How Zidisha (YC W14) Is Misleading the Public About Its Interest Rates - <AUTHOR> http://modernmicrocredit.blogspot.com/2014/04/4-ways-that-zidisha-yc-w14-is.html <comment><USER3> I initially was a huge fan of Zidisha _because_ of all the bullshit the microlending providers pull. Which is exactly like this. (fixed fees on small loans would be the main trick; stuff like flat-fee vs. declining balance APR is a bit more subtle.)

I hope they post a response, and this turns out to be some kind of misunderstanding.

<comment><USER3> And, in fact, based on the Zidisha founder's response above, it looks to me like this was a mix of some legitimate issues (which will be addressed), some misunderstanding by the modern microlending analyst, and some in a gray area I'm not really sure about.

I do really appreciate the quality of analysis Modern Microlending did here. It's also great that Zidisha responded within hours with a pretty full and honest accounting. This is how this kind of thing is supposed to work, I think.

<comment><USER4> I agree. The original analysis made some important points, and the response by Zidisha was great too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The way Zidisha markets its rates feels like a lot of services I see. It's how my phone bill, electric bill, almost all my bills work - hidden fees charged by everyone so you just assume you're going to be paying more than is quoted.

They're following the status quo, are probably not intending to be evil, and are surely feeling the pressure to be 10x better.

But I worked in the Philippines in college, and you want to know what would really blow their minds? Not screwing them over. Everybody else does that. 10x better is being honest. Given their alternatives, 25% isn't that bad. Initial adoption might be slow - they're so used to corruption and being bullshitted that they'll think it must be 25% plus something - but once word spreads that Zidisha is really just 25% and offers the most valuable commodity in places like this - honesty and transparency - it will blow up. And then you'll get more fraud, but that's challenge 2.0.

<comment><USER6> I was just about to say "surely there are honest alternatives in the Philippines below 25%", but I just checked my most recent Kiva loans in the Philippines, and the portfolio yield on my most recent ones range from 28% - 45%. Thanks for the reminder to check the Yield when lending.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> While is commentary makes an excellent case for dishonesty on Zidisha's part, I wonder if some context is necessary. Looking beyond the dishonesty, this commentary talks about a 25 percent interest rate in the implicit context of the credit environment of a developed country. In that context, these practices and interest rates are extremely suspicious, morally dubious, and possibly illegal.

This raises the question of why Zidisha is making these statements. To assume a developed-world business context excludes the possibility that these practices are accepted and commonplace in the markets Zidisha serves. I have no experience with those markets, but it's worth excluding this possibility before expressing distaste for these practices.

Consider the following plausible scenario: Zidisha performs research into the market and discovers that these practices and rates are acceptable. One can even imagine they are preferable to the status quo. The issue is that Zidisha as a company has to generate press and justify its business to a developed- world audience whose gut reaction to such practices would make the company look like a pack of usurers, when in fact they could very well be doing a lot of good.

To me, this communication seems a compromise response to this conflict: translate the numbers and practices as best you can into language and terms developed-world audiences understand. Perhaps the company took some liberties with labeling and conversions along the way, and if this is the case they would do well to be more conservative, but overall I give the benefit of the doubt that this communicate is the result of a tricky conflict of business environments rather than deception.

<comment><USER8> > _" is the result of a tricky conflict of business environments rather than > deception."_

Can't it be both? Intentional misrepresentation in the pursuit of a worthwhile goal is still intentional misrepresentation. I look forward to seeing Zidisha's response, but as it is this looks highly intentional and highly deceptive.

This ultimately comes down to the classic "do the ends justify the means" debate. It also leads to immediate suspicions of a slippery slope - if the founders of this startup are willfully misrepresenting the _core_ nature of their business in furtherance of their goals, what else about them is negotiable?

<comment><USER9> This. People seem to assume that the target audience is too unsophisticated to understand anything beyond flat rates. Zidisha itself implies as much through their claim that flat rates are simpler to understand.

In fact, flat rates are more confusing because they are misleading. So, not only is Zidisha joining in on this customary practice, they are promoting it.

Instead, they should educate their clients, re-express competitive rates in terms of APR, etc.

So, the net is that it does appear to be intentionally misleading, which is made no better by the fact that such misleading may be common practice in some parts of the world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Dear all,

Although I do not agree with Modern Microcredit's allegations that we are intentionally misleading, the discussion that has resulted is a useful one.

As I see it, we have a several options:

1\. The status quo: Continue to quote flat interest rates in our website along with an explanation of the calculation in a modal box, and display the dollar amounts paid for each loan for extra clarity.

