one of their Saphire Competitors to allow them to drive GT out of business if GT didn't enter a contract with Apple - that would be heavy handedness. But there is no evidence of any such behavior.

<comment><USER4> If in fact the sentence I highlighted is true, it is very much heavy- handedness on the part of Apple. From the context, it is unlikely to be false, though possible.

<comment><USER5> "Apple chose the facility, negotiated all the contracts to design and build it, and GT had no direct contact with the Apple subcontractors."

You do understand the Apple purchased the facility for $113 million dollars of their own money, right? GT's job was to install furnaces, run them, and deliver sapphire of a particular size and quality, which they were unable to do. And, they did so with money loaned to them by Apple.

Effectively, Apple took 100% of the risk, and when things went south, GT (after their CEO made a few million dollars on the stock), declared bankruptcy and forced Apple to settle GT's debt.

<comment><USER4> Not true. If Apple took "100%" of the risk, GT would not be bankrupt. GT was a viable operating concern prior to these events.

Taking only what's available in the article, GT's job included running the factory, part of the process pipeline they had _zero_ choice over, even to the point of selecting or even communicating with subcontractors (the line I quoted). When those machines in the process pipeline wholly dictated by Apple proved inadequate -- and I am not saying those are the only problems -- by necessity _GT_ assumed at least a good portion of that risk.

You are oversimplifying the situation greatly, to the point of being disingenuous.

<comment><USER5> I think we are talking at cross purposes to each other, but I'm hoping that if I listen to you - we can come to some agreement.

Apple took 100% of the risk of the new facility - it's all on Apple, GT is not on the hook for it a bit. That's why Apple did not involve GT in its construction.

GT _did_ take risk in the building of Saphire (a risk, as it turns out, that they did not succeed on) - though they did it mostly with borrowed money from Apple (but they had exposure as well).

The Bankruptcy was mostly because GT was unable to pay back apple, and their cash flow position was such that they were no longer a going concern - <USER2> Apple is going to take a loss there as well - I can't believe that Used Sapphire furnaces are going to be sold at a premium.

The part that you bring up that is interesting, is whether the elements that Apple was building (the physical plant) were important components in the process pipeline for successfully manufacturing Sapphire. If, indeed, they were important, and if they _in any way_ contributed to the failure of GT in successfully manufacturing Sapphire, and if, Apple indeed, did not let GT take a significant role in directing the design and build of those components - then, I'll grant you that was heavy handed behavior on Apple's part. They can't hold GT responsible for successfully delivering sapphire, but then _simultaneously_ prevent them from having any authority over a vital component in the building of said sapphire.

Sound Fair?

<comment><USER4> > They can't hold GT responsible for successfully delivering sapphire, but > then simultaneously prevent them from having any authority over a vital > component in the building of said sapphire.

Yes, we agree. And exactly what you describe is what appears to have happened.

(disclaimer: I have no involvement with this controversy at all)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This sounds like they accidentally walked into a joint venture when actually there needed to be an intermediary party (a sapphire manufacturer) or Apple to take on more risk.

If you haven't been involved in negotiations like this you probably underestimate what an easy trap this is to walk into, and very hard to remove yourself from once it occurs.

It does reflect poorly on management, but it takes two to tango, and Apple should have been aware that such a one sided arrangement would inevitably backfire in this fashion. Good business works when the incentives for both parties are aligned, and you may extract short term benefit from screwing a supplier, but if what they supply is in short supply then you're going to end up screwing yourself.

<comment><USER7> My faith in management just keep strengthening over time. Apparently it's not considered ridiculous to agree with someone who says :

> Apple said GT should, "Put on your big boy pants and accept the agreement," > he said.

But the cynic in me fully understands what happened here. GT management, who have massive amounts of stock knew that an agreement with Apple would be seen by the invester community as a ridiculously positive development ( e.g. [http://www.cnbc.com/id/101573666](http://www.cnbc.com/id/101573666) chosen for effect, not because I think this guy is a good stock picker, btw : please note that Cramer was right on all timeframes < 7 months ), and they were right. Then they proceed to unload their shares, making 32 million dollars between 6 people ( [https://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=GTAT+Insider+Transactions](https://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=GTAT+Insider+Transactions) ). They would have known the terms of the Apple deal, and would have known that it'd be a breakeven deal at best, probably already in March.

TLDR: [https://www.tradingview.com/e/qTWS9Zzq/](https://www.tradingview.com/e/qTWS9Zzq/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Squiller called GT's contract with Apple "onerous and massively one-sided." It would allow Apple to buy sapphire — a durable, scratch-resistant substance that already is used to cover the camera lens and touch ID sensor on some iPhones — at below market prices, he said."

I find these types of lawsuits to reflect poorly on the management team of the company filing the lawsuit. Their underlying argument is that we voluntarily agreed to a poor contract and now we're upset about it.

<comment><USER9> Well, a bankruptcy suit pretty much always reflects poorly on the management team, no matter what the stated reasons are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> GT agreed to some awful terms:

 _" Whenever Apple modifies the Specification for a Good, and notwithstanding any disagreement over the cost to implement such specification modification, GTAT will charge Authorized Purchasers, and Authorized Purchasers will pay, (1) the applicable price for a Good set forth in the Statement of Work (ii) in the absence of a SOW, the last price Authorized Purchasers paid for the applicable Good, or (iii) if Authorized Purchasers have not yet purchased the Applicable Good, a mutually agreed price for the applicable Good."_

So Apple could change the specs on GT, and pay the old price until any disputes were resolved. Apple did in fact change the specs, which caused some of the problems.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> List of Documents: [https://www.kccllc.net/gtat/document/list/3940](https://www.kccllc.net/gtat/document/list/3940)

Some of the Agreements: [https://www.kccllc.net/gtat/document/14119161411070000000000...](https://www.kccllc.net/gtat/document/1411916141107000000000004)

</comment><comment><USER11> Someone may pick up a large-scale sapphire manufacturing facility at pennies on the dollar. Perhaps we will see sapphire screens on non-Apple phones as a result, using equipment funded by Apple. The irony...

</comment><comment><USER12> It would be quite the glowing recommendation for a young, growing company to list Apple as one of their clients. It's not difficult to understand why a company like GT might underbid much bigger rivals on a competitive contract just for the impact it would have on their future business. It is therefore very possible that Apple acted in good faith but GT was simply unable to honor the contract they agreed to. It's not dissimilar to young engineers, IT professionals, etc. who are willing to work for Cupertino at wages well below industry standard just to pad their resumes. Such people often burn out very quickly.

GT's bankruptcy may cause problems in Apple's supply chain that wind up costing Apple a pretty penny. Likewise staff who burn out just as they're trained up to a productive level suck resources out of Apple as well. Apple would do well to carefully examine bids and make sure their suppliers can comfortably do what they promis to do, just as they should avoid taking advantage of new employees willing to work long hours at low wages. Reaping the benefits of fame at the expense of the star-struck sounds great at first, but doing so can cost substantially more in the long run.</comment>


Toronto HN Meetup 0b0010 - Let's pick a date and place - <AUTHOR>

Hey everyone!
After receiving four emails asking when the next Toronto HN Meetup was, I took the hint. Use the below link to show your availability/time preference and suggest places/ideas in the comments. Once the voting has died down, I'll make a www.guestlistapp.com event for it.
http://www.doodle.com/dapvcixei57x84zx
If you missed the last one, you missed a night of beers, nerdery, and a noticeable abundance of coders/hardware hackers. About 50 people came in over the course of the evening, some as far away as Ottawa!
The last one was held at Sin and Redemption, but let's vote on where the next one should be in the comments. <comment><USER2> Lets do it at The Rhino. Rails Pub Night is held there and it always works well.

Sin and Redemption was a little small for the crowd size last time.

<comment><USER3> Why was this down voted? Rhino is a great location.

<comment><USER4> The Rhino is cheap and has an awesome patio, I'm in ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whoops, messed up my entry on that poll, but I'm available any time between August 15th and September 6th. Look forward to this!

</comment><comment><USER6> I might be interested ... but I'm in Ottawa. What happens at these HN meetups?

<comment><AUTHOR> Typically people bring their laptops and informally show off what they have been working on over a few beers. Chats about programming languages, grid computing, the local tech scene. That type of thing. The guy(s?) that came from Ottawa last time had another business function the next day, so he just came a day early.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> In a couple of weeks? Late August, or early September?

</comment><comment><USER8> Wow, there have been 720911 previous meetings?

