People are keeping their cell phones a lot longer - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/people-are-keeping-their-cell-phones-a-lot-longer-2504972354.html <comment><USER2> I am a fairly pragmatic person. I love good design, but it has to be purposeful and resilient. There is nothing new being offered that doesn't seem superfluous, so why bother upgrading.

Like with many iterative products, when the next model is just around the corner, it somewhat undermines all their "Innovative, future is now, be your best self" fluff marketing. Why pay a premium to be on the bleeding edge when it only lasts 6 months at best?

Many people I knew just bought a Pixel instead of a Pixel 2. The new one didn't even offer enough to be a competitor it's own last model, so people just bought a Pixel 1 and saved themselves some money.

I keep thinking about the concept of peak comfort. Cars, houses, phones, computers. They're all pretty damn excellent right now. Even if you can't afford the brand new thing, they've been excellent for so long now that even the old things are likely to fulfil your needs just fine. Sometimes you can buy the old thing and it will be better than the budget model new thing.

<comment><USER3> Similarly, I look at it as "what new thing does this enable me to do?" Performance increases are great if they can better race to sleep and improve battery life. But otherwise, better screen / camera / speakers don't enable anything that I couldn't otherwise do with a 7 year old phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sometime last year, I had an interaction with someone who was about to refurbish a two year contract with Sprint and managed to convince the person to ditch the contract and sign up for a competing service. Well, the person did, but Sprint wanted their phone back because according to them the customer had leased the phone for two years.

Until then I didnt know such arrangements existed, even worse was the fact that this person was paying $100+ for two years for nothing more than a few emails, sms and phone calls. I recommended a $50 SimpleMobile plan and a decent phone.

Some people cant justify why they need a new phone or renew their contract until theres an overriding conviction that its dumb to fall for the flashy ads and in store sales pitch.

<comment><USER5> Eh, Simple Mobile isn't such a great deal. If your okay with T-Mobile (which is the network Simple Mobile resells), MintSIM at $25 a month for 10GB is almost certainly better. If you want better coverage, Total Wireless offers 5GB of LTE on Verizon for $35 a month, add 5GB more for $10 more.

<comment><USER4> Thanks I wasnt aware of mint.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Talked to a guy who worked for [a large tech company] and he said that the company doesn't allow phones to connect to the network if they are more than 1 month behind security updates.

Unfortunately of the Android vendors only Google actually guarantees (let alone actually follows though with) regular security updates for a specific time (2 years of version updates, plus another year of just security).

So he and many of his workmates had Google (or Apple) phones. Although since Google phased out their mid-range Nexus line having to pay 3x as much for a Pixel isn't as appealing.

<comment><USER7> A large tech company allowing cellphones on their internal network sounds extremely bizarre.

Cellphones should be on an untrusted/guest wireless connection, if they need access to corporate resources they should access them over the internet or VPN just like they would if they were anywhere else with their phones.

<comment> 2-4-Flinching That sounds terrible.

That is a crazy amount of bandwidth usage to VPN out and then back into the the network through the same pipe is a waste. Not counting the licenses and even the ability to maintain that many connections at a given time. Going off of the use cases I have actually done.

It not hard to setup WPA2 Enterprise with assigned VLAN access, heck you can even assign it based on the device, meaning Joe signs in on his laptop and he gets internal access but when he signs in on his cellphone it goes straight out. Each connection is assigned based on need and checked by the IT department.

The OP doesn't even say they are given internal access just network access, which could be straight out to the internet. The majority of cellphones used in my company are VLAN straight to the internet but there are cases where tablets and cellphones need access to server and shares that they are assigned to a VLAN they are on.

<comment><USER7> I regret mentioning VPN. Most people don't VPN with their phones, it's possible, but most people don't. They use their phone to access their company e-mail and sometimes other services which are open on the internet already. It's a small amount of traffic compared to the cost of trying to maintain an entire separate network just for some one-off use cases, forcing people to sign-in, register their devices, maintain the network, etc.

Of course there are special cases for tablets and such, but you'd treat those differently than someone's personal phone.

If they were given a connection "straight out to the internet" then it's even more bizarre to require strict regulations about their phones.

I see no advantages to letting people's personal phones on a corporate network.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Innovation in mobile stopped _years_ ago. Buying a new phone today won't bring you any new features.

So why bother buying a new device when the old one still works?

<comment><USER9> It's even worse. Buying bleeding edge phone today will bring you less features than before. No headphone jack, need to use dongles, no home button and very convenient finger print reader for authentication, awkward gestures instead of user friendly and self explanatory button click, shorted battery life and the list goes on and on. Lack of those features will never be equalled with mostly useless new features like portrait mode or sliminess. I understand that I as a customer, supposedly, don't know what ,currently, non existing feature I will want but I think I know exactly what features I don't want to loose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If only OEMs responded to that and supported their phones for much longer, too. Even if people didn't "keep their phones" for more than 2 years, those phones still usually end-up being used by someone else, whether family members, friends, or someone else purchasing it as a second-hand product. So the lifecycle of a smartphone should be significantly longer than 1-2 years.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm hanging on to the old 6S until Apple bring back the headphone jack...

<comment><USER12> Well, you'll probably have to hang on to it for a long time then, because Apple will not bring the headphone jack back. They never did that before for any port/hardware feature they removed afaik.

<comment><USER8> > Well, you'll probably have to hang on to it for a long time then, because > Apple will not bring the headphone jack back.

In the meantime the iPhone SE is a good phone, has a good form-factor and still has a headphone jack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm always surprised when I go back to Europe and see so many people walking around with iPhone 4.

In Japan, where I live, a vast majority of people get their phones on a 24 months payment plan with a 2 years contract. The carrier gives you a generous discount of about 50% on the price of the phone but applies that discount not on the phone payments but on the data plan. So when the 24 months are done and you've finished paying for the phone, the discount goes away and you pay full price on the data plan and your total bill barely decreases.

In such a system, there is no advantage to keeping your old phone, you might as well just get the latest iPhone every 2 years and that's what 95% of people do.

<comment><USER14> All you gotta do is ensure that this 50% discount is tuned to be the actual realistic price, while the full price is secretly just a 200% cost of the real market rate.

That way, the customers pay exactly the same as they normally would, except now they are compelled to buy a new expensive product every 2 years.

<comment><USER13> And ensure that all 3 major carriers agree behind closed do to have the exact same prices, just obscured with a bunch of different discounts and mandatory options that makes them look wildly different until you get the bill in the mail and the totals are the same...

<comment><USER15> The same happens with other aspects of phone plans. Comparing two providers in Australia:

One provider's plan (typical of the model adhered to by most providers): $10/month including $200 of value, with phone calls 99¢/minute plus 40¢ flagfall.

Another provider (with a less common model): an "as you go" plan, with phone calls 15¢/minute. (Actually it's still 12¢/minute, but the increase kicks in next week.)

My phone bill has been well under $1 every month except for last month where it got to $3.84 because of phone calls associated with buying a house and a couple of other things. Meanwhile, most providers would have been trying to charge me at least $10, more likely $30–$50 per month, or more on a long plan with an expensive phone included when I simply don't need anything more than what a $150 phone provides.

Look me in the face and tell me that the first pricing model isn't deliberately deceptive. They're essentially using a different currency which for their own purposes of misdirection they call dollars. (And if you _do_ get over that 200 units of their magic currency… oh, boy. You're in for a massive bill.)

I'm inclined to believe that mobile telcos' advertising practices are probably illegal, as deliberately misleading, and that the only reason they get away with it is because _everyone_ does it and so customer expectations have been ruined.

Most providers wind up leading with "unlimited" plans; I suspect that a substantial fraction of their users would actually fare better with simple cost-per-call plans, but giving you that isn't in the telcos' best interests, and almost no providers even _offer_ such a scheme—and the main one that I know of that does, doesn't exactly advertise it obviously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't find this, people around always need to have the latest phone it seems, but for myself I bought the Note 4 back in 2014 and still have it today 3 years later. It's got a crack in the screen and apps open maybe a millisecond slower than I'd like, but otherwise it does everything I need. I look at newer models and it just seems like the law of diminishing returns in effect; higher cost for smaller amount of noticeable changes. I've yet to see anything groundbreaking that'll make me upgrade.

