Why Cryptocurrencies?: For the Unbanked - <AUTHOR> https://whycryptocurrencies.com/for_the_unbanked.html <comment><USER2> Yes, and someone who can't get a bank account can definitely afford to acquire a fast persistent Internet connection and ever-increasing amounts of storage to download the full Bitcoin/Ethereum blockchain so they can send and receive "coins" with extremely volatile prices and huge transaction fees.

<comment><USER3> Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need a fast persistent Internet connection or enough storage to download the full Bitcoin/Ethereum blockchain to be able to send transactions correct?

<comment><USER4> I think you do since not having it means that your wallet wouldn't know if you've spent or received any coins.

<comment><USER3> For that you would just need some sort of Internet connection and some storage, nothing out of reach for the vast majority of people, or am I wrong again?

<comment><USER4> Yeah I mean there are many many parts of rural north america that do not have easy access to broadband. I grew up in Wisconsin - I just simply couldn't give someone coins when I'm up in the Northwoods.

Here's a quick example: [https://www.vox.com/2017/6/20/15839626/disparity- between-urb...](https://www.vox.com/2017/6/20/15839626/disparity-between- urban-rural-internet-access-major-economies)

Edit: If you give someone a coin with the private key on paper, technically you can give them coin offline, but the rest of the networks have no clue this happened, and you can't spend unconfirmed monies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We should separate what the tech can do in theory, and what the tech in practice can do.

In theory, cryptocurrency can probably do this. Even as someone who is extremely critical of cryptocurrency and blockchains, this is actually one of the few use cases in which it makes sense - "Hey Bob, I want to buy a business license online. If I give you a $20, can you give me some bitdollars?"

On the other hand, this probably won't work out in practice. Cryptocurrency exchanges do fall under KYC, so the documentation burden still exists. The unbanked could build their own exchange... if they had the capital. In addition, the high level of technical complexity and the need to trust in the unseen (proof of work stakes aren't as good as physical bills when it comes to trust) means the benefits are negated compared to just using the grey market to have someone transact on your behalf (which is a common practice for the unbanked, and also my uncle who still doesn't understand Amazon).

Someone could solve these problems, but they'd need to maintain an ongoing company to do so, which would again trigger KYC and downstream fees.

<comment><USER6> Cryptocurrency exchanges do fall under KYC _in the US_ and only if you want to do certain things, like purchases over a certain volume or fiat withdraws. There's no reason someone in India, for example, would need to go through a KYC process simply to buy a small amount of cryptocurrency. There's also plenty of P2P networks like LocalBitcoins that fit this use case much better than an exchange.

<comment><USER7> > There's no reason someone in India, for example, would need to go through a > KYC process simply to buy a small amount of cryptocurrency.

Except for local laws which explicitly require KYC for crypto transactions: [https://bitcoin-india.org/kyc_aml_policy](https://bitcoin- india.org/kyc_aml_policy)

<comment><USER6> That appears to be one exchanges policy, not law. There may be a law I'm unaware of but in any case this wouldn't come into play using something like LocalBitcoins. Exchanges need to do this in order to conduct transactions with banks—obviously something that isn't needed for unbanked populations.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're not wrong, but LocalBitcoins will also require KYC now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This and all other discussions of cryptocurrency being useful to the unbanked always fail to address the root of the problem - the unbanked don't have money. Get them steady reliable cash flow first, and bank accounts or other financial services will follow. Not vice versa.

Cryptocurrency won't help solve that root problem for poor people, only for VCs and technologists building themselves new money, exploiting the Cantillon Effect, and casting about for justifications to moon the market price.

To its credit this article came close to discussing this, it actually shows a chart comparing reasons why the unbanked don't have bank accounts. The main reason by far is, no money. But once that's established, then real question becomes - how do you solve _that_ problem using cryptocurrency?

Nobody has an answer for that so they just conveniently skirt around it in these type of discussions.

<comment><AUTHOR> I basically agree.

The point I wanted to make isn't that cryptocurrencies is a solution for all, or even most, of the unbanked. But it may be a solution for some of them. Most cite no money as the issue, but a whopping 40% didn't. Even if it's only applicable to 1% of all unbanked, that's still 17 million people who might benefit.