<comment><USER9> You missed 0b000f meetings.</comment></comment>


Nanoscope: Method-Tracing Tool for Android - <AUTHOR> https://ubere.ng/2rfNFeX <comment><USER2> One of the things that I would love to see would be an easy way to do a before/after accounting on some visual flourishes. "How much time does this take to do X" and check in something akin to a profile in parallel to source control. "Is this fast" is something that can be really hard to answer in retrospec and I'd love to have a tool that does something like that for Android, and it seems like nanoscope might be lightweight enough for it.

<comment><AUTHOR> We've been building up CI tooling on top of Nanoscope. The short term goal for this is: make sure that none of our internal libraries (analytics, experimentation, etc) contribute a significant percentage of the time it takes to respond to any tap in the app. We have a lot of internal mobile libraries, so preventing perf regressions in them is a big rock.

If our CI efforts prove stable, then what you're suggesting should also be possible, if I understand it correctly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Looks good but custom fork of Android is required

<comment><AUTHOR> True. Fortunately, the custom fork is very easy to install if you have a supported device (right now just 6P.

Just run `nanoscope flash`.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're also working on creating a build for the emulator.

See [https://github.com/uber/nanoscope/issues/53](https://github.com/uber/nanoscope/issues/53)</comment></comment></comment>


CouchDB: The Definitive Guide - <AUTHOR> http://guide.couchdb.org/index.html <comment><USER2> Good job of putting the book on the web. I bought the PDF version a long time ago and it was useful in getting me up to speed. Although I use MongoDB for most of my work and not CouchDB, I spend a good deal of play time with CouchDB. Also, CouchDB looks to be hackable at the implementation level: I saw a good article on hacking the Erlang source to customize CouchDB.

</comment><comment><USER3> What a gorgeous way to put a book on the web!

<comment><USER4> Do you mind if we quote you on this?

<comment><USER3> Quote away!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The CouchDB group is hosting CouchCamp September 8-10 in Petaluma, CA: <http://www.couch.io/couchcamp> It's quite cheap ($600, including room and meals) and should be a great chance to learn more about CouchDB from the original sources.

I've not signed up for it (yet) myself; I'm concerned about a schedule conflict, but I may go ahead and do it anyway.

Even if you don't plan on using CouchDB directly, it's worth a look just to see how neatly they've implemented RESTful APIs.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm a big fan of this book. It's one of the rare technical books that is so well-written that it's a great read regardless of whether or not you're actually trying to use the technology.

</comment><comment><USER7> One thing I wonder about CouchDB is whether writing scales.

Assuming you have a cluster of couchdb nodes. They all replicate, so you can spread reads and writes over the cluster. As you add nodes, read performance goes up. Initial write performance should as well.

But when you write to node N, then that data needs to be written to nodes 0-(N-1) as well. So every write goes to every node (thru replication). Since writes on CouchDB are syncronous (Eg: only one write at a time) then there is a fixed total write bandwidth on each node. Since a write on any node needs to be replicated, then, assuming the cluster is using identical machines, the total write speed of the cluster would be the same as the write speed of a single node, right?

This is probably not a problem for most cases as reads outnumber writes for web businesses. But it seems this is an area where couchDB isn't scalable.

My assessment is based on the perception that writing data coming via replication is exactly as expensive as writing data coming from the web. Replicated data goes thru the filters, and replicated data has its views recalculated as well.

<comment><USER8> Scaling writes requires partitioning, which can be done in CouchDB with either:

<http://tilgovi.github.com/couchdb-lounge/>

or in a hosted Erlang version:

<http://blog.cloudant.com/dynamo-and-couchdb-clusters>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> They must have just pushed this, because I was looking at it yesterday and it was the old tired and broken (by comparison) version of the page.

Has the edition changed? I'm a bit confused. I'm reading the O'Reilly eBook and it seems like what I'm reading is a draft. There are chapters seemingly missing (for instance, they described Map well enough but skipped reduce and went right into talking about Sofa without ever introducing Sofa)

However, I am reading it cover to cover and it is pretty thorough and not a bad book.

I just wonder which version I have and how it compares to the two on the new webpage.

Maybe we need a standard for book versions. Rather than just "Editions" something of a smaller increment. Like Edition/Revision.</comment>


The Wire is to The Sopranos as a feed reader is to ______ - <AUTHOR> http://www.rumproarious.com/2013/06/17/network-thinking-in-tv/

<comment><USER2> A tweet.

Mostly because this title will garner more debate about The Wire v. The Sopranos than feed readers.

Feed readers aren't being killed off because they lack usefulness. They are being killed off because its tougher to drive traffic to your particular ecosystem if people can pre-screen why they want to visit in the first place.

Facebook and Twitter continue to lead the charge on locking out their data in the post 'Web 2.0' world and Google is simply following the trend.

RSS is useful and pragmatic. RSS is not a currency printing machine for the sites that have to provide feeds ergo it goes.

Sad, really.

<comment><AUTHOR> Content owners don't make feed readers. If they didn't want people to pre- screen content they could just get rid of their RSS feeds altogether. They haven't done that. They clearly find some value to users being able to find their content through RSS, so I don't think this is why feed readers have failed to breakout.

<comment><USER2> If Google cannot monetize Reader in its current form and Google effectively loses money because those same pages have Google ads on them that aren't being viewed; then Google has no incentive to keep running Google Reader.</comment></comment></comment>


HTML or XHTML: Does It Really Matter? - <AUTHOR> http://www.sitepoint.com/article/html-or-xhtml-does-it-matter <comment><USER2> Only use XHTML when you need to have your content parsed as XML. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong at all with well-formed HTML.

<comment><USER3> the opposite should be your strategy because XHTML is more easily machine read, and thus more easily repurposed (and therefore, a more powerful storage/interchange format). use XHTML so your content can be parsed as XML unless you have a specific and clear reason to abandon easy machine readability.

<comment><USER4> Tools like BeautifulSoup (Python) and hpricot (Ruby) make processing HTML just as easy as processing XML.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "For an invalid XML document, browsers did not even make an attempt to parse the document as best they could, as they would with HTML—instead, they just displayed a validation error and stopped".

Yes that _is_ the idea: Force developers to write valid code.

<comment><USER6> Why force them?

<comment><USER3> the alternative is that people become reliant, then, on the implementations guess as to what the person meant. in order to still call such a thing a standard, you'd also have to standardize the guesswork involved in correcting people's mistakes. this would lead to a very large and cumbersome "standard" that violates principals of minimalism and least power. that being said, you can bet your bottom dollar that programs like "tidy" are really useful sometimes =D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "XHTML is still worth using, because it's a transitional standard that moves us towards a pure-XML Web. XML is inherently better than SGML, because it's simpler and stricter, and much easier to parse (once you've understood its rules)."

This is where I have a problem. In my experience, one can either have a format designed for computers or humans. XML is badly designed for both. Humans don't like it for its unnecessary strictness (unnecessary because SGML can be parsed in a decidable fashion) and computers don't like it because of all the extraneous characters. Where does that leave XML?

<comment><USER8> It leaves XML as a dead duck. Sure legacy things will use it, and corporations will probably still love it, but it's had its day thank god.</comment></comment>


Twitter forces all new users to enter a valid phone number - <AUTHOR> https://sucky.ninja/blog/twitter-locks-all-new-user-account-in-order-to-force-them-to-give-up-their-phone-numbers <comment><USER3> They have been doing this for any account registered from a VPN or Tor. However, you can simply appeal the block and tell them you haven't tweeted and not broken any rules.

They will send you an automated mail, offering to validate your phone number, or reply to the mail if your problem is not solved. Just reply to the mail.

Unfortunately, processing the request takes anywhere between 10 minutes and 2 weeks; usually a couple days at least. I assume this is on purpose to make it cumbersome for spammers.

They always reply with the same boilerplate, but the account will be unlocked:

      Your account is now unlocked, and we're sorry for the inconvenience.

      Twitter has automated systems that find and remove automated spam accounts and it looks like your account got caught up in one of these spam groups by mistake. This sometimes happens when an account exhibits automated behavior in violation of the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules).

      Again, we apologize for the inconvenience. Please do not respond to this email as replies will not be monitored.

<comment><USER4> When I worked in banking we would do this with suspect transactions. The feature was called "Strategic Delay". After awhile, all of our project plans (this was back in the days of Gantt charts) would include two weeks of effort on "Strategic Delay", even if that feature wasn't involved.

<comment> munk-a This is slightly different though, twitter is silly and unnecessary - <USER2> to your money is not.