<comment><USER17> People that always have the latest phone seems to have a higher need to talk about what phone they got. Part of what they paid for, social recognition

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> While shorter upgrade cycles seems to the go to answer, it is mostly because people now have to pay full prices for upgrades. During the 2 year contract era it was possible to pay fraction of costs to upgrade to the next iteration.

Though I wonder how does this compare to the pre-2007, pre-smartphone era? Longer upgrade time should be true for most consumer electronics as they mature, isnt it?

<comment><USER19> A lot of these same companies abandoned/deprioritised the tablet market when it became clear it had a more PC-esque (replace it when it's useless) upgrade cycle than the phone (replace it when the contract expires) cycle, so it will be interesting how they react to the same in their primary market.

<comment><USER20> Maybe they will finally learn to provide updates, because people won't get new handsets anyway.

<comment><USER21> Why, what would they get out of it?

<comment><USER20> Nothing beyond some consumer happiness towards their brand, just some wishful thinking from my side, as I hardly believe it will ever change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> there's virtually no visible difference between iphone 6 and 8. Apart from dropping the jack and getting a waterproof design in return, which will increase the probable lifespan of the device if anything. So why upgrade?

<comment><USER23> While I agree there isn't a huge difference any more, the iPhone 6s is noticeably faster than a 6. The gap from the 6 to the 8 is presumably even larger.

I find it kind of depressing* , but people do use their phones constantly, so things like performance do make a difference.

* Yes, ok, I've been a mobile app developer most of my working life, so I shouldn't really complain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is quite surprising, I tought that people would be much more susceptible to marketing. Reason for that trend is obvious, innovation now is very slow, most changes in iPhones for example are cosmetic, the only thing that get real upgrade is a price.

Also, i suspect people now are more aware how much they pay for "cheap" phone in contract.

So maybe simply people are now smarter.

</comment><comment><USER25> It's interesting that the curve shown in the article started to grow right after Steve Jobs died in 2011. (Too bad the previous years are not shown.)</comment>


Reddit User Who Started FindBostonBombers Quits Reddit  - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/reddit-boston-ama_n_3138623.html

<comment><USER2> hahaha, that's funny. "Quits Reddit" - HAHA.

<comment><USER3> Sometimes it despairs me how awkwardly big news sites phrase things when it comes to things they don't truly understand.

The user will probably not stop browsing, and they'll probably make a new account. But I guess 'quits' sounds so much more extravagant.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Suppressing Facebook... - <AUTHOR>

Is there a way to prevent Facebook from suggesting me to others?  I.e. I don't want to appear under the 'Suggestions' section on other peoples homepages. <comment><USER2> The only winning strategy is not to play.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've looked into this before but never got anywhere. Like others have said, the only way is to not play.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hmm. Why are you on Facebook if you don't want to be part of it?</comment>


World Series of Stock Trading – 80% done, 24h Meteor hackathon submission - <AUTHOR> http://devpost.com/software/wsost <comment><AUTHOR> This app can be turned in to a webview compiled app for iOS and Android. Meteor seems like a really fast way to build. Are there any other tools to build even faster?

Building responsive CSS and managing client state on server DB with callbacks was a bit time consuming. Using React, and some sort of FSM framework, and CSS tools for fast complete customization would have helped.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey, guys here was my submission of World Series of Stock Trading for the 24h Meteor hackathon. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to get the transactions to work, but if you like the idea and the progress, please vote.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's the direct demo link by the way: [http://worldseries.meteor.com/](http://worldseries.meteor.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm also thinking about continuing with the idea, so please let me know if you want variations or features.</comment>


You Don't Really Want a Rock Star - <AUTHOR> http://pseudocoder.com/archives/you-dont-really-want-a-rock-star

<comment><USER2> As I read that, I thought of all the developers I've worked with, and as a composite character, I have worked with a rock star! I can name a developer for every characteristic.

Even the guy who wore black leather pants _every_ _single_ _day_.... I don't fault him for it, he looked good in them, but that's some commitment in the summer.

Since HR and managerial types sometimes can be prone to confuse attitude for competency, maybe they really are looking for a "rock star"?!</comment>


Ask HN: Comprehensive Rust Tutorial? - <AUTHOR>

Apart from the Rust Book - https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ which resource would you recommend for someone starting out with the language. The more detailed and rigorous, the better. Thanks! <comment><USER2> [http://rustbyexample.com](http://rustbyexample.com) is a useful resource, I've found.

<comment><AUTHOR> It targets 0.11 so building something while reading it causes a lot of pain!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> any video tutorial ?</comment>


Near-record strength El Niño still on track to bring a wet California winter - <AUTHOR> http://www.weatherwest.com/archives/3566 <comment><USER2> I've always wondered how sensible is it to dig temporary holes/ditches that will store excess amounts of water and then later fill it back up once we're done with it. This is similar to how an empty swimming pool may be used to store excess rainfall. Perhaps the work put into it isn't worth the effort?

<comment><USER3> Is this not what reservoirs are?

<comment><USER4> Right. It is impractical to dig a ditch big enough to matter. That's why you damn up mountain canyons instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Meanwhile, Northern Europe has just seen one of the driest Octobers for a long while. Large areas has received less than five percent of normal precipitation. Stockholm has never had so little rain in October since measurements started back in 1786, beating a record from 1866.

Will be interesting to see if this continues into winter.

<comment><USER6> Does El Nino have an affect Europe?

Maybe a good time to buy wheat futures? Australia's east coast wheat crop is going to have a rough year or three.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Given the trend to wetter seasons in the south I wonder if anyone is thinking about increasing reservoir capacity there?

<comment><USER8> Here's one project that's starting:

[http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-stormwater- pla...](http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-stormwater- plan-20150625-story.html)

Enough rainwater falls on LA to provide for all of LA's water needs. Now almost all of this rain goes into the ocean.

<comment><USER7> That is awesome, thanks for that link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Meanwhile, greatest environmental disaster of this century is underway in Indonesia. Heard of it?

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indones...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indonesia- fires-disaster-21st-century-world-media)

</comment><comment><USER9> Meanwhile, greatest environmental disaster of this century is underway in Indonesia. 3 weeks more C02 has been released than annually in Germany & is currently releasing more C02 than the US economy. The flip side to this forecast in California. Heard of it?

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indones...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indonesia- fires-disaster-21st-century-world-media)</comment>


Consensus without Trust: Cryptographic Enforcement of Distributed Protocols - <AUTHOR> http://www.alexkyte.me/2016/08/consensus-without-trust-cryptographic.html <comment><USER2> Fantastic article, we need more like these. Breaking down complicated ideas and explaining them clearly. Great job.

</comment><comment><USER3> Checking out the other posts a bit, I'm loving the taste in content paired with the writing skills to back it up. Too much similar stuff relies heavily on a corresponding niche dialect of technobabble.</comment>


Everyone at Your Startup Needs to Code - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/97490b3e3c94

<comment> vezzy-fnord Well, no. "Code" does power all of the aforementioned, but only on a technicality. The code itself is ephemeral and possibly often domain-specific. The real importance is knowing the algorithms, data structures and the interface, protocols and standards of the platform you are targeting, or the details of the problem you are solving. Coding itself is grunt work. One must have a specification of what they want to do for it to be of any use.

As such, everyone coding has no meaning.

Further, if everyone coding means that they too can cargo cult slogans about how the goto statement is the devil incarnate and will have you assaulted by a raptor, then perhaps one should rethink whether it's worthwhile. Now, if one can get people to consider that a goto might be useful for breaking out of a nested loop in some languages, or that goto/jmp is the most primal control flow from which other mechanisms are derived, then you have a case. Otherwise, more ninja rockstar 10xers aren't of large use.

</comment><comment><USER2> Or you could hire engineers who actually get the job done in a reasonable timeframe without someone else having to poke about in the code and potentially screw things up.

</comment><comment><USER3> If everyone needs to learn to code then we, as software developers, have failed at what we do.</comment>


The Future of NoSQL - <AUTHOR> https://foundationdb.com/key-value-store/white-papers/future-of-nosql <comment><USER2> While I understand the initial appeal of schemaless databases in my experience the schema is the best living documentation of the shape of the data. It becomes really handy to decouple this from the application layer when you start having multiple clients connecting to the database (transactional vs analytics workloads). I've also had my fair share of seemingly non deterministic behavior when working well tested code hits old data that you forgot was in a slightly different format.