> Get them steady reliable cash flow first, and bank accounts or other > financial services will follow.

For some, but not all. For instance giving them more money won't necessarily increase their trust in possibly corrupt banks. And it doesn't magically mean they'll get an account since they might still not have the required documentation.

<comment><USER8> _> For instance giving them more money won't necessarily increase their trust in possibly corrupt banks._

Yes, hence why I said "bank accounts or other financial services". The latter could be either centralized or decentralized. Either way, they still need cash flow/income first.</comment></comment></comment>


Brand New Secure, Trusted, Anonymous, Distributed OS - <AUTHOR>

I want to start a new OS kernel that will supersede UNIX, WinNT, and all the other hobby OSs out there. I have researched every aspect of it and am ready to start a new ecosystem which will be impervious to exploits and viruses (because it won't be written in C/C++) and is very fast to compile and run (far faster then Java/smalltalk). Anyone interested to start coding, join the project? Email me at email@example.com <comment><USER2> What language are you writing it in? Sounds like a language where it is impossible to have mistakes, bugs or design flaws.

There aren't exploits or viruses because things are written in C/C++. Exploits are possible because the code is written by humans.

<comment><USER3> Well said, we humans are th weakest link and since we will always be the designers there will always be flaws</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you think HN should add support for smileys? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> No, I prefer not to have a mess of colours and quite like the plain look.

What I _would_ like is better support for quoting text and code. Code formatting is horribly broken, especially on mobile, and it seems like an easy fix that wouldn't upset anyone.

</comment><comment><USER3> My love (reasons for returning) toward HN content consumption comes from its plain text simplicity.

Im trying to escape social emoji overuse found everywhere else these days.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hell, no!

</comment><comment><USER5> Yes, but only because of how much it would anger the humorless curmudgeons here. ;)

</comment><comment><USER6> It already exists

:)

</comment><comment><USER7> No. Unicode smileys are enough

Edit: ugh, HN filtered (1F60A)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, HN will filter Unicode chars

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> No :)</comment>


Police Claim Encryption Use Is Illegal - <AUTHOR> http://cryptome.org/2013/09/police-crypto-illegal.htm

<comment><USER2> EDIT: You have to read the complaint in the last link. It sounds like there were some laptops or something that were "lost" and the owner believed he stole them, and filed a police report. That's what the charges stem from.

[http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/C...](http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/Complaint.pdf)

With regards to the allegations of theft, I'm not sure what the author's point is. He repeatedly says he offered to pay the owner back for the missing items. Should that mean that he can't be charged with theft? If I steal something and get caught, should I just be able to offer to pay and avoid prosecution? He repeatedly says that the missing items amount to at most a civil matter, but stealing stuff from work is not a civil matter.

For the rest of it, the author doesn't have a leg to stand on. Say instead of an encrypted partition we were talking about a safe. I kept a safe in my office, and one day I was summarily fired and escorted out of the building. I promised that there was no business information or property of my employer in that safe, then refused to hand over the combination. Should the employer leave it at that, saying "gee, if he says he didn't put any business property in the safe, I guess I just have to believe him!"

I can understand where the author is coming from (though his writing makes that difficult). The owner is clearly being a huge asshole. But the author is being naive to think that there must be something "fishy" going on. Unfortunately for him, he's on the wrong end of this story. It's so common for disgruntled employees to steal company property or damage company property that nobody is going to give him the benefit of the doubt except the jury, who is legally required to. The author repeatedly mentions the standard for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt). However, that's not the standard for prosecution, which is closer to "more likely than not."

<comment><USER3> > The author doesn't have a leg to stand on. Say,...I kept a safe in my office

The guy writes: "I was an independent contractor. No employer-employee relationship existed. Federal labor laws afforded me the right to choose when to work, where to work, how to work and what work I was to produce. There were no other work-for-hire contracts or specific performance contracts signed and I did not sign any NDA."