During some of the recent shows highlighting issues with payday lending these sorts of strategic delays were mentioned in the light that they can cause irregularly paid workers to have problems actually getting money out of their paycheck - forcing them into more borrowing until they are able to clear their checks.

Again, twitter is just silliness, but the banking example is a lot more serious of a case where the pros and cons need to be very carefully weighed.

<comment><USER5> > twitter is just sillines

Would you say the same about your phone number? If not, why? If I run my business on Twitter (or YouTube, or Facebook) is it that different from a bank?

<comment> munk-a No?

I'm not clear on what the real point of this question is - twitter is a terrible platform to use for actual communication. Their sorting by "relevance" can cause recent messages to get lost in the shuffle and randomly mess with your visibility. It may be you're considering twitter as a business in which to coordinate product sales, but I'll assume it's for customer relations management, many companies that have a twitter account for CS stuff also offer email, messanger (of some sort) and phone if you have an issue you need to resolve due to the fact that platform just isn't well suited for business - the network effect of it is surprisingly low (a _lot_ of people aren't on or don't regularly use twitter), it is semi-public which may violate your business concerns and... you're handing the keys to your reputation to the third party that has acted poorly in the past.

If you check out youtubers talking about youtubers (I have no specific example on hand) they tend to complain endlessly about how the trending algorithms can drive thousands of potential viewers toward or away from their channel for no particular reason - there the network effect is strong enough that they don't have an option though, if your business is streaming a show then YouTube offers a much richer starting viewer base.

I guess my assumption is, if your business doesn't force you to use a particular social media platform exclusively then... use some other communication method per preference?

I'm really just confused by the question though - these things are not the same and twitter is simply not as important as the place your money lives (and I think pretty much everyone would agree? Maybe I'm getting too old)

<comment><USER6> You may dislike Twitter (I do) but it is a large thing that exists and appears to provide sufficient value to people that dismissing it as 'silliness' just sounds empty-headed and naive.

<comment><USER7> Instead of attacking the person who is making a fairly lengthy and supportable argument, and basing your stance on the notion of some nebulous value "people" find, maybe you could respond in kind? I have to say that I find myself in the camp of Twitter being silly, except when it's being destructive. Instead of being dismissed as "empty-headed" I'd prefer some value proposition justifying the previous comparison to a phone number.

Twitter seems to be a rage factory and amplifier, a shitty blogging format, and very occasionally a way to twist the arm of recalcitrant customer service.

<comment><USER8> Twitter is a Rorschach test - all those things you criticize Twitter for seeming to be (rage factory, shitty blog, etc.)? That would be entirely the fault of the users in those specific circumstances.

The value proposition for me is receiving targeted news/information disseminated in a convenient format. As a concrete example, I'm crewing/pacing at a 100 mile trail run in two weeks, and I'm subscribed to that event's twitter feed. It's the Umstead 100 in case you are curious (@Umstead100). During the event, it will tweet out news and updates of interest to participants, volunteers, and others.

Yes, they could probably text everyone, or continuously update the website, or send emails - but Twitter is perfect for this situation and others like it: content/updates produces and consumed on mobile devices, sending frequent short updates with relevant info, etc.

Twitter has its abuses, but so does everything. Next time you're ready to shit all over Twitter, just remember that what you are likely ACTUALLY raging about is their userbase, i.e. the public.

<comment><USER9> > The value proposition for me is receiving targeted news/information > disseminated in a convenient format. As a concrete example, I'm > crewing/pacing at a 100 mile trail run in two weeks, and I'm subscribed to > that event's twitter feed. It's the Umstead 100 in case you are curious > (@Umstead100). During the event, it will tweet out news and updates of > interest to participants, volunteers, and others.

> Yes, they could probably text everyone, or continuously update the website, > or send emails - but Twitter is perfect for this situation and others like > it: content/updates produces and consumed on mobile devices, sending > frequent short updates with relevant info, etc.

Twitter is a poor choice for cases where you want to specifically subscribe to something, because it's deliberately designed as a _global_ popularity contest/rage generator. A Facebook group, Discord, heck even Tumblr or Medium would be a better choice for that kind of use than Twitter.

> Twitter has its abuses, but so does everything. Next time you're ready to > shit all over Twitter, just remember that what you are likely ACTUALLY > raging about is their userbase, i.e. the public.

No, Twitter has a series of deliberate design decisions that result in worse interactions than any other platform. The limited message size strips away nuance and reasoned discussion, in favour of zingers and outrage. Their algorithmic feed shows the most "engaging" tweets while suppressing the follow-up discussion, so you'll see a controversial tweet without seeing the existing replies or subsequent retraction. The rage storms aren't just people being people, they're people being nudged into behaving a particular way by Twitter's optimized-for-engagement UI. There's a reason other platforms don't have these problems.

<comment> identity-haver I've heard that even if you flip the "algorithmic timeline" switch off, you still don't see a linear feed of everyone you're following. It's still filtered and manipulated, just closer to linear.

Speaking of design decisions, here's a bit [1] about how the "quote tweet" encourages the behavior of "dunking", a usage I have only ever heard in regards to Twitter. Basically, if anyone with a Twitter account says something you think is stupid, you quote tweet them and "dunk" on them about how stupid it is and they are. Then everybody piles in and retweets the "dunk", perhaps adding their own riposte. And the original poster is only a click away in the quote, so you can then go to their profile and find other things to dunk on, send mean DMs, etc.

[1] [https://slate.com/technology/2017/12/dunking-is-delicious- an...](https://slate.com/technology/2017/12/dunking-is-delicious-and-also- probably-making-twitter-terrible.html)

<comment><USER6> _the "quote tweet" encourages the behavior of "dunking"_

Quoting people to negate or mock their argument has been around since Usenet - well, much longer in literary terms but I'm citing Usenet as an example of a system that's almost real-time and where it can be a spontaneous emotionally driven decision. It may not be called 'dunking' on every platform but the phenomenon is universal.

<comment><USER9> > Quoting people to negate or mock their argument has been around since Usenet > - well, much longer in literary terms but I'm citing Usenet as an example of > a system that's almost real-time and where it can be a spontaneous > emotionally driven decision. It may not be called 'dunking' on every > platform but the phenomenon is universal.

It may have occurred occasionally on other platforms, but the difference in degree is enormous enough that it's a de facto difference in kind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The other component is that once they have the phone number, they can do anything with it they want, unless you leave the network. E.g. facebook once did the same, they required phone numbers "for two factor authentication". They promised to not use the numbers for anything else. A few years later they started sending SMS spam to users about what their friends did on facebook, and now facebook users can enter the number and the associated accounts show up... even though the number was supposed to be _only_ for two factor auth. Your only choice as individual user is to leave the platform.

<comment><USER11> > Your only choice as individual user is to leave the platform.

That's not even enough anymore. You also have to make sure that every one of your contacts do not upload their address book to conveniently find friends like you who may or may not be on the network. And that they don't tag you in images, events, etc.

You're an entry in the Facebook database, whether you have or have had an active profile or not.

<comment><USER12> This is why you should block ads and trackers even if you're not a Facebook user. I have blocked all their domains in my hosts file also.

<comment><USER13> Would you mind sharing the hosts file for blocking FB and all of their domains? I've done this too in the past, but my list seems outdated for a while now.

<comment><USER14> If you don't mind a bit more config to tune to your precise preferences, I'd highly recommend [https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Linking pseudonyms from two different networks (in this case, Twitter and the phone system) together is a classic and serious privacy leak.

It's far from clear exactly what information Twitter, in its longtime effort to combat spam, has already collected on its users. Throwing a phone number into the mix expands to range of activities that can be unambiguously tied to the same individual. Given that Twitter certainly knows IP addresses of its users, it's trivial to do things like link site visits directly to an individual answering the phone number.

Unfortunately, most people simply don't understand the implications of any of this. They don't understand what an entity, "authorized" or not can do with this kind of data. They are far too trusting of governments and other powerful entities to do the right thing. They have not been paying attention to the steady erosion of civil liberties around the world and can't conceive of, for example, ever ending up in prison for some lame post they made 10 years ago.

<comment><USER16> I agree. The first thing I thought was that someone will build a script that creates a Twitter account then simply uses Twilio's API to create a valid phone number to receive verifications.

Good luck Twitter!

<comment><USER17> It won't do. Twilio (and basically majority of other virtual number providers, except of very tiny few located in Europe) do not provide regular cell-type text messaging capabilities, but rather something PBX pros call "short codes".