<comment><USER3> > when you start having multiple clients connecting to the database

If you assume that will happen, then all the things you suggest are true: the schema is indeed the best documentation, and clients will have to pay close attention to versioning since you can really only have one version of a fixed schema at a time. You'll probably also want to move business logic into the database in the form of foreign key constraints, triggers and the like. Getting that right is _really_ important to protect against a broken client corrupting data.

But that isn't the only strategy. You can instead have clients connect to an API, with the API implementation being the _only_ thing that connects to the database. The API becomes the documentation. It can handle versioning. It handles business logic. In this world, the database schema is much less important, and you can safely use schemaless databases.

Both designs have their advantages, and multiple clients connecting directly to the database may well be a better choice in many circumstances, but it's not inevitable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Schema-less design allows data to be modeled more flexibly than in > relational databases, which lock the developer into a single schema at any > given point in operations.

Implying that schemaless design is a GOOD thing

<comment><USER5> I've always been interested in NoSQL databases, but I never understood the advantage of a schema-less design. Migrations make it so you can change the structure of your data at any time so you really aren't locked into anything. Even ignoring that, your data _has_ to have some kind of shape to it (a kind of ad-hoc schema) and you still have to deal with data whose shape has changed (which migrations take care of _for you_ ).

<comment><USER6> Migrations get expensive and risky when you have lots of data. Being able to do them incrementally is sometimes worth the complication of maintaining code to read older versions. A traditional database doesn't let you do that; you have to execute an "alter table" statement all at once.

<comment><USER7> The current state-of-the art with MySQL uses temporary tables and triggers to perform online migrations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "After extensive experience working with Bigtable and other eventually consistent systems..."

This is not accurate -- Bigtable is not eventually consistent. The scope of transactions supported by a system is a different set of considerations from the level of consistency it provides. Bigtable is consistent but only allows for transactionality at the row level.

Optimistic concurrency control is nothing new and Percolator layered transactions on top of Bigtable years back. Furthermore, TrueTime -- allowing for comparatively low-latency update across a globally distributed set of DCs -- is the real innovation in Spanner, not the use of optimistic concurrency control.

Honestly, I am not sure what this article is trying to claim, except perhaps that per-node performance has been improved. AFAICT, most of this is due to the fact that RAM is cheaper than it was, SSDs have reached commoditization, and networks in the DC are faster than they used to be.

</comment><comment><USER9> NoSQL always seemed like a misnomer, should be SomeSQL, postgresql can do the same kinda ops and usually faster than your average NoSQL db: [http://www.enterprisedb.com/nosql-for- enterprise](http://www.enterprisedb.com/nosql-for-enterprise)

<comment><USER10> According to Martin Fowler, #nosql was initially just a hashtag somebody came up with for a meetup on some of the new databases, with nary a thought that it would become the name of a "movement".

<comment><USER11> It should maybe be renamed noRealUndersatndingOfSQl.

Certainly the majority of proponents I speak to want to use noSQL databases without any real reason, and where a relational database would be a better fit.

<comment><USER12> Right. What did that Codd guy know, anyway? As if data can be modelled as relations! Information wants to be FREE! Normal forms are a straitjacket that no self-respecting hipster would wear to the bar at lunch-time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can't blame these guys for trying to write these articles, because I also write on these subjects. BUT there is always something that bothers me about them (maybe cause I'm jealous), because their advertisements follow me around - even though I use ad blockers.

Basically, I feel like it is all promotional material, despite the fact that it is dealing with technical stuff that I research all the time, and well, as a hypocrite also try to promote my work. But I open source my work, while with them I feel like they are just trying to bait/give-an-excuse for me to click the buy button.

But I know, as with all software, it is going to come with the initiation... and in psychology, there is the sunk cost fallacy. Right? Where the more I invest, the more I want to believe and will make excuses to keep going with it. And so the incentives aren't actually aligned.

Compare this with let's say MongoDB - not only is it free AND ridiculously easy to start playing with, they then have to wait long enough to bait you into their consulting. However, as we go up the "cult ladder of software" we don't have the sunk-cost fallacy of money we've invested (just time), so it is easier for us to bail. That sucks for 10gen.

So with Foundation, I'm sure that once you are in the circle, it is wonderful, because that is what you are paying for. But it makes me not even want to enter into the circle in the first place. So what am I asking of Foundation? To open source their product? Make their lives suckier and harder to pay their bills?

Unfortunately yes, not because I'm malicious, but because database technology is much more about academics than anything else. Not that business and money- making can't co-exist with that, but because it is a field where we fundamentally have to have open access and collaborate even if we are competing for funds/grants/money/customers.

Let's ask why again. Why? Because nobody, businesses or not, is going to get reliable progress until then. Yes, we'll get incremental innovations, and Foundation probably has that, but these will be lost and reset time and time again, until every one in the field is willing to sacrifice their all. Unfortunately, a field that requires extreme expertise and costly talent to push forward, and even then, only slowly.

So I'm not going to even bother analyzing the technical claims of the post, because we have so much work to do first in even defining and making the terms more common, understandable, concrete and clear. Despite a century or so worth of work in the field.

Honestly, I feel like [http://aphyr.com/](http://aphyr.com/) is doing the most important contribution, despite the fact that he isn't even building solutions (compared to my team and Foundation's). Why? Because Aphyr has had great success in popularizing the discussion and providing needed clarity. And yes yes yes, I know that Foundation claims to have run their own Jepsen tests and so on. Good for them, I'm still trying to even get to that point. But... openness.

Like I probably shouldn't be as critical as I am being, a lot of my complaints in here can easily be refuted with various aspects of Foundation, like their free getting started, like their pay-what-you-need, etc. And obviously they are contributing to the discussion by making posts like this. But I feel like at least some of my comments and sentiments resonate, maybe at least in helping Foundation in knowing they are giving off a weird vibe/signal that they aren't even aware of.</comment>


Instagram: The Billion Dollar UX - <AUTHOR> http://www.andrewcross.ca/2012/04/10/the-billion-dollar-ux/

<comment><USER2> A blog post about how Instagram's user experience was the differentiating factor between it and its competitors, without a single example of said usage- driving UX?

I'd be interested to hear what exactly you think Instagram did right...</comment>


Inclusivity vs. Exclusivity - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/09/inclusivity.html

<comment><USER2> If Free = Ad supported, its not self evident that free = inclusive.

Can you have an inclusive experience that is _not_ ad supported?</comment>


How to install silently malicious extensions for Firefox - <AUTHOR> http://research.zscaler.com/2012/09/how-to-install-silently-malicious.html <comment><USER2> This isn't a security issue in Firefox.

To pull this off you need write access to Firefox's SQLite database.

If you have write access to Firefox's SQLite database you've already 'won', the system is already yours. You can do a lot more damage to the system than whitelisting a Firefox extension.

Sure you could argue that this is another place for malware to hide - but I don't that this is really a security flaw in Firefox.

<comment><USER3> You are correct. His point is that one can use this trick to install programs that Anti-Virus programs cannot detect, because they are part of the browsers, unlike perhaps a service.

Because while having control of a system is 'winning', one still wish to do damage relatively undetected (if one's intent is to use the machine as a zombie, for instance). And doing it through Firefox is a very undetectable way to do so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Right. I can also write an app that reads the process memory of FF and steals your passwords.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is one of the exact scenarios Apple is trying to prevent with Gatekeeper. Although I think Apple implemented it poorly and I strongly object to their code signing policies, I do hope more OS's include application-level permissions and methods for developers to sign their binaries as a standard thing.

</comment><comment><USER6> Plugins and automatic security updates (or any update for what it is worth) are two biggest security holes ever.

Which is why for anything really sensitive I'm booting from a live CD, giving me a system which is "read-only" and not "phoning home" to see if there are updates.

It's a pain. But less of a pain than getting root'ed / admin'ed.

Signed binaries ain't helping either: we've seen several seemingly "legit" software signed with compromised keys.

False sense of security.

<comment><USER7> Plugins are not security holes! Sure they make it slightly more accessible to e.g. steal browser passwords, but you can always inject code into other processes to do such things.

<comment><USER8> The presence of other security holes doesn't invalidate the existence of this one.

<comment><USER7> I really don't consider this a security hole!

This does not increase privileges of the attacker: If the attacker can modify Firefox's profile directory it could also inject something into firefox or read the cookies directly.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Researchers used noninvasive tDCS to release endogenous opioids - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/144627-dont-try-this-at-home-researchers-use-tdcs-to-release-your-brains-strongest-opioid-painkillers

<comment><USER2> Submitter is one of at least 6 accounts Ziff Davis (geek.com / extremetech.com / pcmag.com) has/had for spamming HN.