To carry forward with your "safe" analogy: Suppose a plumber came to your house. When he leaves, you demand to search the toolbox he brought to your house. Who's in the right here?

<comment><USER4> My understanding is that the "toolbox" was the client's, not his.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> His timeline and story are all here: [http://www.innocentbeyondareasonabledoubt.com/](http://www.innocentbeyondareasonabledoubt.com/)

Lesson: Do not ever cooperate with the police.

Bo should have just let the original issue (I'm not even sure what that issue was) between he and his employer go to a civil court.

<comment><USER6> _Lesson: Do not ever cooperate with the police._

Seriously? So if I get mugged in the street or if I have my home burgled I should do what?

<comment><USER7> Call your insurance company, if you're insured, then get on with your life.

The cops don't have a time machine and they don't give a shit about you getting mugged or your stuff getting stolen. If you work hard enough you might get a police report out of them for insurance purposes.

I don't have a good text source lying around but here's a law professor and a cop explaining the downside: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

<comment><USER8> Not all cops let things slide. Some see it as a job, some get a power trip, and others take pride in their work.

I've posted this before on HN, but will quickly cover it again; A few years ago, my wife was at school and (completely her own fault) left her purse in the class during lunch (this is a medical career school and the class had about 8 students). That night we received a call from Chase asking about a string of purchase attempts using one of her cards - which she then realized was missing. Based on the list of places the card was used, we went to the stores the following day explaining what happened. Once we had done the leg work, confirmed that they would have video surveillance during the time the card was used, we called the police. The officers that showed up went to great lengths to file the report, work with GameStop, Target and Stop&Shop security personnel to not only get us to identify the person, but get video evidence of the crimes at each location. In the end, the classmate who stole the card was prosecuted and served jail time in two separate counties as well as payment of damages (small, but still) for the attempted use of the card which got her nothing in the end. Coincidently, the detective on the case also saw that the girls mom had a warrant out for her arrest so they picked her up as well.

The experience was very positive from our side of things - and perhaps it's not the common experience people hear about, but these officers were very happy to help. As a side note, the county that these officers were in was not a small, nor "safe" county and it wasn't a matter of them not having anything else to do at the time.

All that being said, the original advice of not talking, and knowing your rights should definitely be adhered to if you are on the other side of things. The way everything was used to aide us, can also be used against you. Not all police will treat you the same.

<comment><USER9> This is a good example of how people should use police services. They were and prepared, and they did as much of the legwork as they could. The advice to stay away from the police and to not talk to them when they are soliciting you is also good advice, but maybe not when taken to the extreme. Imagine if the shop owners refused to cooperate? It would have been much harder to solve this crime.

There are some guidelines that I think can help. If you get stopped for a traffic stop and the cop says he wants to take a quick look through your car, you should (respectfully) decline. That can lead to nothing good for you. If you think you might be suspected of a crime (right or wrong), or you don't know why the police want to talk to you, do not go and meet with them. If you get arrested, get a lawyer and let him/her deal with talking to the police. You can talk to the judge if it comes to that.

If they explain that they are investigating a crime and you have some information or evidence they need, go ahead and help them if you are not a target.

Just remember, the police are not your friend. They do not care about your life. They will lie to you and manipulate you if it suits their purpose. However, they do in fact serve an important function, that you may need them someday. Use them for their intended purpose. The system is certainly imperfect, but does work much of the time. I believe the trend towards police wearing body cameras during every interaction can only lead to good things for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The police are allowed to lie. That's why you don't take legal advice from them.

<comment><USER11> The police aren't attorneys that you are paying for.

 _THAT_ is why you don't take legal advice from them.

<comment><USER12> Yes, always hire your own professional liar first.

<comment><USER13> Right. Because "Lawyer" is synonymous to "Liar" and the justice system totally isn't based on provable facts, but how well you can lie.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Something is not right about this story. I can't put my finger on it, but the holes in Bo's story make me suspicious. What items were lost originally? What were the circumstances surrounding the lost items? Why wasn't Bo fired immediately after these items were reported missing? Why is Bo offering to pay for any lost items, and why does he seem so eager to do so?