2\. Transition from a flat rate methodology to APR. This would be more in line with the standard used in most lenders' countries, but would be more difficult to understand for borrowers. (It would also require a rewriting of much of our website. Zidihsa has only one web developer, so implementing this option would probably have to wait until have more programming resources.)

3\. Continue to use flat rates as the basis for calculating the cost of Zidisha loans, but display the equivalent APR rates along with them. Perhaps Microfinance Transparency could help us develop a tool to facilitate this.

4\. Continue to use flat rates, but use the term "fee" instead of "interest." This would be easy to implement and could help lenders avoid mistaking our flat rates for APR, but makes cost comparison with loans in borrowers' countries less straightforward.

Zidisha has little value without transparency, and those who have commented here obviously care deeply about it. I'd welcome everyone's advice on which option Zidisha should adopt, or alternative proposals.

<comment><USER9> > _2\. Transition from a flat rate methodology to APR. This would be more in > line with the standard used in most lenders ' countries, but would be more > difficult to understand for borrowers_

This statement implies bad-thinking with regard to borrower clarity and understanding. As is well-known and obvious, flat-rate pricing actually obfuscates the true costs. So, to say that it helps borrowers understand is to say that it purposely gives them a false sense that they understand when they actually do not.

Again, this is obvious, and anyone who understands APR and its purpose must make this admission. And, if one makes this admission and still continues to promote flat-rates as somehow clearer to borrowers, then he/she must also admit that he/she is now willfully misleading borrowers for whatever purpose ("simplicity", self-interest, or otherwise).

<comment><USER11> > As is well-known and obvious, flat-rate pricing actually obfuscates the true > costs.

Huh? Flat-rate pricing makes the true cost absolutely clear. If you have _N_ payments with an _k_ flat rate, and principal _P_ , the total of all payments will be _P_ × (1+ _k_ × _N_ ). The "true costs" with APR are _no more_ clear.

Declining balance interest (APR) is perhaps a more _fair_ and economically _efficient_ basis for charging for credit, but its not at all more _clear_ as to the "true cost".

<comment><USER12> Their loans have substantial fees attached that are not included in the quoted flat rate.

<comment><USER11> And declining balance loans often have up-front fees that are separate from the quoted interest rates. Fees outside of the stated interest are an orthogonal concern to flat-rate vs. APR interest methods.

Insofar as "substantial fees attached that are not included in the quoted flat rate" obfuscate the costs, that has nothing to do with flat rate interest (obviously.)

<comment><USER9> > _And declining balance loans often have up-front fees that are separate from > the quoted interest rates._

As I mentioned in my response to your comment above, you appear to be using the "strict" (mathematical) definition of APR vs flat-rate _calculations_. In the U.S., APR is generally understood to be inclusive of up-front fees as defined by the Truth In Lending Act.

Whether or not this is perfect in practice, on this thread (and in the article), the term APR is meant to convey a number that _is_ inclusive of all fees and non-interest charges, such that it reflects the truer cost of the loan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My knee jerk reaction to this is disgust. Which typically means that it deserves a lot more research and validation on my part. I thought Zidisha was a game changer and a website I could be proud to support. I didn't look at it as a way to invest but a way to support young entrepreneurs in other countries. Does anyone else see anything about this that is redeeming for Zidisha?

</comment><comment><USER14> Looks like Zidisha is taking a page from the payday loan folks playbook, not exactly a desirable role model.

<comment><USER4> It doesn't look like that at all. Microlending loans are a bit different than the "go to the bank and borrow $100K" loans that we are all used to. The bank doesn't charge a fee, because they make $1000s on interest on that loan over it's lifetime and it covers it.

Your bank won't lend you $50 as a loan. It's not worth it for them. But if you add in some reasonable fees (like $11 for credit check report), an $11 one- time fee on a $50 loan converted to APR looks huge! 500% APR! But it's only because the amounts we are talking about are so small.

I think we need to look at this more carefully and not compare apples and oranges. Big loans and small loans are different things.

(And payday loans are evil. But microlending is not the same as that.)

<comment><USER14> I didn't mean that they were the same thing at all; the "page" they are borrowing is the hiding of fees and service charges behind the bold text of a "low rate".

Your example is fine, by the way. Yes, that $50 is costing you 500% APR. And yes, that is exactly how you should think about it, and how they should advertise it. Anything else is problematic. It doesn't matter how the cost is arrived at, this is the cost to you of borrowing that money, and it is this entire cost that must be balanced against the value you will see from it, not any nominal rate.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing the sort of loan they are talking about, and the costs may be perfectly reasonable too; certainly microlending is a different risk landscape that typical bank loans.