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=memoryfailure>

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=mrsebastian>

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=ukdm>

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=11031a>

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=russellholly>

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=adeelarshad82>

<comment><USER3> Some charts.

(<http://imgur.com/a/EfzHB>)

<comment><USER2> I thought that was an hilarious example when you posted it a while back lol.</comment></comment></comment>


Affordable telepresence robots heading home - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57617243-76/affordable-telepresence-robots-heading-home/

<comment><USER2> Telepresence is likely the first killer app for robotics. It's been possible for quite some time now but very difficult to do well.

The ubiquity of good, low-power wireless networking was the holdup. Our phones and tablets have finally brought this about.

First the robots appear as a toy to watch your pets from work, then you personal assistant pops in twice a day from India/Africa/(low wage outsource of the moment), and finally Siri rolls around your house picking up your socks (and informing the NSA if your feet smell at all terrorist-like).

Welcoming robot overlords and all that 20th century slashdot yap...

<comment><USER3> Telepresence might start breaking into manufacturing by allowing one worker control of multiple robots at once from a remote location. I've seen prototypes of this already, but nothing solid. Maybe the costs are still too high.

<comment><USER2> Workers are still exceptionally cheap. I'd sooner expect to see it used to bring a worker from Bangladesh to a factory in Germany. It would multiplex the opposite direction: many "cheap" workers rotating to keep a single robot working 24/7 in an "expensive" country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Telepresence robots seem like a narrow niche to me. I'm not sure I see them breaking into home use.

They offer two advantages over video on a tablet-

1) Height, and therefore a certain kind of sense of presence that might be useful in a business setting. It makes you a bit more a part of a meeting than a speakerphone on a desk, or even a tablet on a desk. Harder to ignore or overlook.

2) Mobility. Useful in office settings, certainly. Useful for a doctor making rounds, that kind of thing. Less useful in a home, and currently stairs of any kind would be a showstopper. As would doors (which could be automated in an office/hospital/etc, but not likely in a home).

For more intimate contact with family, though, it seems to me a tablet is far superior. They can be held and moved by the person on each end, and held closer as well. Plus they just seem more personal.

Telepresence Robots seem useful for cases where you want a sense of personal space around your video image. Tablets seem more useful for when you explicitly don't.

</comment><comment><USER5> 2 hours of battery life seems pretty short. The tablet portion should probably have a separate battery and can then have a 7-10 hour battery life, like most tablets these days.

Maybe they should add a wireless charger to the package. When the batteries get down to 10%, the unit automatically wheels back to the charging station.

Now, if there's a sleeping dog in the way, or a box or something, then the robot's out of luck, but otherwise it just takes care of itself, like a person going to the toilet once in a while.

The other obvious thing the product needs is a robotic arm. So useful. Obviously, bringing the medicine to a bedbound patient springs to mind, but the uses are really unlimited.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've always felt that a race to the bottom has been inevitable for telepresence robots. Just look at what happened to Android tablets.

This 50% subsidized pricing on a new product tells me the race has already begun.

<comment><USER4> Only a matter of time before Google steps in, what with their robotics and iphone designer purchases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Maybe I'm getting old, but the thought of a father tucking their kids in from the office does not sit well with me...

<comment><USER3> Agreed. Why can't it be the other way around? The robot being at the office and the father being at home.</comment></comment>


Why the Solar Roadways Project on Indiegogo is Actually Really Silly - <AUTHOR> http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/stocks/technology/why-the-solar-roadways-project-on-indiegogo-is-actually-really-silly

<comment><USER2> An excellent and necessary curmudgeon take on this project. Infrastructure needs to be kept dumb, because simple tends to be robust. Putting sun-tracking panels on rooftops would be much easier and cheaper and maintainable and closer to grid insertion points.

<comment><USER3> Our roadways (well, major highways anyway) are not that simple. And our aging power grid is a liability. Sun-tracking panels on rooftops having nothing to do with solar roadways - you can do both at once, of course. Rooftops have tiny surface area compared to roadways though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Site blocked on OpenDNS.

<comment><USER3> Funny, it doesn't show up as being tagged. [http://community.opendns.com/domaintagging/search/?q=equitie...](http://community.opendns.com/domaintagging/search/?q=equities.com)</comment></comment>


The Need for Speed - <AUTHOR> https://cloudup.com/blog/the-need-for-speed

<comment><USER2> It's interesting you advertise the need for speed when your page is so heavy it's giving my machine a hard time

<comment><USER3> Maybe blog posts aren't the target of serious optimization for any of dozens of good reasons a smart person like you could guess?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's probably the most successful use of slides in a post I've ever seen, usually when people add a deck in their write-up it makes the experience awful, so kudos.

Do you predict that major sites are going get re-written as single-page apps, either in Node or just Javascript? Are there any examples of major sites that have done total redos as single page apps? (you use the FB app as an example, but I'm thinking like an Amazon or HootSuite or any major webapp).

My sense is that there will be a lot of new sites written as single page apps, but the switching cost for an existing site seems super high.

edit: missing words

<comment><AUTHOR> Cost of switching is definitely high if you were to rewrite from scratch, but the transition to single-page can also be evolutionary. That's exactly the approach we're taking for the Wordpress admin panel for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Disable javascript for the page and get no text. What happend to graceful degredation?

<comment><USER6> Disabling JavaScript is silly in 2013.

<comment><USER5> Using HTTP to download javascript that then does an AJAX request to fetch static content that is converted by javascript to HTML. Is silly in any year. It's also quite slow (which is ironic for a page talking about improving responsiveness)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Any pointers on how to make the site visible to search engines when the delivery is as a single page app that does everything in JS? I know google's crawler can run the JS, but any notes on how far that can go?

</comment><comment><USER8> Can't browse with Firefox 17.0.10 (The newest ESR Release)....

</comment><comment><USER9> The video will be released in the next few days! :)</comment>


How To Improve Your Laptop Usage Experience - <AUTHOR> http://www.techmug.com/how-to-improve-your-laptop-usage-experience/

<comment><USER2> The title is misleading. Not one bit of the advise has any laptop specifics what-so-ever. It is all general ms-windows advise, nothing more.</comment>


How to do good talks at conferences - <AUTHOR> http://writing.makeshift.io/pieces/how-to-do-good-talks-at-conferences <comment><USER2> The linked article complains about a content-free talk, which is of course useless, but some of the explanation could simply be that any useful information he has goes towards their competitive advantage, and sharing it actively hurts the company.

Most companies we talk about on HN are made up of mostly intellectual property - everything else is commodity (SaaS, PaaS, etc.) - so going up on stage and telling what are effectively your competitors how you succeeded could be seen as a Bad Idea.</comment>


What Folding Phones Say About State of SmartPhones - <AUTHOR> https://om.co/2019/03/03/what-folding-phones-say-about-state-of-smartphones/ <comment><USER2> What is says to me is that we are past "peak smartphone" and regular people don't need to upgrade all the time like they used to. As a result, Apple and Samsung are doubling-down on super expensive phones with very few differences or merely gimmicks, like folding -- still trying to capture that last bit of revenue from the cult crowd that wants whatever they put out this quarter.

Knowing what we know now about rampant surveillance and invasive advertising, I'm more interested in something like a Punkt, the anti-smartphone.</comment>


Unibone – Unibus Emulation on a Beagle Bone Black - <AUTHOR> http://www.retrocmp.com/projects/unibone/274-unibone-introduction <comment><AUTHOR> This is a fun project that continues to amaze me. If you're a fan of old computers and only have some of the parts to make a working one, these guys have you covered.</comment>


Ask HN: Turning a freelancing job into a startup - <AUTHOR>

Curious if there are stories of turning a one-off freelancing or consulting job into a startup? I realize that client's pay me to do X, so there must be many others looking for X already made. For the record I don't mean selling a client's intellectual idea or product. <comment><USER2> Generally I think this is unlikely to happen because people who are freelancing often are doing so because their need is liquidity (read: cash, relatively soon) and not equity in a maybe successful venture. Thus they're looking to be paid now for work, not be involved in a longer term personal investment, whether in someone else's company or their own. So by definition, someone freelancing has very different goals than someone with the security and desire to be thinking about startups. For your question, I think you'd need to find someone who very specifically is freelancing but also is looking for a good startup idea, which I think is rare.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> As an example, here is a freelance job offer. The project award is less than $500, but it sparks an idea for a niche app service for photographers. [https://www.elance.com/j/custom-map-flyover-tour-of-route- ar...](https://www.elance.com/j/custom-map-flyover-tour-of-route-around- world/30034238/?backurl=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZWxhbmNlLmNvbS9yL2pvYnMvcS1tYXA=)

</comment><comment><USER3> I turned my one off freelancing job into a startup. But my startup is a mobile development company, so I'm pretty sure I didn't answer your question.