No self-respecting provider out there, be it Twitter Facebook, Gmail, Yahoo, Instagram, etc. will deliver your confirmation info via a short code. so you need regular ported cell number like Verizon or Tmobile.

Twitter allows up to 5 accounts created on one cellphone number, given you give each other few days of rest and use popular VPN.

<comment><USER18> > Twilio (and basically majority of other virtual number providers, except of > very tiny few located in Europe) do not provide regular cell-type text > messaging capabilities, but rather something PBX pros call "short codes".

Twilio provides both regular phone numbers with SMS and MMS capability and short codes, the latter primarily for high-volume outbound messaging.

<comment><USER19> "Twilio provides both regular phone numbers with SMS and MMS capability and short codes, the latter primarily for high-volume outbound messaging."

Your parent is correct - you've missed each others' points.

Twilio sourced numbers cannot _receive_ SMS from other shortcodes. No exceptions. They are not "mobile" numbers.

So yes, your twilio sourced number can send and receive SMS and you can even rent a shortcode from twilio and send/receive with that. What you cannot do is get a "normal" twilio number and _receive_ shortcode messages.

For that reason, providing a twilio number to a provider like twitter or facebook will not work - they all typically send their auth messages via shortcode.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm assuming it's to try de-anonymize users and make bots less cost effective.

Nothing propagates faster than hate on Twitter and seeing as it's being actively weaponized to spread propaganda, I'm all for new measures that try slow the spread down - esp. given nothing else has worked thus far.

<comment><USER21> I wish there was a service out there that you could use your phone number and they will validate that you are real for companies and they would be separate from Twitter or any company using them so the user remains anonymous. I don't like some of the nasty stuff the net throws my way either but I do ultimately think if I had to choose a censored internet vs uncensored but full of negatives, I would chose the uncensored. The internet is one of mankind's greatest achievements. Once you start censoring it, abuses of such control ultimately will happen.

<comment><USER22> This almost sounds like something too good to be true. Big companies like Twitter and Facebook wouldn't want to use this service because they want to collect the data. This company would need to charge websites for the service, otherwise their only alternative is to sell their user's data or advertise, which leaves us right where we already are.

Of course there may be other ways for such a service to survive, but those are my initial thoughts about seeing something like this happen. I would love for something like this to exist, though

<comment><USER23> I take the opposite view...something like this seems rather viable as a business that companies would gladly pay money for but it also basically sounds like another Equifax/Experian/Transunion fiasco waiting to happen. The only logical thing I can thing of is a consortium of the big telcos creating a shared database and service that companies could tap into.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I had this problem when creating a new Twitter account last month. Within minutes after setting up an account via iOS app, was locked out for "suspicious behavior". Didn't even tweet once. Residential IP. They wanted me to add a phone number.

I went to the help section and wrote a pissed off message to customer support...if they wanted my phone # they should have asked for it instead of accusing me. Shortly after, my account started working again.

For anyone else with this issue, try: [https://help.twitter.com/forms/signin](https://help.twitter.com/forms/signin)

<comment><USER25> I had the same thing happen. During signup it asked for my phone number but said it was optional. A couple of minutes after I created my account, it was locked and they said it required a phone number to prove I wasn't a bot. I just closed out my account because I only planned to use it to follow some people anyway.

<comment><USER26> The exact same thing happened to me a few months ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The article states and asks:

> I had a new IP

> I had a newly installed operating system and browser.

> What exactly about my behavior is unusual?

It's not that this behavior is unusual (though, it is), it's that this behavior looks exactly like a bot. It's sad, but this is the state of the world now. If you're a big actor like Twitter, you end up blocking anything that looks like a bot, with an escape hatch a user can't do. Phone numbers are the an option for that, and it not doubt helps block other cases Twitter wants to block as well.

<comment> munk-a Right now that may be the case but, I'm curious if this might cause some small nation with an international code to succumb to the massive amounts of money spammers will start offering for large banks of phone numbers... Looking at you British India Ocean Territories...

<comment><USER28> Once they noticed, they'd probably disallow that country code for verification. And if legitimate users from that country started complaining, I feel like "maybe you should ask your government to stop selling you out" would be a perfectly reasonable response.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's understandable they might require a phone number to keep down spam.

It's less understandable they'd _lie_ to new users on the reasons their account was blocked. We can't expect even the smallest scraps of honesty from corporations anymore.

<comment><USER30> It is understandable why they'd lie. If the error message was something like, "your request was blocked because you've included HTTP headers in the order [x-foo, x-bar], which is the header ordering in 99.9% of spam tweets", they would just change their agent's header order instead of no longer spending spam.

I am not sure people realize what a high percentage of users of "free" services are spam bots of some sort. Sit around in the average Twitch channel and you'll see a flood of spam from similarly-named accounts every so often. They get around the filters because Twitch tells you why you're filtered. "This room is in followers only mode", so they follow the stream they want to spam a few days/weeks in advance. "This word is not allowed by the spam filters", so they change one letter and continue spamming that word. Etc., etc.

It sucks for normal users caught up in spam filters, but it's an enormous problem that there is no easy solution to.

<comment><USER29> You misunderstand - not divulging what triggered the suspicion isn't lying. Claiming a phone number is required due to suspicious activity, when in fact it is required of almost all new accounts, _is_.

<comment><USER10> Another covert spam fighting way is when one of the platforms require you to set up a phone number "for two factor authentication", basically not letting you to use their service unless you actually provide the number. There are multiple platforms framing the issue in this way.

Facebook once required that you set up 2 factor authentication and they _promised_ that the phone number won't be used for anything else. Few years later, they started spamming users at those phone numbers with notifications about what their friends did. And since this year, those numbers can be used to search for users on the platform.

The big issue with giving those platforms your data is that you hand over control. Even if they _promise_ you something.

<comment><USER31> > And since this year, those numbers can be used to search for users on the > platform.

And someone really should go after them for it. Last month an abuser from a decade ago found me on facebook and messaged me out of nowhere. Upside is i was able to tell him off, but I know many other people would have a far more.. trying encounters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I don't use Twitter much, but every time I click on a Twitter link from my Android phone...it pops an error page.

The page says either something about an error, or that I'm rate limited. A page refresh usually then works fine and displays the page.

Is this related to similar attempts to block bots/spammers? Or maybe just something wrong on my end?

<comment><USER33> Are you trying to do so from Firefox / a reddit app? This is fairly normal and the general conspiracy theory is that it's an erroneous error to get you to download the Twitter app once and for all.

<comment><USER32> Stock chrome on an Android phone. Most often from a Twitter link on HN. I'd say I get an error 90+% on the first try, and the refresh usually works the first time... occasionally, I need to do two.

Bone stock phone, nothing notable about it or the browser. Doesn't happen on my Windows or Linux desktops.

<comment><USER34> Why would you run stock chrome on android? Use a privacy respecting browser like firefox or Brave and install an ad-blocker like Ublock before browsing the web.

Chrome does not respect user privacy and is designed to not support add-ons as it will hurt Google's core advertising business.

<comment><USER35> ^This guy privacies. Let me add the suggestion of CanvasBlocker, since browser fingerprinting is a thing that _all_ of the kids are doing, nowadays.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> They also aren't allowing "throwaway" VoIP numbers, so you can't even mask your main phone number - I tried signing up with both a Twilio number and a TextNow number and both failed with a "This number is not supported" error. I ended up opening a support ticket and they allowed me to bypass that requirement only after I explained that I don't have a traditional phone number.

<comment><USER37> Did they require any more PII to do it over the phone?

<comment><USER36> No, I just had to open a support ticket. That said, it definitely added significant friction to signing up, and took two days for the ticket to be approved.

<comment><USER38> Unlike some other popular sites, at least it's _possible_ for a regular user to open a support ticket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> We're going this way as well (requiring & verifying phone numbers, not locking accounts).

We don't have a problem with bots, but users in the "not so tech savvy" segment tend to switch/discard/forget their email address. Rather than try to recover their account with us, this group will subsequently just create a new one, and then wonder & complain that their profiles/settings/content/histories aren't carried over. We fix them up after an identity check. It's both a support burden and a negative user experience.

Turns out that phone numbers, whilst also subject to flux, have better long- term congruence to identity, and thereby help us to detect account duplication and manage it.

People also make fewer errors in entering their phone number.

It irks me that public sentiment could be normalized against supplying a phone number due to abuse by the global-scale consumer surveillance utilities, because those of us running trustworthy businesses can use it to legitimately provide a better user experience.