However, the only ethical way to handle financial details like this is to always be as transparent as you can.

Lots of sectors get this wrong, by the way -- payday loans are particularly egregious but the auto finance industry is pretty slimy on this too, in different ways.

By the way, payday loans as an institution obviously meet a lot of market need that wasn't being addressed before them, or they wouldn't have popped up everywhere. I don't think they should be run out of town, but they should be honest about the costs.

<comment><USER15> > but the auto finance industry is pretty slimy on this too, in different ways

This is true that the auto industry (some anyways) will extend the life of your loan to make the car look cheaper. You can only afford $100 a month? Have a ten year loan! However, I was with a friend when she bought her car and on the finance agreement there was a (possibly legal requirement) box where it said clearly "this is the total amount of interest you will pay over the life of the loan." You had to sign that you got that number and that it was pointed out to you. Regulations in the US make lenders less scummy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Dear all,

I'm the director of Zidisha, and have just posted this response to the blog post. I'd be happy to respond to questions here.

Dear Modern Microcredit,

I'm sorry that you found our website information misleading. I'd like to address your points here:

1\. Interest rate diagram: As we do apply a 5% transaction fee, I agree that the diagram showing a range of 0% to 15% is incorrect. A volunteer had donated the diagram to us years ago, and we did not scrutinize it sufficiently before using it in our website. We have now removed the diagram until it can be adjusted to reflect the 5% minimum cost.

2\. Registration Fee: This is approximately $12 paid when a borrower first joins Zidisha, and provides lifetime membership. We do not include it in the interest cost calculation because it covers the unlimited number of loans that borrower may receive over the course of many years.

3\. Zidisha service fee: This is a flat 5% of the loan amount per year the loan is held. Most Zidisha loans are held for less than a year, so it is usually less than 5% of the loan amount. For example, the 5% fee for $50 loan held for three months would be 1.25%, or about 63 cents. That is hardly exorbitant.

4\. Interest offered to lenders: We allow borrowers to offer any interest rate they choose to lenders, from 0% up to a maximum of 25% of the value of the loan per year the loan is held. In practice, the highest rates are usually offered by first-time borrowers who have not yet established track records with Zidisha (much as new eBay sellers offer the first few items at a discount).

5\. Using a collection of randomly selected loans as a proxy for average cost to Zidisha borrowers is misleading. First-time Zidisha loans are overrepresented in this measure, because they are smaller and repaid more quickly, and are therefore more numerous than the larger subsequent loans taken by established borrowers. Since first-time loans pay the highest annualized interest (because they are held for a short time), using them as an example overstates the average cost of Zidisha loans. Our statistics correct for this by using a weighted average based on dollar amounts rather than single loans.

6\. We use flat rates not in order to deceive, but simply because they are more intuitive to borrowers and lenders than APR. The vast majority of our borrowers are used to flat rates being quoted by local lenders, and when they tell us they want to borrow $100 at 10% interest, they mean that they wish to repay $110. If we wanted to distort our data to appeal to lenders, it would make more sense to use APR, as the higher quoted rates would make lending through Zidisha seem more profitable. In fact, our intent is simply to make the cost easy to understand for everyone. For extra clarity, we provide extensive explanation of APR vs. flat rates, and display the exact dollar amounts borrowers pay for each loan in the loan profile pages. I don't see how this can be construed as hiding information. Using APR in Zidisha's situation would mean sacrificing a measure that the majority of our members understand easily for theoretical precision.

7\. You imply that Zidisha does not in fact lower the cost of microloans in developing countries. That is not true. Even the $50 loan you cited above, which chose to offer to lenders the maximum interest rate we allow at Zidisha, ended up costing the borrower only $1.73 in interest and fees. I would be surprised if any other lender would offer an online applicant with no credit history a short-term loan at such rates.

Zidisha's cost savings to borrowers have been independently analyzed. Below is an excerpt from a study published by microfinance analyst Daniel Rozas. (Note that the average interest borrowers have opted to pay lenders has increased from 2-3% at the time of this study to about 5-6% currently, but this does not invalidate the conclusion that Zidisha's rates are substantially lower than what has hitherto been available.)