From what I've seen, I haven't seen many people turn a freelancing gig into a product.

</comment><comment><USER4> It happens all the time, but it is critical to be up-front with your initial customer. The good thing about it is you start with at least a bit of market validation (i.e. someone willing to pay for a solution).

<comment><AUTHOR> True. And it may not be the exact product or service, but the project opens my eyes to a larger market opportunity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> That's the thing: what's a freelancer going to productize if all of their work is work-for-hire?</comment>


Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, and eBay exit Facebook's Libra project - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/11/20910330/mastercard-stripe-ebay-facebook-libra-association-withdrawal-cryptocurrency <comment><USER4> David Marcus update [1] :

Special thanks to @Visa and @Mastercard for sticking it out until the 11th hour. The pressure has been intense (understatement), and I respect their decision to wait until there's regulatory clarity for @Libra_ to proceed, vs. the invoked threats (by many) on their biz.

I would caution against reading the fate of Libra into this update. Of course, it's not great news in the short term, but in a way it's liberating. Stay tuned for more very soon. Change of this magnitude is hard. You know you're on to something when so much pressure builds up.

[1][https://twitter.com/davidmarcus/status/1182775728431087623](https://twitter.com/davidmarcus/status/1182775728431087623)

<comment><USER5> The fate of Libra isn't tied to Visa/Mastercard's withdrawal. It's ultimately about whether there is a market for a new mechanism for international money transfers.

As someone who runs a business that has (small) offices both in EU and North America, let me share a quick overview of the current state of things.

When you want to transfer a non-trivial amount of money between 2 countries, you have likely received it in the originating country's currency and are planning to spend it in the destination currency. Now because you don't want to pay ~3% currency exchange fees to your bank, the only reasonable way to do this is to get an account with a business forex broker, that will offer you a rate in the ballpark of 0.5% off the spot price. You will have to do the KYC/AML [0], but the complexity of the whole transfer is basically this:

1\. Do a domestic wire to your broker's office in the originating economic zone.

2\. Wait for them to call you and confirm the exchange rate.

3\. Receive a domestic wire from the broker's office in the destination economic zone.

You often need to show the invoices/contracts showing the origin of the funds and the purpose of the transfer, but if you are running a legitimate business that pays taxes, you will need those for accounting reasons anyway.

Now the 0.5% fee charged by the forex trader (that is bound to a bunch of rules and regulations making it harder for it to run away with your funds) is not worth putting your trust into a fully automated distributed ledger, where a lost password or a hacked computer could permanently eat away your money without any legal recourse.

So the only potential audience of a new international coin would be people actively trying to evade KYC/AML and that's exactly why the governments will do their best to prevent it from getting adoption (which is very easy since you can outright ban the fiat endpoints in your jurisdiction).

On the other end, there's a bunch of people who have never written a response to an AML inquiry and have hardly done any business outside of their own state, that are hoping to get rich quick by grabbing a stake at something they haven't fully researched and later reselling it at a profit to someone who will actually need it. I wouldn't see any reason for it to be successful long- term, sorry.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer)

<comment><USER6> What do you consider non-trivial?

I transfer money to Africa on a regular basis, and I don't have these same issues other than the difference between published exchange rate and realized, which is about 1-1.5%. Transfer fees are minimal.

I transfer about $3,000 per month, but no I could go up to at least $10K without issue. Occasionally it can have a bit of a delay, but normally it closes in less than a minute, and I get email and text updates on the status, no calls needed.

<comment><USER7> Which service, something like transferwise?

<comment><USER8> I recently tried helping someone transfer $10k from US to different country. Only after signing up, filling in all the details, and going through the entire process, was there an error message that showed a Max of $800 could be transferred.

I then just advised to use their local bank's wire transfer, which they had to visit in person at the local branch, as they had originally intended.

Nowhere in my Google searches and Transferwise articles did I see any limitations upfront. Nor did I figure out how to raise these limits after searching post-filling-out-everything.

Very disappointed to say the least. But if anyone knows if I can raise the limit, would be happy to try this again.

<comment><USER9> Is this some account specific limit or a country specific limit?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I hope this doesn't cause Facebook to give up on Libra.

I personally have no desire to own Libra. But traditional bank accounts kind of suck as a product and I would like to see more tech companies competing with them.

The problems with bank accounts:

1\. They charge you fees for things

2\. They try to upsell me stupid financial products

3\. They are not easy to use in other countries

4\. Typing in my credit card number sucks

5\. Typing in my credit card number isn't secure

None of that has really gotten any better in the past ten years. It feels like banks have mostly given up on making their product better. Instead of improving their product, they just buy more expensive retail locations.

I would probably rather use a financial product produced by Google, Microsoft, or Amazon than a financial product produced by Facebook. I just don't want the rules to end up being, big tech companies are not permitted to compete with crappy banks.

<comment><USER11> Do you _really_ think a Facebook currency is not going to charge fees and upsell you left, right and centre the first moment they think they can get away with it? That's as well as targeting advertising and selling data of your spending patterns.

<comment><USER10> It's not that I think the Libra product is going to be fantastic per se. I just think that competition will force all the companies to make their products better. I don't want the government to prevent companies from making products, I want to be able to choose of my own free will whether it's a good product or not.

<comment><USER11> My difficulty is, at heart, I don't want my tokens of exchange to be a _product_ at all. I want the guarantee of universality that comes with money. Accessible to rich and poor alike, good credit or bad. Anything that tries to edge that out via the market is inherently a bad thing. Ultimately for all except stockholders. A central bank backed cryptocurrency with all the traits of universality and legal tender may be a better bet...

I am fully in favour of the various new banking services and apps that are springing up, services to manage, transfer, save and invest better etc. That's an appropriate place for the market. Even there it's needed regulation to ensure the most marginal in society can get a basic bank account, or not get stiffed on fees.

<comment><USER12> ^ this

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > A Visa spokesperson told The Verge. "Visa has decided not to join the Libra > Association at this time," the spokesperson said. "We will continue to > evaluate and our ultimate decision will be determined by a number of > factors, including the Association's ability to fully satisfy all requisite > regulatory expectations."

I suspect the regulatory pushback was the least of the problem. These companies (and PayPal) have everything to lose and nothing to gain by helping to advance Libra. The entire business model is to capture value from financial system friction. Eliminating the friction eliminates their reason for being.

It's a classic innovator's dilemma: the action that will save these companies is building the thing that will destroy their business models. They can't do it because established companies are set up to eject people persisting with such notions. That leaves the field open for an out-of-left field solution that does away with the friction and the business models it spawned.

The source of the friction is regulatory. AML. KYC. All the laws that deputize financial institutions as extensions of law enforcement. It's quite expensive.

The only way to eliminate the friction is to eliminate the regulatory liability. And that's what has been happening with Bitcoin for some time.

What is surprising was that these companies ever lent their names to the project in the first place.

<comment><USER14> Open-source cryptocurrencies that (ideally) no single entity mainly profits from, are still the future, IMHO.

I don't get why people would get excited about Libra who weren't already excited by some other cryptocurrency.

Violate an arbitrary rule in financial institutions? Guilty until proven innocent. (I have real-world experience, here)

Violate an arbitrary rule in crypto and... oh wait, crypto doesn't have rules and doesn't judge your morality. (Neither does cash or gold, so be careful about using this as an argument against it.)

<comment><USER15> > Violate an arbitrary rule in crypto and... oh wait, crypto doesn't have > rules and doesn't judge your morality. (Neither does cash or gold, so be > careful about using this as an argument against it.)