Then, as it pertains to the laptop, what the FRICK is Bo doing installing single user pre-boot authentication on a work computer? That is totally out of line, and I wouldn't blame the employer for feeling like his computer was being held hostage by an ex-contractor.

I could see the theft charge in that case. If someone installed password- protected full disk encryption on my computer and refused to give me the password, yes, nothing was physically "stolen", but the fact that I'm being denied access to my own data is more-or-less equivalent.

The fact that Bo then cuts a check to a detective again makes no sense to me. Why are you paying off law enforcement instead of going through the judicial system? Don't forget, going to court is also there to protect _you_.

</comment><comment><USER15> The website isn't exactly presented in a linear fashion, but I gather the issue is the subject's use of Truecrypt to contain his personal files, whereas on a company-owned computer, all data therein is company property.

This certainly seems like it should be a civil matter, not something to involve the guys with guns and blue suits. But more to the point, $21.50 an hour for a 1099 job for a huge bag-of-dicks of a boss who pirates all his desktop software? Is that BSA hotline still around, or do they even care about small fries?

<comment><USER16> > whereas on a company-owned computer, all data therein is company property.

Are you sure? AFAIK, without signing any contracts, all work I produced is mine, regardless of where it resides. By inference, is all data in my computer mine as well?

<comment><USER2> Work created within the scope of your employment automatically belongs to the company: [https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=6488654&whence=item%3f...](https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=6488654&whence=item%3fid%3d6488407).

<comment><USER17> "Employment" yes. But how about as an outside contractor and _not_ an employee. Unless you, the business hiring the contractor, specify that the contractor is performing a work for hire and that all intellectual property rights associated with said work shall be transferred to you, the copyright law says the creator of the work holds the copyright on the work. Under the law, and with an agreement to receive payment but without stipulations regarding ownership, I'd say it's fair to assume you (again, the one hiring the contractor) are obtaining a _license_ to the work, but not to assume that you will _own_ the work.

<comment><USER2> Right, if you're a contractor it doesn't automatically belong to your employer. I think the issue here is an evidentiary problem: we have nothing other than the author's word that nothing in the encrypted partition belongs to the business.

<comment><USER18> Why is that a problem? Wouldn't the burden of proof fall on the employer to give evidence that something in the encrypted partition belongs to the business?

<comment><USER2> First, burden of proof is not a concept that's relevant before criminal charges or a civil complaint have been filed. You don't need to prove that there is something in the encrypted partition to bring charges. Circumstantial evidence is enough.

Second, in an actual trial the author would have to unlock the encrypted partition. There is no right of privacy against a court. If there is disagreement about what's in a box, people aren't going to sit around arguing about burdens of proof and burdens of production. The court is going to order the box be opened and the issue resolved definitively.

<comment><USER19> Therein is the current question. This is not a box. It is a metaphorical box, that can only be opened by information. This information is only contained in the head of the defendant. Say there is something incriminating in the box. The 5th amendment protects you from being compelled to self incriminate. So, the court could not legally order the box opened, without providing immunity to the defendant.

Your reasoning and my reasoning are the current modes of thought about encryption in a legal context. Neither has been proved correct in that context.

<comment><USER2> Right, 5th amendment is an issue on the criminal side (not the civil side), and the case law is mixed on whether giving up a decryption password is more like giving up a key to a box (which the court can order you to do), or giving testimony protected by the 5th.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The letter of complaint is a lot easier to digest than going through the site

[http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/C...](http://s3.amazonaws.com/InnocentBeyondAReasonableDoubt/PDF/Complaint.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER21> Putting personal files on an employer's computer is a bad idea. Why do such a thing?

</comment><comment><USER22> Isn't an exchange of funds admission of guilt?

<comment><USER23> No. In a civil case, often a defendant will compare the cost to defend themselves to the cost of settling, and will opt for the latter, including in the settlement documentation that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Silly Police!

Next lock boxes and safes!

<comment><USER25> They do hire some ignorant yahoos from time to time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> We are moving back to square one.</comment>


Major security vulnerability in Democratic campaign donation platform (RespDisc) - <AUTHOR> http://rajk.me/actblue <comment><AUTHOR> I posted this yesterday with perhaps an uninforming title.