Zidisha's interest rates are remarkably low, ranging between 7-8% annually (quoted flat), of which 2-3% is charged by lenders and 5% is levied by Zidisha to fund its operations. An additional fee of some $10-20 is charged for initial registration (but not for subsequent loans). This is far below the local prevailing rates – MFTransparency places similarly-sized loans (50,000 KES) at about 35% APR (Zidisha's loans are 15-18% APR). And it's all the more noteworthy, considering that Zidisha's borrowers are largely in rural areas, where credit tends to be more expensive. The key to the low rates rests on Zidisha's avoidance of costly staff and operations on the ground, and its ability to leverage low-cost funds from socially-motivated lenders. (from [http://www.financialaccess.org/blog/2011/07/microfinance- wit...](http://www.financialaccess.org/blog/2011/07/microfinance-without-mfi- zidisha-tests-boundaries-microlending-methodology))

I'd be happy to provide further information as desired.

<comment><USER16> Julia, I think you need to spend some more time considering MMC's analysis and hopefully some more significant changes to how you present and market the costs of these loans.

I had never heard of 'flat rate' vs 'declining balance' interest rates. As far as I'm concerned, it's abusing the word to call your fees an 'interest rate' because they are not. They lack the necessary property of a 'interest rate', that is, being based on balance over time. What you are charging is a fee, based on the starting balance and period. I think you should stop calling this an interest rate, and I'd be surprised if it's not illegal to do this anyway.

It sounds like your 'service fee' is ALSO a flat rate fee based on the starting balance and period, which makes splitting it out and consistently footnoting it in your marketing seem deliberately misleading. The reason we insist on APR is because you can't hide anything from it. When lenders make up terms and market them, it's almost invariably because they are trying to hide costs. Somehow this cost hiding is always couched as 'better for the borrower'.

The "it's only 63 cents" trick won't work with this crowd. Because we understand how "interest rates" are supposed to work. If it's just 63 cents, then easier to refund it than write the blog post. But 5% of $2m is $100,000 so lets get real.

MMC includes a screenshot showing 'About this Loan' a few times during the article;

      Amount Requested:      USD 50.00
      Repayment Period:      6 weeks
      Grace Period:          1 week
      Offered Interest Rate: 25.00%
      Service Fee:           5.00%
      One-Time Reg Fee:      USD 11.78

      Total Amount (Including
      Interest and Transaction   USD 51.73 (30.00%)
      Fee) to be Repaid:

It was confusing to me, even with the explanation in parenthesis, that the 'Total Amount' did not actually include all the fees. You should call it a 'Partial Amount' if you want to leave parts of the total amount out. Otherwise, it should actually be, you know, the _total amount_.

If you can get users to pay the 'Registration Fee' completely independently of getting a loan, then by all means, have them pay it separately, and keep it out of the loan statement. But, what I imagine really happens is, users pay this fee to get a loan, then it's a loan fee, and you have to include it when you do things like report your total loan costs!

<comment><USER10> Hi zaroth,

Am I understanding correctly that you are suggesting we not use the term "interest", but instead call the amounts borrowers pay to lenders a fee?

That is worth considering. It would avoid much of the confusion over flat rates versus APR, and would still be clear to borrowers that the amount represents the cost of the loans.

I'd be interested to hear others' perspective on whether Zidisha ought not to use the term "interest" at all, but instead replace it with "fee" or some other term.

<comment><USER16> I think the problems run deeper than that, because you have multiple different groups you are trying to communicate with, and some of them are getting incorrect information here.

If borrowers want to know how much they are paying in interest rate, then I think you should tell them in terms of APR. If borrowers want to know how much they are paying in terms of dollars, then that's easy, just tell them.

I think itemizing out fee A, fee B, fee C, is just a silly game. If you go back to your "About this Loan" table, what you call 'Service Fee' and 'Interest Rate' are the same thing, just combine them. Then, if I want to know how much they actually cost, I have to look at Total and subtract $50? But then it's still missing the "one-time fee".

What if the table did say; (and I'm not saying you _should_ do this)

      Loan Date:        April 14, 2014
      Repayment Date:   June 2, 2014   (7 weeks)

      Amount Requested: USD 50.00
      Loan Fees:        USD 13.51  (200% APR)
      Total Amount:     USD 63.51

Of course your system knows if I'm a repeat borrower, and can automatically charge the $11.78 or not. Look, it's a hard truth that the first loan has terrible terms because of the registration fee, but you can't hide from it.

The only problem with this is it doesn't really help me understand how much it's going to hurt if I need more than 7 weeks to repay. But I don't know enough about your payment model to really comment on that.

<comment><USER10> Hi zaroth,

This makes sense, and we are already doing some of that.

In the loan application form that borrowers see, the 5% fee to Zidisha and the interest offered to lenders is in fact combined. Borrowers choose any combined rate from 5% up to a maximum of 30%, with a text description indicating that the first 5% of this is paid to Zidisha and the rest is paid to lenders.