The argument goes through just the same? Cash, gold, cryptocurrencies and bearer bonds are all popular with criminals and crazies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Call me cynical, but the whole idea of Libra would be disruptive to the existing international payment businesses, such as the ones that just exited. So the only reason for them to join in the first place would be to basically "know your enemy" \- make certain you get the first-person intel on the project's vitals and to know what to expect. Now that a couple of governments made it clear that there would be roadblocks in deploying Libra according to the original roadmap, it is no longer seen as a threat, so anyone without a direct monetization interest (Facebook itself?) is going to leave.

<comment><USER16> And here I thought the whole idea of Libra is to take marketshare from WeChat & M-Pesa.

<comment><USER17> Put more simply, it is about increasing total addressable market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd argue the outcome of this will be that Facebook will launch their own payments infrastructure on top of WhatsApp. There was no need for crypto or a Libra association to begin with.

According to the leaked Facebook all-hands audio, Facebook is already planning to launch payments in Mexico by end of 2019 ([https://qz.com/1719731/zuckerberg-confirms-facebook- payment-...](https://qz.com/1719731/zuckerberg-confirms-facebook-payment- tests-in-india-mexico-in-verge-leak/)).

I wouldn't be surprised if this goes extremely well for Facebook and WhatsApp payments becomes WeChat Pay / AliPay for the rest of the world.

<comment><USER19> Just look at what Wechat is currently doing and you can get an idea of what Facebook will be doing in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wonder how much of this is companies distancing themselves from Facebook rather than being purely about the cryptocurrency project.

<comment><USER21> On the other hand if it weren't facebook they likely would not even have been interested in yet-another cryptocurrency. Especially if it's even not available, but just a work-in-progress thing.

<comment><USER22> They've been interested for a while - Stripe used to accept Bitcoin, and various Stripe employees have said they're watching developments in the space. For that matter, a number of other big tech companies (notably Apple) said they're watching the space.

I think the main issue is that cryptocurrency still has a few unsolved research & regulatory problems (like how to handle more than 10 TPS, or how to record taxes transparently) before it's ready for mainstream adoption. No big company wants to take the risk that an unsolved research problem may not have a solution, and so they wait and see how the space evolves rather than committing large amounts of resources to it. (Other than FB, who has resources to burn.) If it starts taking off they'll buy a bunch of startups and then start throwing engineers at it; otherwise they risk nothing.

<comment><USER23> Cryptocurrencies do have scaling issues, but it's very easy to process more than 10 TPS. Just because Bitcoin chose not to doesn't mean others cannot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The centralisation of Libra made it easy to kill. Bitcoin can be hampered but not outright killed, at least not over night. A death by a thousand cuts is the most likely solution but by no means guarantees Victory.

<comment><USER25> Bitcoin can be "killed" in the sense that it can become useless for the 99.99%.

Simply hunt down vendors who accept Bitcoin and organizations who facilitate its exchange.

At that point, Bitcoin would be essentially dead as a rival to any currency.

<comment><USER26> > Simply hunt down vendors who accept Bitcoin and organizations who facilitate > its exchange.

This is commonly a argument for having drugs illegal too. "If we hunt them down, eventually there will be no one left"

What we know now, is that making something illegal, could make it stronger. If Bitcoin becomes illegal in most country, would the price go up or down? Suddenly there is a black market, and opens up a whole other can of worms, so governments might not be able to simply outlaw it.

<comment><USER27> > What we know now, is that making something illegal, could make it stronger. > If Bitcoin becomes illegal in most country, would the price go up or down? > Suddenly there is a black market, and opens up a whole other can of worms, > so governments might not be able to simply outlaw it.

It's not as though drugs became _more_ popular because they became illegal. Prices may have gone up because they were harder to obtain and there's less competition. Demand was still there because.. well people like doing drugs or are addicted to them.

With Bitcoin, why would a business risk legal action to accept it? There's very little incentive as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER28> But they didn't become less popular either, and instead continued to rise and grow in popularity. That's the point, outlawing it won't stop it.

If bitcoins were illegal then I imagine they would probably only be used in illegal transactions.

<comment><USER29> To clarify: Necessarily, if Bitcoin was illegal, any transaction with it would of course be illegal. :p That isn't to say that any and all transactions made with it, would be for the exchange of illegal goods. You can of course also use Bitcoin for the exchange of _legal_ goods, but taking Bitcoin even for legal goods, would hence be illegal. In any case, just like people speeding, drinking moonshine, or enjoying marijuana where it's not allowed, I'm just as sure that very few would care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm actually kind of bummed out about this. I may not like FB, but I like the idea of a digital currency backed by a floating basket of currencies.

<comment><USER31> Not one that isn't regulated and that is controlled by a company with a penchant for walking the legal gray area line.

<comment><USER32> Let's remind ourselves that the entire point of the Calibra organization from which these companies have withdrawn their applications is to decentralize the governance of the coin.

Facebook would _not_ have unilateral control by any stretch of the imagination.

<comment><USER33> >Facebook would not have unilateral control by any stretch of the imagination.

At minimum they are the registered owner the Libra federal trademarks...that's a funny first step for a "decentralized" project. Satoshi Nakamoto never trademarked bitcoin or blockchain for that matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm actually glad it's dead/dying. It was always going to be controlled by an elite group who answered to no one but themselves. They had the ability to monitor all of your transactions and if they didn't like you they could roll back or block your transactions.

People keep saying oh this is proof crypto can't ever work because government. This was never a true crypto currency. It was just a private ledger tracking where actual money went. It was a stable coin at best. Its centralization is what got it killed.

<comment><USER35> >They had the ability to monitor all of your transactions and if they didn't like you they could roll back or block your transactions.

Unlike, what, my established credit card company which still blocks me randomly when I'm traveling overseas even when I explicitly call their 800 hotline, sit on hold for 30 minutes, and tell some unempathetic worker "I'm overseas, don't block me"? Yes, thank goodness libra is dying, otherwise there might actually be some innovation against the exact things you just mentioned which perfectly describe the current state of affairs.

(Edit) I think it's fair to not trust Facebook with your currency, but keep in mind the players in the current system (governments, Banks, and credit companies) have hardly proven more trustworthy.

<comment><USER36> _> Unlike, what, my established credit card company which still blocks me randomly when I'm traveling overseas even when I explicitly call their 800 hotline, sit on hold for 30 minutes, and tell some unempathetic worker "I'm overseas, don't block me"? Yes, thank goodness libra is dying, otherwise there might actually be some innovation against the exact things you just mentioned which perfectly describe the current state of affairs._

You should just get a new credit card or bank, whatever you're using is really out of date. Most modern cards and banks have websites or phone apps you can submit a travel notice on. Takes all of 2m and prevents you getting blocked for charges in that country.

<comment><USER37> Or, get an American Express card. I got one four years ago and then went to Singapore for a consulting gig. I called them to let them know where I would be and was told to please not bother, that they expect their customers to travel.

I was also really please last month to notice that Capital One didn't charge international transaction fees when I was in Canada.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> There was absolutely no reason for this to project to exist. The only feature of digital currencies that make __some __of them interesting is that they are fully distributed and based on absolutely zero trust of other users on the network. What Facebook was trying to do here was take something that could be implemented in a standard centralized database, stick some marketing on it, and try to ride a hype wave that has since (rightfully) died down.

<comment><USER39> How else can facebook prevent people from moving on to wechat with its internal payment system? Why should people stick to facebook if wechat can offer a whole bunch of services that need (micro) transactions?

<comment> vertex-four Facebook can have an internal payment system that uses local currencies. There is no reason it needs to create its own currency, except as a power grab. Building out a Paypal clone is fine enough.

<comment><USER40> How can it be a power grab, Libra was going to be at least an open system with it's own wallet protocols and market for implementations. A WeChat style system would be totally closed from the ground up.

<comment> vertex-four No, it was going to be open to partners that Facebook picks and chooses. It was very specifically not to be a fully decentralised blockchain, which essentially means it's actually a big permissioned database, which the database owners get to control.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It looks like a misstep followed by a hasty and ignominious retreat because thats exactly what happened - no one anticipated the reaction from lawmakers and rules agencies.

Its kind of hard to see this from the perspective of people who follow tech and HN, but Libra really may have been the first occasion that the possibility of crypto as anything other than an investment instrument - e.g. an actual usage as currency - penetrated the awareness of top national political leadership. Yes the ICO's got some attention but in many ways that attention seemed to suggest that crypto would be tolerated. And probably it will be, as long as it is simply another category of asset.