<comment><USER40> _> Turns out that phone numbers, whilst also subject to flux, have better long-term congruence to identity_

Exactly why using verified phone numbers endangers a user's data. A phone number is much closer to a their true identity than an email address, exposing disparate system data to be cross-referenced by breaches and malicious actors.

For this very reason it's illegal in Australia to use a person's government uuid (Tax File Number) as a username.

I'm sure the unwashed masses don't care right now, but the recent kerfuffle over Facebook's sneaky 2FA switcheroo and other privacy sins shows that they might care after enough scandals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Something like this happened to me. It certainly prompted me to look for alternatives (e.g., Mastodon).

You can start small: sign into Twitter every other month. IIRC, this will decrease the number of active users they report to investors.

<comment><USER42> I can't get the article to load (hugged to death?), but I'd imagine the reason that they are finally moving on this is due to combat harassment.

I can't blame Twitter for adding friction to its sign up process because of others abusing the platform.

<comment><USER43> I could blame them, but considering everything else wrong with Twitter there is no point. Avoiding Twitter is easy and you lose very little.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> My wife and I cancelled our phone services a while back to save money since we rarely if ever have to call anyone and just use messaging to keep in touch with each other and friends.

What are people like us supposed to do?

I do have a Google voice number, but I noticed one or two places recently that won't accept that anymore.

<comment><USER45> > I do have a Google voice number, but I noticed one or two places recently > that won't accept that anymore.

Mind sharing where? I've use my Google Voice number exclusively for 6 or 7 years now. Can't say I've ever ran into such a thing.

<comment><USER46> Sites that require phone number verification often block numbers allocated for VoIP services for fear of spammers. YMMV if you've tethered your GV number to a physical device at some point.

I've run into this semi-frequently over the years, and it's always extremely frustrating when it happens, but somehow I can't remember exactly where either.

Old references online point to Facebook, Line, and Snapchat: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Googlevoice/comments/3uv3mt/google_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Googlevoice/comments/3uv3mt/google_voice_number_invalid_on_facebook/)

<comment><USER47> I can back this claim up. I was unable to verify my Citi credit card over the phone using my Google Voice number, they insisted on a non-VoIP number which ultimately delayed the verification process by a week.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> This is the new norm... expect all services to require phone numbers due to spam and propaganda.

<comment><USER49> I have a really split opinion about this. On the one hand I've seen a lot of really hateful stuff lobbed around on sites like Twitter, and I suspect that linking accounts to phone numbers would dramatically reduce that. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want Twitter (et. al.) knowing my phone number.

<comment><USER50> I agree. I would rather pay them some fee. But they don't seem to want to monetize their service via user fees.

<comment><USER51> Seems like it would make a lot of sense for them to offer both options; either would discourage bots, and you'd give people the choice whether to go the free route or the privacy-conscious route

<comment><USER52> Surely a phone number is no more identifying than a credit card payment in the age of KYC.

And accepting a cryptocurrency would probably have little impact on all the lucrative scams that get spammed around Twitter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> There may be negatives to this, but if you listen to any recent talks with Jack Dorsey, he is genuinely concerned about combating the amount of fake accounts on Twitter. Of course, it's both a moral issue and a business issue but that's beyond the point. If giving my phone number to Twitter means it can have an ever so slight positive impact on the amount of trolls and fake accounts on Twitter, then it's a good thing to me...

However, we have seen with Facebook that giving your phone number doesn't necessarily work in combating trolls, so I'd be interested in how exactly they will use it.

</comment><comment><USER54> The link seems down: [http://archive.is/tj3X7](http://archive.is/tj3X7)

</comment><comment><USER55> Handy tip: buy the cheapest pre-charged SIM and use it for this kind of verifications.

<comment><USER56> That still allows geolocation. But one can lease hosted SIMs. Actual SIMs in server farms. So they're "real" mobile numbers. Just not located where you are.

<comment><USER57> >That still allows geolocation.

I doubt twitter is going to get your cell tower location just from your phone number. Sure, the cell provider has it and is probably keeping it around, but unless you attract significant attention to yourself (eg. bomb threat), it's not going to be disclosed. If you're really paranoid you can use it a few blocks away from your usual location.

<comment><USER58> Um wasn't there a case where one of the big 3 providers in US was selling real time location data?

<comment><USER57> The ToS of those providers prohibit the use of that except with explicit consent. I'm aware that the providers do little verification that consent was given, but I'm doubt that established companies such as facebook or twitter are going to risk a PR fiasco to get better anti-fraud numbers.

<comment><USER34> Yeah...in theory. They'll sell the data until it becomes a big news item

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/t-mobile- sprint-...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/t-mobile-sprint-and- att-still-selling-your-location-data-report-says/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Its a bit weird complaining about a platform asking for your phone number when in the past tweeter worked only via sms. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter#Format](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter#Format) Lucky those that created their accounts early on. Forcing us to put more data then what is needed should be banned from any social platform. I really don't get any of this eager race to collect all personal data possible. Google is already on to us with Chrome and Android. If people were really afraid of this they wouldn't even buy phones, do phone calls (from land line) or even send a personal registered mail (it could be violated). Hell, trust no one with your secrets. Don't even write it in a diary, someone may reconstruct it even after you burn it to ashes (I see a lot of CSI). Still good to be updated on this.

</comment><comment><USER60> They are requiring a mobile phone number for some time now even when not on VPN, TOR and alike.

This is very worrying that more and more services are requiring a mobile number, especially for services that are used with business background. That means, in your business you need to have a business mobile. You need to track who registered with what phone number and so on. Email accounts are much easier to manage. But mobile numbers is a big problem, especially when employees leave and mobiles get deactivated.

</comment><comment><USER61> To add insult to injury, not only do they lock your account almost immediately after you've created it without a phone number - unless you managed to change its settings to not spam your email address you will now be locked out of changing the setting and they will send you spam nearly every day.

Attempting to stop the spam through the in-email link just brings you back to the "locked account give us a phone number" flow.

Twitter is trash.

</comment><comment><USER62> Anything tied to a phone number is inherently insecure, these things are becoming like SSNs but even more problematic. I haven't had a true phone number in a couple years, but I guess if I ever need to create a new twitter account I will need to get one?

</comment><comment><USER63> Here is a Google research paper on how adding the phone number verification will affect the cost of bot user account on black markets:

static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/43134.pdf

<comment><USER64> What it doesn't include: The cost of the users you will lose because you have a dog shit user experience blocking people before they even get to sample your service.

<comment><USER63> An excellent point. Do you know any studies that would a price tag on this?

<comment><USER64> You can't put a price on it. Imagine, for example, if when Donald Trump was signing up for Twitter, he got irked off and decided to use a different platform instead. That's potentially 60M people using your competitor. Poor user experience can decide the entire success or failure of your service or product.

People generally have too much tolerance because they've been programmed to accept bad user experience as normal. Services which require you to confirm an email are the typical example.

Imagine a door salesman came to your door, pitched you a product, but before you discussed any price or subscription, they ask "please can you go and get a shovel while I take a dump on your doorstep?" Well, that's the kind of experience people get online.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> When I signed up for Twitter it was so I could post short messages from my phone that hopefully my friends and family would see and perhaps some small number of other, random users. You're phone was your ID essentially.

I guess we've come full circle.

</comment><comment><USER66> I once signed up for an account and didn't give a phone number. Everything was fine and I filled out my profile. Later that day my account was restricted for "suspicious activity" ( I hadn't done anything except fill in the bio ) and the only way to reinstate it was to verify my account with a phone number.

Now, I am not saying it was a nefarious way to get my phone number. It's more likely a side effect of processes designed over time by many people.

But if I were trying to sneakily require someone to give me a phone number without explicitly saying so, that is how I would do it.

</comment><comment><USER67> So what your saying is that after doing so much damage to the USA democracy, they are using a poor form of 2 factor authentication? I'm not impressed.

</comment><comment><USER68> I don't like this for today's Twitter, but it _is_ mildly interesting to consider that once upon a time Twitter's main ui was SMS based.

</comment><comment><USER69> I'm seeing conspicuous parallels with YikYak. YikYak was facing an abusive userbase that proved difficult to moderate or restrain. Then they introduced the phone number requirement which did seem to reduce abuse. But of course YikYak died not so long after.

Granted, Twitter is in a very different position than YikYak. Curbing user growth in order to afford a better experience for the existing users is likely a good tradeoff.

</comment><comment><USER70> > Twitter forces all new users to enter a valid phone number

Fuck. That.