The loan application page also indicates the registration fee, as a cost separate from the combined interest / fee rate that the borrower selects.

We separate the service fee from the lender interest in the loan applications that are displayed to lenders, because the intent is to indicate the maximum interest that they can expect to receive from each loan proposal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Author of the article is confusing "borrower" facing data with "lender" facing data. Lender interest rate is what lender gets and not what borrower pays. 5% lender interest rate is correct because that is what lender gets. Lender doesn't get service fees and origination fee. It will be very confusing for lender if Zidisha published 25% borrower interest rate as lender may assume that they are getting 25% interest rate which will be incorrect. If Zidisha was telling borrowers that they pay 5% interest rate or telling lenders that they receive 25% interest rate then that will be misleading. Author needs to spend some time understanding the terminology and nuances of lending/debt market from both borrower and lender view. This is the most confusing aspect most people new to lending side face as they are only used to seeing borrower side. Lender side view is very different from borrower side view.

<comment><USER18> I don't think he confuses the two - he talks about both in detail. The issue is with the concept if the flat interest rate combined with service fees and signup fees that make the advertised borrower rate misleading.

But there is a likelihood that not everybody understands it. Journalists and bloggers just throw out the 5% figure without specifying what it means because it makes for a nice sounding blurb.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think microlending is loan sharking by another name, and that's _a good thing_. I'm not a libertarian but you still need to consider that outlawing something voluntarily or even just singling it out as a pariah has tricky effects. It often harms those who are ostensibly being protected.

A few years ago Australian politicians started targeting 'payday loans' and other "predatory lenders." The upshot was that these weasels target vulnerable borrowers with 100%+ APR loans, who are ultimately harmed. 'Vulnerable' is hard to define or measure. Harm is virtually impossible. 'Predatory terms' (interest rates) were the only easy of defining and singling out these guys. Legally it seems to have been hard to target predatory lending so name-and- shame was the main tactic .

A typical loan is a few hundred dollars payable in a few weeks. The ideal borrower goes down a revolving credit hole. For a class-minded political activist this screams evil. It's like the middle class debt trap, beefed up and tailored for the poor and/or dysfunctional. The marketing targets addicts, gamblers, welfare recipients, etc. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

The first thing that happened when all this negative attention came about is that banks got out of anything even similar to payday loans. No point in tarnishing their brand for a tiny unattractive business. The guys who stayed in business were the scummiest, the ones who didn't care about brand and didn't care about their business. It became like running a brothel, legal but unsavory. The industry boomed as more legitimate businesses ceded market share to the shadier players.

Realistically, there are two facts that can't be wished away. High risk, low value loans are expensive to provide. People want/need payday loans and they will get them from whoever is giving them. It can't be done at non "predatory" APRs and it can't be shut down. If they had outright outlawed payday loans, then shady businesses would have given way to outright criminals, the leg breaking loanshark cliche.

In comes micro-finance. Nobel peace prize winning, poverty alleviating, enlightened, woman emancipating microfinance. These ran with a lot of support. They attracted great people at far under-market salaries. Motivated employees with a mission and received outright donations from the public. Major banks created microfinance programs as a part of their corporate responsibility, goodwill project.

These amount to a real and substantial summary. Annualized interest rates are still very high. Lower than payday loans and much lower than village lenders and loan sharks they displace but higher than the worst credit card.

Two ends of the spectrum. One on the border region of legality below the decent folk morality threshold. The other, literally a charitable activity.

Interesting to think about. Make something illegal and it runs as a criminal enterprise. Treat it as a predatory pariah and it behaves like a predatory pariah. Treat it as a charitable act, and it behaves that way. In no case does it go away.

<comment><USER20> I'm willing to grant you that outlawing payday loans and similar predatory practices without consequently causing all sorts of nasty side effects is hard. But what you're saying amounts to "it's hard so let's just not bother at all" which is incredibly defeatist. Using that reasoning, why bother doing anything about anything at all?

<comment><USER21> There's a very big difference between trying to outlaw something the assumed victim does not want to be part of, e.g. murder, theft etc., vs. something the assumed victim is engaging in voluntarily, though we might suspect "forced" by circumstance, or by lack of knowledge etc.

As much as there are many things that it is easy to think "should" be illegal, outlawing the latter rarely works, not least because the assumed victim is likely not to want to cooperate with you, and potentially being outright hostile because they see a ban as being what is victimising them, rather than the provider of the banned service.

I don't think it's defeatist to accept this - it just means another angle is needed that the presumed victim will actually agree is beneficial to them, such as providing free financial advice, or mandating better information about actual loan costs. This is the approach taken to payday loans in the UK.