It will not be tolerated as currency, and governments will destroy any crypto that threatens to become one. For now, BTC is safe because its usage as a currency is minuscule and threatens no one. If it were to become successful, it will be destroyed. I've always known that was a possibility but now I'm sure of it.

<comment><USER42> > _no one anticipated the reaction from lawmakers and rules agencies_

 _Everyone_ should have anticipated that reaction. Finance is filled with smart people trying to pull fast ones. Regulators and lawmakers are sensitive to being blindsided, moreso with anti-money laundering.

The moment I saw the announcement I knew they screwed up. So did everyone in D.C. who isn't selling blockchain consulting. It was hamfistedly introduced by the wrong people (Facebook) at the wrong time.

<comment><USER40> That's a very D.C. mentality. In law there isn't meant to be a "wrong people" or "wrong time". Either something is illegal, or it's not. But the rule of law is very weak these days, especially given the huge bloat of regulations on the book in America related to AML.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I wonder what would have happened if Facebook had simply announced Libra and released it a week later. Would the legislative backlash have been stronger? Or would the quick release bring to light the (always preached about but not always demonstrable) advantages of cryptocurrencies.

I'm not (yet) doubting that Libra will eventually be released, but I can see it being shutdown before or sometime after release.

<comment><USER44> I think the legislative backlash would've been much stronger, and I have nothing to back this up so take it with a grain of salt - just my opinion.

Considering the many negative press stories about Facebook concerning things like privacy rights, I don't think Facebook would take a risk like that to begin with, but if they did, the US government would likely want to make an example out of them to deter future companies eager to act first and ask for permission later. Especially when it comes to something like this that could very well disrupt global currencies. There would be many ensuing battles of litigation and I would imagine the cost for Facebook, if they truly held steadfast in support of Libra, would be quite tremendous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I have no interest in Libra, but the fact that government basically bullied these companies out of this initiative is alarming. If the regulators think that they should scrutinize these companies deeper, being involved in Libra should not matter. It's like saying, "withdraw from Libra and we'll continue to look the other way on your sketchy non-Libra activities".

<comment><USER40> Regulators have very little to do with how law is meant to work in theory, especially in the USA. Financial regulators are pure extensions of arbitrary government power: they can make up new laws on the fly without Congress, and many rules are phrased vaguely enough that anyone could be violating them if they want it that way.

Basically financial regulators can fine or imprison anyone in the financial system at any time for any reason or even no reason, unaccountably so. Not surprisingly this power gets abused. These firms were told they would be attacked and punished for working with Facebook, so of course they baked away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I guess that why one of the first investor in Libra - famous Xavier Niel - published this editorial [1]

(small reminder for people who don't know him, he created the ISP french "Free" that kind of totally changed the telecom market in France (DSL and mobile), he also owns Scaleway (cloud), Kima Ventures (VC))

[1] [https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/42886/libra-is- inevita...](https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/42886/libra-is-inevitable- better-to-embrace-it-says-its-investor-a-french-billionaire)

[2] Original : [https://www.lesechos.fr/idees-debats/cercle/europeens- libra-...](https://www.lesechos.fr/idees-debats/cercle/europeens-libra-nous- de-choisir-1139165)

<comment><USER47> He also completely disrupted/killed the monopole that existed in telecommunication. Giving French people absurdly cheaper phone plans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I honestly don't see how to reconcile two desirable aspects of digital currency

\- Frictionless, fee-less digital transfer of a medium of value. To be able to transfer money natively over the internet.

\- To keep it _secure_ for 7 billion people - reversible, auditable etc - <USER2> benefits we have of a curated financial system.

I am sure there are lots of reading on this available - but those two do seem incompatible

<comment><USER49> You achieve the first by having a distributed, decentralized, fully censorship resistant base layer in which the rule set is more or less like the current Bitcoin rule set.

You achieve the second by building upon this base layer. Just like how in the real world the base layer is physical transfer of cash and assets (not very reversible), and we have a financial and legal system built upon that (to simplify, it's doubtful how relevant physical transfer is any more).

<comment><USER50> But the only way to do the second is to keep a separate 'ledger' associating real people/companies with network wallets, and to ban the use of wallets whose ownership is not known.

And this automatically brings back a lot of hassle with verifying paperwork, it again allows people to be barred from the network, and it again prevents people withput paperwork from owning currency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm puzzled by HN's attitude towards Libra. I can understand being wary of having Facebook run the world's money and how a metacurrency such as Libra could break world economics as we know it, but I can't help be excited about the prospect of widespread digital money usage and FB is one of the few companies that can drive that. Perhaps HN draws its animosity towards Libra from all the cryptocurrency shenanigans of the last few years, but given this community is comfortable with innovation and risk, I would expect HN to be imagining usecases and scenarios for digital money rather than dismiss the whole concept based on emotion related to Facebook and/or cryptocurrencies.

If the world does move ahead with central bank issued digital currencies - <USER3> it seems there's a lot of chatter in that area - then a metacurrency will no doubt pop up at some point anyway. Because that's what I expect hackers will find fascinating and because it will suddenly become possible. So we'll get Libra one way or another, but it may not be Facebook's.

A full fledged digital currency ecosystem will be incompatible with the status quo to a large degree, but that's no reason for dismissal. Doesn't all innovation challenge the status quo? Ultimately, the cat it out of the bag and the question is not if, but how digital scarcity, whether trustful or trustless (or a mix of the two), will impact our definition and use of money.

We'll have to ensure AML rules evolve to fit the new paradigm and that's fine. But we shouldn't look at existing AML frameworks and refuse innovation because our solutions for the past don't fit our possibilities for the future.

And regardless of the outcome of Libra, Facebook is making huge inroads in prompting conversations and ultimately regulating digital money, which in itself is a huge win. Given the negative govt and public reactions and their standing ground on the matter, they're doing it at their own expense and I'll give them kudos for that. I don't see any of the existing forces in the finance ecosystem do anything close to this.

Money and payments have stood still amidst the digital revolution. Imagine micropayments for consuming online content and how they could address some of the biggest issues prompted by the attention economy. The likes of visa and mastercard could've made this a real at any moment in the last 20 years or so.

I welcome anyone trying to do something bold. It's progress, regardless of the outcome of any specific project.

<comment><USER52> My fundamental issue is simple. Money, who owns it and how it moves around, is fundamental to our society. I don't want that power owned by a company who might decide one day, without warning or reason, to close my account.

<comment><USER53> You can take a company to court, but not a government. Imagine being a legitimate venezuelan businessman with an account in the US for example.

Money is sort-of fundamental (it's one tool), and that's more so because today's fiat money is powered by guns. In the past, europe would have a multitude of coins being used concurrently with some of them dominating like the Florin. Its a recent development that governments crack down on the money that people use.

<comment><USER54> You can absolutely take a government to court. What are you talking about?

<comment><USER53> Even if you can you re guaranteed to lose because the govt makes its own laws

How would that work with VZ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I don't like Facebook, but I do give them credit for being very smart. They managed to lock a billion eye-balls on their platform and that doesn't happen automatically.

That's what makes this whole Libra thing so shocking. I just can't believe Facebook would be so naive to just shout "digital cross-border currency" and then expect everyone to cheer them on. Bitcoin has been around for years, and controversies surrounding it are well known. PayPal has been around for decades and everyone understands the potential of electronic payments.

The fact that Facebook did not expect this ambivalence / skepticism and address it upfront is a pretty surprising misstep.

</comment><comment><USER56> If Facebook wants a currency they should start a country. Given that they are an organizing platform for various insurgent groups... I could almost see the headline: "victorious insurgent group 'ZucLiberationFront' agrees to partner with Facebook to run their country's currency system using Libra. Reasons cited were gratitude for free Facebook advertising that helped them recruit rebel fighters"

</comment><comment><USER57> Isn't it kind of pointless anyway: a large corporation with vast resources creating a cryptocurrency, why don't they just make their own bank?

<comment><USER58> > Isn't it kind of pointless anyway: a large corporation with vast resources > creating a cryptocurrency, why don't they just make their own bank?

Because Facebook senses an opportunity that in the long-term they could make a lot more money than if they founded a bank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I see this is starting to playing out as I'm thinking it should play out*. Now, I'm waiting for Facebook to stick to its gun. 2020 will be an interesting year.

x- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21162607](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21162607)

</comment><comment><USER60> I think given enough time, Libra project can succeed. But it has to jump through many hurdles. It will require a lot more investment than Facebook anticipate.