If you agree that this is a serious vulnerability, please tweet at @actblue and e-mail them at firstname.lastname@example.com.

Here's the introduction. ActBlue is a non-profit that organizes fundraising efforts for Democratic causes; so far they have facilitated over a billion dollars in donations. This page details a security vulnerability in the ActBlue donation system.

tl;dr This vulnerability affects over three million individuals who have donated to a Democratic cause using ActBlue Express Lane. Specifically, the ActBlue donation system can be exploited to appropriate false donations towards either the Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders campaigns. Using cross- site request forgery, previous donors can be tricked into donating to other Democratic candidates or causes.</comment>


Async/Await on Array method – JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://www.npmjs.com/package/async-ray<p>The Async-ray package lets you use async methods such every, filter, find, findIndex, forEach, map, reduce, reduceRight and some methods in Array in  Javascript. Git hub repo: https://github.com/rpgeeganage/async-ray <comment><USER2> Where do you see the advantage of this package of established "batteries included" promise libraries like [http://bluebirdjs.com/docs/api/collections.html](http://bluebirdjs.com/docs/api/collections.html) ?

<comment><AUTHOR> I usually don't use any 3rd party library as a replacement for native promises. The main advantage of the package is, it does not depend on any 3rd party library (except for testing and TypeScript related stuff)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Feedback tools with User Voice, Get Satisfaction, Olark - <AUTHOR>

Several Startups use one such tool. Example:<p>* Hipmunk uses Olark: http://www.hipmunk.com/<p>* Has Voice uses User Voice: http://www.hascanvas.com/<p>Which do you recommend? <comment><USER2> Olark is as close as you can get to having the kind of interaction with customers you have in a retail business. People wander in and you can chat with them casually or help them use your site.

Every single early stage startup should have Olark on their site.

It's one of the very few things I pay for and it's worth every penny.

<comment><USER3> Olark is a great tool. We (UserVoice) often use it when we're launching a new feature or change to our sign up onramp.

That said you can quickly find it overwhelming (and distracting). It's great feedback but you really need to dedicate someone to doing it. UserVoice comes in for all those times when you're not able to be online and dedicated to just talking to customers. We use UserVoice to deal with any support issues that coming in (via our Helpdesk product) and to sequester any good ideas and build up support for new features before we build/launch them (via our Feedback product).

If you're really early stage then definitely use Olark but if you're getting any sort of traction at all you'll want to have UserVoice to cover the rest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would differentiate the feedback forums (Uservoice, GetSatisfaction) from Olark & SnapEngage which help with converting customers via real-time chats.

Real time chat is much more important for a startup. You can learn from potential customers + convert them on the spot...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. I didn't know SnapEngage, I'll look into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Based on their prior interactions with 37Signals, I have somewhat of a bias against Get Satisfaction, FWIW.</comment>


When Linux fails - <AUTHOR> http://www.tuxdeluxe.org/node/287 <comment><USER2> Please try to read down to the section mentioning Jon "Maddog" Hall. What he says is true.

<comment><USER3> Partly, I guess. One the one hand it makes sense to apply one's skills where they can help best, but in the case of the kid in the bush, perhaps some creativity would yield interesting results? Maybe one could build a cheap satellite link or something...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think that Ian Howards point that the local "computer support person" resented a solution because it was too easy to use is the wrong conclusion. I've found that frequently, people reset linux simply because it's unfamiliar. In remote african villages, I would wager that this unfamiliarity is amplified by the lack of widespread technology in general.

<comment><USER5> The point that Howards makes seems to be that the unfamiliarity of Linux isn't the problem, inasmuch as the people who 'understand' the complexity of Windows not wanting to be out of a job. After all, if your bread-and-butter comes from keeping Windows running for a bunch of people, you're going to resist any move off of Windows, and as a local in a tight-knit community, you carry a hell of a lot more weight than some well-meaning yahoo from the States.