It doesn't stop the people who has a genuine need for cash even if it is expensive, doesn't drive them into the hand of hardened criminals, but hopefully helps to minimize demand. And improved labelling helps providers that can provide more competitive rates as well - at least one UK pawnbroker explicitly targets payday loan providers with their advertising by pointing to the lower rates they can provide, for example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> People don't seek out micro-loans to establish sustainable, value magnetizing ventures. They take micro-loans to get through today, tonight, and next week. All micro-lenders I've investigated long enough turned out to be charity- arbitrage. "You got a guilty feeling? I've got some pictures and stories that will make you feel good. You can just click the (your) pain away." They do just enough to keep selling the narrative and sucking the life out of their believers/volunteers while gold-plate-lining someone's ever heavier pockets.

I don't feel charitable if I expect interest to be paid to me or my "emissaries."

</comment><comment><USER23> This makes YCombinator look bad. Did they know about this before investing in Zidisha? If not, maybe consulting the likes of GiveWell could be a good idea.

<comment><USER24> GiveWell? Aren't those the guys that astroturfed MetaFilter a few years ago?

<comment><USER23> Yep. Although they apologized publicly for it and came out being a much stronger organization.

Their apology (not half bad): [http://www.givewell.org/about/shortcomings](http://www.givewell.org/about/shortcomings)

Deceit in lending is not uncommon among microfinance organizations, but it's surprising to see it from a YC-backed company. I look forward to Zidisha's response, I'm sure they'll shed more light on it.

<comment><USER25> Also, _6 years later_ , their apology is still posted and crosslinked on their website, years later, in an easily accessible/sharable URL.

MeFi's analysis, which FWIW, notes that most of the offending activity was done under the founders' real first-names: [http://mefiwiki.com/wiki/Givewell](http://mefiwiki.com/wiki/Givewell)

(Where is AirBnB's apology for violating Craigslist's TOS with the spamming from "Jessica"?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've never even heard of a "flat rate" loan until now. For the average american it sounds very close to a fixed rate which we are more used to even though it is far different.

<comment><USER15> Not at all. A fixed rate loan is one where the interest can't change in response to events. So if I borrow money for 30 years with a fixed rate loan at 5%, I will pay 5% the entirety of the loan even if inflation rises to 10% or I am late with a few payments. You can always refinance though, but that creates a different loan.

A variable rate loan is one where interest can change. Credit cards are usually variable, so if I miss a payment your interest rate can go up or if you've been a customer for a long time and have a good history of paying on time your interest rate can go down. Mortgages with variable rates usually fix the rate for x years and then they reevaluate in x years. During the housing bubble, variable rate mortgages with were common.

<comment><USER26> I understand a fixed loan and a variable loan, and those are what I'm used to considering when deciding whether to borrow money.

I think the issue that the post brings up is that the target market for the microcredit borrowers consists of people used to flat rate loans, which is totally alien to the target market for lenders. I think the lenders will likely mentally map "flat rate" to the closest thing they are aware of, which is likely "fixed rate."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Solving the credit problem for the developing world is a very challenging undertaking with huge potential rewards, which is why this is so disappointing.

Organizations like this should not be not-for-profits. I don't believe that a business with such misrepresentation would have lasted this long without being called out. Hiding behind the not-for-profit label in markets where for- profits should be operating does nothing but distort the market and lull consumers/lenders into a false sense of do-gooding. These are financial markets and so we need to find effective market actors instead of not-for- profits that can unfairly compete due to their status.

By using the not-for-profit label and misrepresenting interest rates, Zidisha is also painting the picture (whether they intend to or not) that businesses in this space are exploitative and that Zidisha is good. Micro-loans are expensive loans! Businesses have to charge a lot for them to be economical, but access to credit for high-turnover businesses can make a huge a difference if it makes sense for the business.

What is really needed in the space isn't necessarily a lending platform, but more data and better techniques to lend. It's tough to vet entrepreneurs cheaply and at scale, but something I hope we will continue to get better at. There is a ton of money in the impact investing sector right now that could do a lot of good through market channels but lending in the developing world is still just too expensive and too risky.

I'll close with another misleading statement from the October 2012 interview that the author of the blog post didn't discuss:

... the total rate paid from the borrower's perspective averages 8.40%. Note that this is not much above the average rate of inflation in the borrowers' countries.

The problem here is that this statement assumes a stable currency against the US dollar. While 8.40% may be close to the inflation rate, for many of these countries an additional several percentage points of currency devaluation against the US dollar will raise the effective interest rate in local currency. I would love to understand how Zidisha deals with the challenge of currency fluctuations, especially when educating its borrowers.