I advocate for a new type of crypto: digital native and decentralized stablecoin. By adding a constant inflation rate, coin price can become somewhat stable. The tradeoff is worthy for permissionless, digital native and decentralization. I outline the benefits of this new type of cryptocurrency in this article:

The Next Big Thing in Crypto: Using Inflation to Create Stablecoin

[https://bitflate.org/post/2019/10/10/the-next-big-thing- in-c...](https://bitflate.org/post/2019/10/10/the-next-big-thing-in-crypto- using-inflation-to-create-stablecoin.html)

</comment><comment><USER61> I don't like Libra but I wouldn't dismiss it just yet.

\- Governments: We'll ban Libra.

\- Facebook: Let us do Libra and we'll give you access to the financial transactions which otherwise would go dark with Bitcoin or Wechat.

<comment><USER50> \- Governments: oh yes, we'll trade our ability to set monetary policies for the off-chance that someone who wanted to hide from regulators will choose to trust Facebook with their shady transactions, and will continue to do so after the first time we catch them in the act based on data Facebook provided to us.

<comment><USER61> \- Facebook: you are going to lose the ability to set monetary policy anyway. That ship has sailed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I wonder if this was government pressure. I think it was only going to be 50% denominated in US dollar. Making it easy to effectively (partially) transact in other currencies must not have gone over well.

EDIT: I assumed that Libra would be for many, many small transactions so banking know your customer KYC regulations imposed on banks in all countries by the US and other governments would not really apply. Also, does something like Apple Pay also fit the need for people paying people in other countries small amounts of money?

</comment><comment><USER62> In other words every actual payment company didn't want to get a colonoscopy from every regulator on Earth for Zuck's Spruce Goose hobby.

</comment><comment><USER63> Why was Stripe even in it in the first place?

</comment><comment><USER64> I found it interesting that Visa and Mastercard were actually on board in the beginning. Might have been some fear of missing out on something novel and important (especially since competitors joined Libra also). Now that the initial dust and Libra is a bit better understood they are seemingly jointly pulling out.

</comment><comment><USER65> I hope Facebook manages to launch Libra and that'll be the final trigger for regulators to chime in, slap them on the wrist and break up all the giant corps. The degree to which they are invading our privacy and are greedy for power and control over people's lives is beyond scary.

</comment><comment><USER66> Other than eBay, guessing the reason why the payment cos are dropping out first is because they have the highest regulatory/compliance burden as is, and don't need more scrutiny dealing with something they don't even fully understand just so they can win some brownie points with FB.

<comment><USER67> Well, Ebay owned Paypal until they spun it off again. Perhaps the execs still have nightmares about dealing with financial regulations (or trying to walk the line so they didn't have to) and don't want to deal with it again.

<comment><USER68> I'm more of the opinion that there was a Q2/Q3 deadline to get some sane regulatory framework by the Libra team and they just whiffed on it or it was wholly insufficient for normal international banking standards (which was probably laid out by all the parties that left). The fact that everyone seemed to bail all at once sounds like there was just a lack of commitment/slipped deadline by the Libra side. Generally as a new thing is being stood up under a regulated framework there is some slack provided to get the ship in order while other interested parties look on, but at a certain point major requirements must be done. If you are one of the interested parties and it doesn't look like the other side is making sane progress, the hammer drops swiftly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Pegging Libra to just the Dollar could soothe regulators, a16z says

[https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/11/libra-denominated-in- dolla...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/11/libra-denominated-in-dollars/)

<comment><USER42> > _Pegging Libra to just the Dollar could soothe regulators, a16z says_

Baskets of currencies are nothing novel. The problem goes down to whether this is a Facebook-controlled currency (which is troubling, given Facebook's track record) or a nobody-controlled currency that Facebook profits from (which is troubling, given the money-laundering concerns).

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Notable that OP left Mercado Pago out of the headline, despite it being in the opening sentence. Mercado Pago is the largest payment provider in South America. In case you forgot, South America is the fourth largest continent and contains 12 countries.

</comment><comment> ur-whale Interesting to ee Nick Szabo actually answer David Marcus tweets.

[https://twitter.com/davidmarcus/status/1182775728431087623](https://twitter.com/davidmarcus/status/1182775728431087623)

</comment><comment><USER71> I'm sure Libra would be useful for payments / economy inside Facebook Horizon.

</comment><comment><USER72> "If you take this on," the letters read, "you can expect a high level of scrutiny from regulators not only on Libra-related activities, but on all payment activities."

I wonder who paid them to say this?

</comment><comment><USER73> In 6 months: Visa Mastercard Stripe and Ebay create new stablecoin

</comment><comment><USER74> facebook would better service itself by help small businesses in timely transactions of cryptocurrencies. With the government debt project to go to $30 trillion within the decade there will be alot of people hedging against the dollar with cryptocurrency and whoever is able to help in transactions with mom and pop stores will make a fortunes. Also it does help you aren't _directly_ competing with the federal reserve. People have been killed for less.

</comment><comment><USER53> I wonder why Stripe followed them? They re positive on crypto in general, and they would have an immediate competitive advantage if they stayed

<comment><USER75> Because politicians threatened them with increased regulatory scrutiny across all of their business

<comment><USER53> It s possible that the benefit would outweigh the risk - after all they are already in the payments busines and know how AML works etc. They 've done it for bitcoin. So, i would assume they were threatened a little less politely than i imagined.

<comment><USER75> Threat letters from the Senate: [https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Signed%20Letters...](https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Signed%20Letters%20re%20Libra%20to%20Patrick%20Collison,%20Ajaypal%20Banga,%20and%20Alfred%20Kelly.pdf)

<comment><USER53> What a joke of a letter. "But think of child abuse". I can't believe they linked libra to child sexual abuse ... how would that even work?

Didn't they admit last week that facebook's own detection algorithms are far better at detecting child abuse than anything else? How does that work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> damn shame with the dollar approaching a $30 trillion dollar deficit within the next decade[0], it would be very prudent to invest into a competitor.

[0]:[https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-12/trump-budget- sees-...](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-12/trump-budget-sees-us-debt- hitting-30-trillion-2028)

</comment><comment><USER76> I guess that's it for Facebucks

</comment><comment><USER77> Major punt by Facebook like many others like Oculus. But you nail one like IG and it's all good!

</comment><comment><USER78> One would think Facebook's Libra was a country sanctioned by the US.

</comment><comment><USER79> I think FB should take a lesson from this - be less respectful. They have done everything not to tread on anyone's toes, but that is not what innovation is about. They have the userbase and the ability to give this a shot all on their own. Do it and make something great, then deal with the consequences.

</comment><comment><USER80> No surprise. The revolution will not be international clearing housed.

</comment><comment><USER81> And the end of the world pushes a bit further away

</comment><comment><USER53> Wow .. they re bound to see some competition.

</comment><comment><USER82> playstore game purchases

</comment><comment><USER83> That was quick.

</comment><comment><USER84> Tst

</comment><comment><USER85> Well, this died.

</comment><comment><USER86> I guess people had issues of the currency being used to all sort of illegal things, e.g., human enslaving, human organ trafficking, and so on...

<comment><USER87> If this is true, then it was true when they signed up initially. What changed?

<comment><USER86> Because raw ideas seem good, then when people ponder it may turn out to be bad ones... Have you ever heard of the Solar Powered Highway in France?

<comment><USER58> I have quite some difficulties with the mentality of first very publicly announcing that you will join the project, then very soon realizing that it might be a bad idea, and then (also quite publicly) exiting the project.

Why not evaluate this beforehand before very publicly announcing that you join the (Libra) project?!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> The current financial system worldwide looks quite suspect right now, negative interest rates could soon become a new norm in the EU even officially in retail. Most importantly political leaders in the US(and EU) have scaled up their massive money-printing schemes designed to keep their banking-financial overlords in business.

With that in mind, the very last thing the EU and US authorities want is for the people who (mostly unwittingly) underpin the actual value to have an Exit from this type of controlled use of inflation into an alternative currency backed by say gold and other hard to inflate commodities, because allowing any significant amount of that.. (remember the true impact is inverse of the real fractional-reserve in play) would lead to a collapse in the power of the existing political-financial hegemony.</comment>


Review our startup - <AUTHOR> http://ratemystartup.com/social-marketplace-for-online-marketing-doublelinx/ <comment><USER2> Anyone used their services? What was your experience? Thanks.</comment>