</comment><comment><USER71> Perhaps Twitter is following Facebook which has been deceptive harvesting phone numbers under the guise of "security" for years now. [https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/27/yes-facebook-is-using- your...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/27/yes-facebook-is-using-your-2fa- phone-number-to-target-you-with-ads/)

</comment><comment><USER72> Your phone nummer is global unique id of your person. Even more as many nations require you register the phone number with personal informations.

</comment><comment><USER73> This doesn't really solve the problem. But it does make it a pain in the butt for me to just create an anonymous account to bitch about random stuff on, which I've tried over TOR before and they don't make it easy. If I am highly motivated to create fake account, I'll create a fake account through a burner or more some service like twilio.

</comment><comment><USER74> It also happened to me. Signed up using an Outlook webmail account, residential IP, Firefox with Incognito Mode and Ghostery.

Once your account is disabled, the ability to delete (oops, I meant deactivate) your account is gone. I emailed support to delete my account since I am now unable to do so, and instead they re-enabled the account.

<comment><USER75> You've done what you can to terminate the business relationship. Any further contact from them is CAN-SPAM territory and you should get a lawyer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Created a new account yesterday (from Australia) and had the option for either email or phone number (went with email). Haven't since been asked for a phone number. Disclosure (haven't read the article, just responding to the title 'Twitter forces all new users to enter a valid phone number')

<comment><USER77> You'll probably be locked out shortly if you haven't yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Am I the only person here who sees it as a problem since I _don 't have_ a phone number?

<comment><USER79> I actually had to borrow a phone number to create an account and use Twitter in an emergency, since it was the only channel where a service provider would respond to messages. The whole situation was mind boggling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> You also can't reuse the phone number across different accounts, so I am locked out of about ten of my usernames (locked for "suspicious activity" even though they have been idle for a year or more) unless I give Burner or someone else a ton of money. It sucks.

</comment><comment><USER81> When they first started, tweets were sent from your own phone as an SMS, weren't they?

<comment><USER82> Yup. Twttr was basically SMS only.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Good, it's a terrible service so I support any terrible practices they choose to support in speeding towards their demise. It's always been just a platform for the self entitled (verified profiles) to spread their gospel to the masses.

</comment><comment><USER84> Going by the number of Spam SMSs I get, I know that my mobile number is already out there in hundreds of databases.

I don't get this "I won't give my number" thing.

Your number is already out there and is being sold as part of a list all the time.

<comment><USER85> I know for a fact some people had the wherewithal to not disclose their phone number to everyone who asked and therefore do not have your particular breed of problems. Your outright dismissal of their right to privacy is therefore tenuous at best, as it's founded on a premise that is untrue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> [https://smsprivacy.org/](https://smsprivacy.org/)

</comment><comment><USER87> This is great news, I've been waiting for an alternative to Twitter to take over its dominance.

</comment><comment><USER88> I logged on twitter 3 days ago, I almost never log in, it seems my account was disabled.

</comment><comment><USER89> Is it just me or is adding a phone number required to enable other 2FA methods like U2F?

</comment><comment><USER90> Why the hell aren't we migrating to the Fediverse (aka Mastodon) _en masse_ ?

</comment><comment><USER91> Twitter has done this for years.

</comment><comment><USER92> It should say... mobile phone as I'm sure this won't work with my landline.

</comment><comment><USER93> Probably part of their strategy to abandon the web and move back to their SMS roots.

</comment><comment><USER94> Good, they should push this to all old account retroactively as well.

</comment><comment><USER95> Is there any other way to do long-term verification?

</comment><comment><USER96> I guess the price of old accounts is going up a bit.

</comment><comment><USER97> Twitter should have imploded years ago. No one seems to remember that Donald Trump saved Twitter. It was for sale and couldn't find a buyer, no one wanted the CEO position so they bribed the old CEO to step back in, losing TONS of money. Then the at time presidential candidate used Twitter to market his campaign. It's harmful social commentary that forces people/media/influences/etc to use catchy one-liners to spike retweets. People are mad that the media and journalist are overly sensationalizing but Twitter users just feed the machine.

<comment><USER98> It's true that in late 2016, Twitter was reported to be potentially bid on and purchased by companies like Google and Salesforce [0]. Though looking at its stock price history, it remained around its end-of-2016 price, until 2018 when it finally showed a profit in late 2017 [1]. In that time, according to that Recode article, its user count only increased by 3% from 2017 to 2018, and revenue only increased by 12%, comparing 2018Q1 to 2016Q1 (Facebook's revenue went up 122% in that period). As a frequent Twitter user for the past decade, my impression is that maybe Trump's election made Twitter more of an "official" place for "important" things. But that added prestige also resulted in far more scrutiny that Twitter had ever had regarding bots and abusive behavior, necessitating them to have actual measures and policies (and, presumably, more staff dedicated towards that).

I don't think it's definitive to say that Trump directly saved Twitter, though. Twitter was already on a trajectory to be the place for breaking news. Whereas Facebook's attempt at such as basically imploded. But maybe Trump's habit of using Twitter so prominently basically cemented Twitter as a habit for many other users, especially those in the media.

0: [https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/23/twitter-may-receive- formal-b...](https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/23/twitter-may-receive-formal-bid- shortly-suitors-said-to-include-salesforce-and-google.html)

1: [https://www.recode.net/2018/6/13/17455464/twitter-jack- dorse...](https://www.recode.net/2018/6/13/17455464/twitter-jack-dorsey-stock- growth-explained-profitability)

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> It's worse in FB.

"We detected suspicious behaviour in your account. Please send a copy of your ID to prove your identity. We promise we'll delete the image of your ID within 30 days." [0]

Yeah, right! They'll delete the image, but will still have the data...

So now I have a FB account I would like to delete, but cannot, because I cannot log into it. Should I just believe in GDPR, unblock my account and request for total deletion of data about me?

[0] Obviously not a citation. Just paraphrasing

</comment><comment><USER100> smsprivacy.org - it's not cheap but if you need it, it's working great.

</comment><comment><USER101> Just a reminder that tech companies will do anything to make more certain predictions for the sake of an ever expanding circle of clients:

[https://theintercept.com/2019/02/02/shoshana-zuboff-age- of-s...](https://theintercept.com/2019/02/02/shoshana-zuboff-age-of- surveillance-capitalism/)

</comment><comment><USER102> Should be subtitled "Twitter prepares to lose more than half of its users"...

</comment><comment><USER103> Could it be argued that this is in contravention of the GDPR? Can Twitter demonstrate that it's necessary for them too have a phone number to provide their service?

</comment><comment><USER104> Le sigh.

This sort of thing is why I made phitbone.com

</comment><comment><USER105> Requiring a phone number causes problems and, depending on the situation, is easily bypassed by a determined bot author. [see other comments in this thread] It is also ineffective at preventing people from posting rude, misguided, or hateful comments (people post terrible crap under their own name on Twitter/etc all the time).

Bad actors causing problems on a globally-accessible platform is not a new problem. Multiplayer games from MUDs to the modern MMORPG have several decades of experience with the problem[1]. Most attempts at fixing the problem don't work, because they are don't _guarantee_ the bad actor has to pay what they _perceive_ to be a large cost. Unless the incentives are fixed, bad actors will continue to be a problem.

(I'm summarizing; for as much better explanation, see Raph Koster's talk[1])

Cost does _not_ mean money or anything that is widely available (like a phone number). Credit card numbers are trivial to change, and phone numbers are cheap. The cost to the potential bad actor has to be something they _don 't want_ to pay. In an MMORPG, deleting the high-level character that someone spent 20+ hours leveling up hurts a _lot_ more than having to provide a (potentially new) phone or credit card number.

To make a serious punishment like character deletion legitimate, there needs to be some sort of publicly visible _due process of law_ involved before it can be used. That means being informed of the specific accusations instead of Google-style banning for unspecified TOS violations. That means a legitimate appeals process that doesn't simply send appeals to /dev/null or handed to the accuser to judge if the appeal is legitimate (like YouTube's content_id (not DMCA) takedowns).

How could this work on something like Twitter? Banning a troll only forces them to make a new account (a minor expense). Hiding all of their comments for a while (or eventually deleting them if the bad behavior continues) denies the troll the fruits of their misbehavior.

Of course, bots and bad actors is only part of the reason Twitter wants a phone number. Without a Ulysses pact[2] binding their future behavior, Twitter is free to continue acting as a surveillance capitalist[3].

[1] [https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In- What-A...](https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024060/Still-Logged-In-What-AR) (everybody developing anything involved (directly or indirectly) with the internet should watch this talk)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlN6wjeCJYk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlN6wjeCJYk) ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_pact) )

[3] [http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q- and...](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and-a-the- age-of-surveillance-capital.html)

</comment><comment><USER106> Is that even GDPR-compliant?