I hope the takeaway from this is not that micro credit and lending in the developing world is bad and exploitative - just that it is expensive and nobody is that great at it yet. I'm disappointed in Zidisha's misrepresentation but I hope it makes it clear that this isn't a solved problem that greed and bad business practice is getting in the way of. It's an extremely difficult, unsolved problem that we need more smart people working on to solve.

</comment><comment><USER28> Interesting how important the length of the loan is. A 5% one-time fee on a 5 year loan may be acceptable. A 5% fee on a 6 week loan is massively higher than the actual interest charged.

<comment><USER29> Yes. I agree that the author seems to want to completely ignore the fact that it is a 1 time fee vs an interest rate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Question for the OP: Who profits from the service? Who profits more by "misleading" borrowers, lenders, and/or donors?

If the OP is uncovering exorbitant fees, someone must be getting rich. I'd like to know what happens when you follow the money. If no one is getting rich, is that evidence of an honest service trying to make the world better for those born someplace other than the developed world?

</comment><comment><USER31> question to the OP: Aside from believing the information is misleading, do you believe that Zidisha is still improving microlending?

</comment><comment><USER10> Dear all,

Thanks in part to this debate, we have opted to reduce the interest Zidisha borrowers may offer to lenders. You may view the full announcement and discussion here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7558816](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7558816)

</comment><comment><USER32> I think the blogger misinterpreted the "lender interest rate" to mean "borrower interest rate." However, the markup/hidden fees do look extremely shady.

</comment><comment><USER33> Unfortunately, just another usury-based company entering the market. What a way to exacerbate the already worsening economic situation.

<comment><USER34> Surely not just a usury-based company but instead one exacting usurious repayments by lending other peoples money. Truly champions of capitalism.

<comment><USER33> Couldn't have said it better myself :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> So it is essentially a credit card rate.

<comment><USER36> A pretty good credit card rate. If you do a search for credit cards for people with poor/no credit history you'll see 35%-60% APR rates.

<comment><USER15> [http://www.creditcards.com/bad-credit.php](http://www.creditcards.com/bad- credit.php)

30% seems to be common.

When I got my first CC I just got a low limit ($600), not high interest.

<comment><USER36> Coincidentally, that's the same link I googled for my figures.

They have 2 at 30%, 6 at 35%, 1 at 40% and 1 at 60% and all of them need to approve you even at those levels, and may increase them for particularly bad risks (they market them as "representative" rates, so some percentage of people needs to get them I think).

I'd guess the people who aren't savvy enough to go through a price comparison search also get stung at the high end of these rates too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> [I posted this on the MMC website, should have posted here! Mildly edited to relfect context here]

I get bogged down in such interest rate debates, so decided to put my money where my mouth is and lend on Zidisha - MY loans, MY transactions, MY calculations. I uploaded $1000. 18 months later (in fact slightly less as I did this in two batches of $500, minor detail) my cash + pending loans + outstanding capital is $1006. For all practical purposes let's say I am at break-even. I made some money in interest, however calculated, and I lost some money in defaults, late payments and foreign exchange losses. Overall these cancelled out (in fact I am $6 up). My average interest rate that I charged, weighted by the amount I bid, was 4.4% (flat per year I believe). I had a few late payments, one outright default, and I have no idea how much forex losses cost me. To repeat, this all largely cancelled out.

I then looked at the average interest rates as stated by Zidisha only for the clients I had lent to. These were 9.31%, but included the 5% fee that Zidisha charged, so it appeared that the average investor was charging 4.31%, marginally lower than me. Indeed, I lent to a few people who were unwilling to pay any interest, and sure enough their stated rate was 5% - the Zidisha fee alone. So, in terms of Zidisha claiming the average LENDER interest rate is 5.3% seems reasonable from my personal lending experience (40 loans to date).

I agree that flat rates are inferior. I wish Zidisha would stop this practice. And it is a fair rule of thumb to double them to get a real APR. There is a fragment of truth in the claim that borrowers understand flat interest rates better than APRs, as these are still common in some countries (where they have not yet been outlawed). Claiming the world was flat a few centuries ago was acceptable and commonly accepted, although wrong! I agree with the author that converting to APRs would be better. But, I also agree that the one-off fee for a credit check, in this lending model, does seem reasonable. But I concede that this is a debatable point.