<comment><USER6> Or maybe it was just that the "simple" Linux solution wasn't really that simple to the person who didn't already know Linux and the software used there? And the the "complex" Windows based solution was already well known, both how it works and what quirks it has and really quite simple to the person which already managed it.

I've seen ton of Linux people presenting so-called "simple" solutions, which while not mindstaggeringly complex, requires you to familarize yourself with a whole new toolchain, new commands and new concepts.

While _they_ have seen the light in Linux-based solutions, they have also stared themselves blind by not recognizing that a lot of things which are simple or obvious to them are skills that need to be learned.

Basically it boils down to not fixing something which is not broken and sticking to the tools you know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm sick of sensationalist headlines, but this does put across one of the problems emerging technologies have that people often miss: the social issues are often just as, if not more, important than the technical ones.</comment>


This girl is everywhere: stock photos - <AUTHOR> http://ithinkisawhersomewhere.tumblr.com/

<comment><USER2> Her name is Ariane:

[http://asianstockphotogirl.tumblr.com/](http://asianstockphotogirl.tumblr.com/)

[http://www.glamour.com/fashion/blogs/dressed/2013/10/the- mos...](http://www.glamour.com/fashion/blogs/dressed/2013/10/the-most-famous- model-in-the-w.html)

[https://www.facebook.com/notes/ariane-the-overexposed- stock-...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/ariane-the-overexposed-stock-image- model/the-original-ariane-expose-article/530140707048004)

She and her partner/photographer have made an entire business of travelling and taking photographs for stock sale. Not a bad way to write off your trips. Ariane's ambiguous ethnicity (She's French Canadian and Chinese) has made her look easy to adapt to many ad campaigns.

</comment><comment><USER3> Before clicking on the link I thought it would be the Parked Domain Girl.

(I hadn't seen the one linked in this item before, however.)

<comment><USER4> On Parked Domain Girl

[http://www.urlesque.com/2010/11/03/parked-domain- girl/](http://www.urlesque.com/2010/11/03/parked-domain-girl/)

[http://mind--blown.blogspot.ca/2012/05/fascinating-story-of-...](http://mind --blown.blogspot.ca/2012/05/fascinating-story-of-parked-domain-girl.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's the equivalent in Polish ads.

[https://www.facebook.com/twarz.polskiej.reklamy](https://www.facebook.com/twarz.polskiej.reklamy)

[http://tinyurl.com/pfs3etx](http://tinyurl.com/pfs3etx)

<comment><USER6> I definitely saw this one too:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This blog of her ([http://overexposedmodel.tumblr.com/](http://overexposedmodel.tumblr.com/)) is older by two years. Her name is Ariane.

She also has her own Tumblr blog ([http://asianstockphotogirl.tumblr.com/](http://asianstockphotogirl.tumblr.com/)).

</comment><comment><USER8> "That girl again!", my girlfriend keep saying that to me for more than a year.

We live in Brazil and she works with marketing on startups. She personally used her photos in her jobs until she could recognize her everywhere. At least once a month she point her to me on a new ad.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have totally the same experience. I actually see her few times per month now.

<comment><USER6> The moment I noticed her, I couldn't help myself to stop seeing here everywhere. The thing that upsets me a lot, is that even modern startups/companies still use her face.

WHY?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> She's also on the front page of Team Viewer. She's on the trucks that deliver our break room snacks at work. And I've seen her on bulletin board ads at school when my wife and I lived on campus several years back. I see her everywhere!

</comment><comment><USER10> Her husband will probably feel like he is always looking at a commercial :P

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm assuming the model doesn't make any residuals from something like this. Kind of too bad, though I guess having your face everywhere is at least good for getting more work.

</comment><comment><USER12> Is this girl a Getty/iStockPhoto girl, or Shutterstock? Somewhere else? Both?

</comment><comment><USER13> That's so funny, I instantly recognized her.

<comment><USER14> I think she's on the homepage of Noom ([http://www.noom.com/index.php](http://www.noom.com/index.php)). Different angle then WellnessFX but same outfit and hair.

<comment><USER6> Wow, it definitely can be her:)</comment></comment></comment>