<comment><USER107> Twitter is a US corporation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> I'm sure it's not all, but just some, depending on your IP address and some other factors.

</comment><comment><USER109> I think a better solution is :

When user post a tweet.

She/He can choose whether this post require only authorized user can reply/retweet

</comment><comment><USER110> Lol don't use Twitter

</comment><comment><USER111> It was only months ago that Lime and Bird were accused of racism and other discriminatory behavior due to the requirement that users have mobile phones to unlock the scooters. It was enough for them to develop cash-based access systems. Why is it acceptable for Twitter? Should I not be allowed to sign up on a public terminal and tweet without a mobile phone?

<comment><USER112> This is what I don't get. Twitter is a company, a social network which has its own internal rules.

When you sign up, you accept the terms & conditions, now which requires that you have a valid phone number to use the platform. If this is not convenient for you, why should Twitter change? Why not just move on to other services?

To me it seems like that people want to be part of the "community" and sign up on the platform, but still dictate their own rules. Why would Twitter consider such users?

<comment><USER111> That's essentially the question I'm asking. The outrage seems arbitrary. Is it just that Twitter has been around for over a decade and Lime, e.g., is new?

It seems reasonable to me that Twitter can require a phone. Why doesn't that extend to other entities?</comment></comment></comment>


Flash Exploit Shows the Dark Side of Web 2.0  - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2008/05/28/flash-exploit-shows-the-dark-side-of-web-20/ <comment><USER2> The real beef here is:

<http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1189>

and the update

<http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1198>

The submitted article is just a "we're doomed" post.

What I find bizarre about some of these exploits is the amount of effort these people go to in order to _steal World of Warcraft passwords_. I mean, seriously. Wouldn't you think they'd go after something a little more valuable? "I risked being hunted down by Interpol, but the level 70 paladin was totally worth it".

EDIT: I'm aware that they're probably hijacking accounts so they can run bots/goldfarmers on those accounts without paying for them. (or having their credit cards blacklisted) That doesn't really make it any less bizarre or amazing to me.</comment>


Ask HN: Anybody Here Gone Through UC Berkeley Coding Boot Camp? - <AUTHOR> I'm seriously considering joining this program.
Before doing so, however, I thought it would be wise to get feedback from previous cohorts. This has proven to be more of a challenge than expected, and the school told me they cannot provide any names due to privacy reasons. This seems like a red flag.
Has anyone here gone through this program? I'd appreciate any feedback and can offer a coffee if you would be willing to share! <comment><USER2> Full Disclosure, I am a coding bootcamp Campus Director.

I can't speak for the UC Berkeley program, but we do have another Trilogy Education Services program run through the University of Texas here in Houston. I believe the program (at least, the web dev one) is identical.

I've met with several students of these Trilogy courses and attended their first graduation event here. By all accounts, the program is solid. However, I would always recommend getting specific info on who would be teaching your cohort since that is the most important point to consider for any course.

I would suggest going on LinkedIn and doing a search for people who have done the course. Most of these people will also have public portfolios or repos that should include some contact info. Here are a bunch of them [https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/index/?keywords=berk...](https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/index/?keywords=berkeley%20coding%20boot%20camp&origin=AUTO_COMPLETE)</comment>


Nokia appoints Stephen Elop (President of Microsoft MBD) to President and CEO - <AUTHOR> http://www.nokia.com/press/press-releases/showpressrelease?newsid=1443731

<comment><USER2> NOOOOOooooo... I actually knew Olilla (we went to sister schools those a few decades apart, and listen to some presentation he gave).

And I thought that Nokia was on the right foot finally. They seemed to have a coherent plan and vision. From the mess they were in they've slowly tried to push themselves out: buying Qt was a great move, imho, and focusing on the Meego (for the smartphone market) and Symbian (for the cheap, non smartphone) seem pretty good. They just had to wait a bit and I think they would have pulled through. :(

Now I feel they are back on square one: running around like headless chicken looking for a solution. They should have given their current solution a real chance. Apple didn't turn into what it was today in a month or a year. It took a lot of pain, cutting products, focusing, developing a new OS... I'd say it took probably around 3--4 years before Apple was a healthy company again.

Changing your CEO now seems pure panic and not a logical/reasoned response. Especially getting someone from outside the company??? Are they basically asking for the guy to come and throw what all the progress they had made on their new Meego/Symbian path?

Argh... bad move... bad move... I am getting really worried for Nokia... and I liked them back in the days for their phones.

<comment><USER3> It sure doesn't feel like they have a coherent plan. They have two new OS (Meego and Symbian^3), they say "QT everywhere" but most of their apps don't run on Symbian and Meego/Maemo at the same time.

They don't provide much support for the n900 users which was supposed to be a developer's phone but said "Maemo is dead, we're moving on to Meego". Some of those users are moving away to Android and it won't be easy to win them back.

Nokia can't wait an extra 3-4 years, they've already lost 2-3 years.

<comment><USER2> I think the coherent plan is simply: Meego+Qt for the smartphone, Symbian+Qt for the lower end.

Transitions are hard though, so I am not surprised they are still in the middle of it. Such big changes take time.

But from all I've heard the Qt improvements they made and the IDE are very good and welcome. And the hardest choice---to drop Symbian for Meego to compete with other smartphones---has already been taken.

I don't think they'll be ready tomorrow, but I think with this plan they would have been ready in 2 years. Is that too much? Sure, but that's the panic talking: they've got a plan, they are in the middle of it, if they drop it and try something else... and maybe drop it again and try something yet again... and so on, they'll go nowhere.

As another example take Microsoft. They came up with Windows Phone 6.5, the two "trendy" phones that were discountinued in a couple of weeks, while they were working on Zune and Windows Phone 7. They kept moving from one to the other, always making great speeches of how they made this huge change and it will be great from here onwards. But it wasn't until recently that it felt like they had a coherent strategy.

Samsung is another company that seems to be running around like a headless chicken. (Though better than Motorola that seems to have thrown down the towel, and tried to squeeze as much value as they can from their brand until they become a anonymous Android clone, with nothing to make them unique.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nokia's problem is that they don't understand: \- Developer platforms \- User experience \- Levers to create an app ecosystem

Picking the guy who ran MSFT's business prodcuts division might help them compete with RIM in the enterprise, but it doesn't help them: \- Sort out the Meego/Symbian mess, much less make it competitive with iOS/Xcode or Android

\- Build the next-gen OS into something slick and sexy, instead of S60 reskinned time and time again

\- Develop the kinds of tools, infrastructure and incentive Nokia needs to win developers.

All in all, I'm sure Stephen is a super smart guy, but he's not proven to have the domain expertise to solve Nokia's most pressing problems... which suggests that Nokia doesn't fully understand what their deepest problems are, meaning they really are finished.

<comment><USER5> What do you mean they don't understand developer platforms and UI. And what is a lever to create an app ecosystem anyway?

"Build the next-gen OS into something slick and sexy, instead of S60 reskinned time and time again" They are supposedly doing this with MeeGo and Symbian^3/4.

"- Develop the kinds of tools, infrastructure and incentive Nokia needs to win developers." They are doing this with the Nokia Qt SDK and Ovi store. Both have issues, but they're heading in the right direction I reckon. They should work on the incentives.

<comment><USER4> UI: MeeGo is their first UI that doesn't have massive echo's of Symbian in it... and while it looks clean-ish, it's not necessarily any improvement over Android, which already has years of improvements, and 3rd party UI goodness (i.e. HTC Sense) built atop it.

Developer platforms: Nokia's owned QT for a while... what did they do? Nothing. Nokia had the WebKit WebRunTime years ago... what came of that? Nothing. Nokia actually enforced arcane third-party code signing/testing for apps on Symbian... who builds a developer platform and thinks that's a reasonable idea?

Ovi Store: Whereas RIM also does carrier-integrated billing for BlackBerry App World, RIM provides the developer with a consistent 70/30 split on app sales, and consistent payment intervals. With Nokia? Your split varies WILDLY from operator to operator, potentially being 35% of gross app price or lower on some operators, and you get paid depending on when those operators decide to remit payment. So, even with the most carrier relationships on earth, Nokia can't even do a decent job getting developers paid.

So, Nokia hasn't got an especially sexy UI w/ Meego, they've not got a great developer tools story (indeed with WRT and QT they have a history of screwing up even when they have a technology advantage), and they understand so little of the app developer needs that they can't even build a billing solution that competes with what RIM have built with App World.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Stephen Elop is a smart guy - really down-to-earth and easy to talk to; of the few MS execs I've actually met, he was definitely the most personable. Definitely sad to see him go.

<comment><USER7> Why is he "going" from MS and not "coming" to Nokia? Do you believe he wont be as good exec for Nokia as he was for MS?

<comment><USER8> It is "going" from Paul Betts' perspective - he works at Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> [http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/12/palms-third- act.html#commen...](http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/12/palms-third- act.html#comment-2049747)

Only 3 OS platforms have survived in PC world. Windows (C#), Mac OS (Objective-C) and Linux (Java). IMHO in mobile space there is also space for 3 OS platforms only.

As a developer I am curious to learn what main development language Nokia has chosen for their platform. Symbian has lame C++ version and crappy IDE. I guess that Meego thing uses C++, right?

BTW that CEO replacement reminds me situation with coach search for Polish football team. We had Dutch for two years. Nothing changed. Players were the same, one naturalized Brazilian wasn't enough.

I'm afraid that little Finland has no enough talented developers to build something competitive to software written by world best developers gathered in SF area and Seattle. And it is so late.

There are rumors that many parts of Symbian code are highly unmaintainable, that they preferred cheap programmers over talented. If these rumors are true then Nokia is really doomed in smartphone market. And they deserve this.

</comment><comment><USER10> Interesting that they didn't pick a Finn this time. I heard from a friend there that they were actively trying to recruit to build a succession pipeline of Finns.

If you don't know him, here's a video of Elop speaking at Web 2.0 Expo: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHKMUHvb2iE>.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't know if an American guy is the right person for Nokia. Don't get me wrong I don't have anything against Americans, but Nokia it a Finnish company and should act like this. Probably they didn't find an expierenced guy from Finnland - good CEOs a very seldom. I hope they don't try to be like Apple - they should concentrate on their strength. They are building the best hardware, imo, and with Meego the have a great software-platform.

<comment><USER12> He's from Canada.

[http://conversations.nokia.com/2010/09/10/stephen-elop-to- jo...](http://conversations.nokia.com/2010/09/10/stephen-elop-to-join-nokia- as-president-and-ceo/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hope this helps Nokia renew their smart phones and their user experience...

Just yesterday I used the Ovi store to install Mail for Exchange to a E71, an that was a truly horrible experience; a reminder of how out-dated the Nokia services are. Doesn't help if the HW is top-notch.

<comment><USER5> What was so horrible about it? "Horrible, awful and terrible" are starting to become HN memes for "it wasn't perfect".

The worst I had was when it wouldn't accept my CC. That was annoying, but buying & installing is pretty simple actually.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with your statement about the HN meme. Nowadays, people don't describe in detail or give supportive arguments and examples to show why a product or service is so "horrible". It almost looks like these people just want to bash a company/product without any clear reason. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Great, just what a failing company needs. An ambitious, political manager from another failing company. This is definitely going to end well. NOT.</comment>


Oh My Fish Undergoing a DMCA Takedown - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish <comment><USER2> Here's the notice: [https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2016-02-04-Wahoo-...](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2016-02-04-Wahoo-2.md).

Also, basically the same thing happened 5 months ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10271304](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10271304)</comment>


Zero Latency, the Future of Immersive Gaming - <AUTHOR> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/08/this-is-zero-latency-the-future-of-immersive-gaming/ <comment><USER2> Guys, please don't go to Zero Latency. When I was in Melbourne I coughed up the 80 bucks and went, and it was truly a horrendous experience. They had the worst tracking I've ever seen in VR. The gun's rotation was off by 40 degrees, even after switching it out and resetting it. There was constant stuttering, and severe frame drops were the norm, not the exception. And to top it off the game itself had crap graphics, embarrassingly bad AI, and glitched like crazy.

At a VR meetup I talked to several people who had went, and not a single person had a good experience. I am amazed and baffled by all the good press they're getting.

And for context I've tried the Rift DK2, the Gear VR IE, and the HTC Vive.

<comment><USER3> That's genuinely interesting to hear, because I had such a good experience -- I'm the guy that wrote the story, by the way. It definitely has bad graphics, but I thought the head and gun tracking was _excellent_. It's the best I've ever tried, and I've used DK2, Vive, Playstation VR and the newest Gear VR (with a Note 5).

I reckon they must have been having some software issues on the day, because that's extremely different to my experience. If I was running that I would have given you a refund.

<comment><USER2> Wow, so weird to hear you actually had a good experience. You mean to say that the rifle's orientation in game matched its orientation IRL (i.e. you could hold it like a real rifle and not hipfire it with the laser)? What about the frame rate drops? IIRC they were constant and impossible to ignore.

I don't mean to contest your experience, I believe you of course, I'm just shocked to hear someone actually enjoyed themselves at Zero Latency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Advertisement?

Apparently it's okay to call low latency "Zero Latency", just use title case and fire at will.

Zero Latency is mentioned only 35 times in the article.

Tickets on sale now for 88 MPH.

<comment><USER5> And it's "Powered by Alienware", which isn't even made of real aliens!

Yes, of course you can call anything any name, unless it infringes trademark because someone else in your field thought of it first.

Instead of being an ad for ZL, I think the repetition is more likely to increase Gizmodo's page rank for this article.

<comment><USER6> "Alienware" isn't misleading, because nobody sane would think it was genuine alien technology. When I saw "Zero Latency" I was briefly very excited because I thought it actually meant "zero latency". Maybe they had tapped directly into the brain to get access to eye/muscle movement signals before normal sensors could, early enough to compensate for the unavoidable latency of rendering and simulation. This would be a real breakthrough in man-machine interfaces, and it could be fairly described as "zero latency" because it really could be zero as measured with respect to conventional sensors.

But no, it's just typical marketing lies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd love to hear from an individual (not a magazine or a writer who reps a magazine) who has tried all 3 vr headsets coming out soon (the Rift, the Sony and the HTC).

Is there a clear and obvious winner? Do you think any of them truly live up to the hype?

<comment><USER8> Content dev. here, with no connection to any particular platform. Haven't demo'd PSVR, but based on its wand-style controller I'm comfortable saying that the Rift + Touch is the best, and for reasons that the other platforms may have a very difficult time competing against.

As far as resolution, tracking, field of view, and general comfort go, the Rift CV1 and the Vive are closely matched, incredibly good, and - if you can believe this - underhyped. Though PSVR is said to be not _quite_ as good, the technical bar is so high that Sony can come in slightly under and still deliver an awesomely good experience, and probably a more popular one once you factor in value for money.

That said, I still think Oculus has a fundamental advantage due to the approach they've taken with Touch. Unlike the wand-style controllers used by HTC and Sony, Touch allows you to point and grab, which turns out to have a major effect on the sense of Presence, as well as level of dexterity you can bring to your interactions with the environment. It also reflects what your hands are actually doing in social apps, which has value that becomes immediately clear once you're in one.

Indeed, the combination of social + the manipulation of near-field objects is (at least to my mind) the very core of VR. This wasn't something I'd anticipated, but having experienced it, I cannot imagine developing content that didn't put their combination at the center of the experience, since doing so would put you at a serious competitive disadvantage to people who did see them as fundamental, and had worked from there.

I should say that I've seen some very clever interaction strategies in the Vive that do a good job in working around this limit, but there's no denying that they're making virtues of necessity. Ultimately, the Touch gives developers far more to work with, and I think that's going to be the decisive feature, especially now that the Rift also supports Vive-style room-scale tracking. Once devs. start to really understand and master the potential of Touch + social, I suspect the most engaging content ideas will gravitate to the Rift. As hardware fades into the background and content comes to the foreground, I suspect this advantage will pull the entire Oculus platform ahead.

Of course, it may be possible for Sony, HTC, and any other entrants to abandon wands and mimic the Touch's design in much the same way that traditional game controllers have all converged on the same basic form. If this happens, all bets are off. But until it does, I'd put my money on Oculus.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Saw this tried on Good Game, a gaming show on Australian TV so looked it up.

It looked a bit tame, but I wanted to submit the story and see if people thought there was potential/future in this approach to gaming, even if these guys aren't there yet. Also, if anyone else around the world is trying something similar?

</comment><comment><USER9> Please please please have something like this come to San Francisco. It's like Qzar...but... better.

<comment><USER10> Qzar... I just have bad memories of everyone being an expert that would contort their bodies in strange ways to block all the sensors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> In our city fiber network we have less then 1ms (ping) latency ...</comment>