So, excluding this one-off fee, it does appear that the loans I have personally done have an APR of about 20% (9.31% x 2). What's more, by me charging 4.4% (flat, equivelent to 9% APR), this has covered forex losses and defaults over an 18 month period, almost perfectly (by coincidence). I don't lend on Zidisha to make money, but if I can protect my capital, that is fine by me. This is what most other P2Ps will try to offer. MyC4 offers a net return, Kiva is generally break-even. What fascinates me about Zidisha is that there is no intermediary, and the rates do genuinely seem lower. I accept this might not be the case for a first time client on a $50 loan having to pay $12 for the credit check. The one-off fee is the source of the problem. But where do we draw the line - what about the bus fare to get to the office? The cost of completing the forms? The opportunity cost of time in completing the Zidisha process? Yes, there are entry costs to join Zidisha, as there are in many services. Indeed, one could argue these present a barrier to entry to dissuade non-serious potential borrowers.

Do not mis-understand me, I am a fanatic for transparent pricing in microfinance.

In fact, I should also add that there is an additional fee which I (i.e. from a lender perspective) have to incur that wipes out my measly $6 profit - <USER2> PayPal fee, which was $34 in my case. So, in fact, I lost $28. But, a rate of 20%, or 25%, or 30%, is alas pretty reasonable, particularly in Africa. I agree that Zidisha should adopt APRs as soon as possible, but I would be hesitant to describe this as deceptive. There is no pre-funding, at least they make an effort to state the interest rate, which some P2Ps don't even attempt. I do hover the mouse over the blue buttoms and was aware that this is flat, and I know how to interpret this, but I may not be typical. But compare this to Kiva, whose greatest effort to explain an interest rate is to state the self-reported, unverified portfolio yield of the bank as copied from the MixMarket often years out of date, and this is not even a good proxy of the APR in my opinion. I did a blog post a year or so ago comparing the stated portfolio yields reported by Kiva compared to the actual APRs calculated by Chuck Waterfield, and the divergence is staggering. Is Zidisha perfect, no? Is it an interesting development, challenging the status quo of the current P2P market? In my opinion, yes. There is scope for improvement, and I hope they constantly remain aware of this, but so far I find this a promising venture. It will be interesting to see how it scales up.

Hugh Sinclair, author/consultant www.microfinancetransparency.com

</comment><comment><USER38> Well I for one am shocked that usurers are engaging in usury.

</comment><comment><USER39> se flag blog post? New blog with only one other entry? Something smells rotten in Denmark.</comment>


Wal-Mart offering $40 doctor visits - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wal-marts-new-everyday-low-price-a-40-doctor-visit-2014-10-17

<comment><USER2> I don't know.. with all the added extras, still expensive compared to other countries. I wish US can fix its healthcare mess.

</comment><comment><USER3> next they just need to offer housing, and the transition to "company town" will be complete</comment>


Ask YC: Advice on my Startup, Star Empire Elite - <AUTHOR>

http://starempireelite.com
So, I came back from Startup School, and decided that I would take a shot at developing a web app.  I got to thinking about Ron Conway's comment that there is room in the web-based game space.  And so, for my first web-based project, I decided to adapt an old gaming classic - Solar Realms Elite - for the web.  It is quite minimal right now, and there is certainly lots of room for features and improvements.  A few questions:
1. Where do I go from here?  I would happily sink more time into it, but I would like to find out whether the idea has legs.
2. What suggestions do you have for the design?  I know the design needs work; the game is essentially a series of forms in a certain sequence.  But I'm not exactly sure where to go next.  I'm looking for some simple improvements (I'm going for a retro look).
3. What suggestions do you have for gameplay?  I've got lots of ideas about where to go, but I want to make sure they appeal.  In the near future, I want to implement the possibility of defensive and offensive alliances.
4. Any other comments, much appreciated. <comment><AUTHOR> One other question: I am using authentication through Facebook and Twitter. Not having to manage accounts (recording e-mails, making forgotten-password functionality, &c.) allowed me to focus on the game itself.

Do you think this authentication method will cut down the number of people who will play the game? Or could not having to sign up, specifically, make people more likely to play?

<comment><USER2> Absolutely. There's no way I'm giving you any password.

You should check the number of visits that go to your web, get to the login screen and then drop out of the game.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, but the way the authentication works, you are not actually giving me a Facebook/Twitter password. You actually log in through their systems, and then they let my website know that you are authorized. I never get the password information.

I use the same system used on <http://decafsucks.com/login>. The authors suggest (perhaps some bias here) that one of the reasons decafsucks.com has had success is they were able to avoid asking for yet another password, and instead piggy-backed on Facebook/Twitter.

Do you think assuring users that I don't get the password (you can see this when you click on one of the login options) is enough, or should I get to work on a separate authentication system?

<comment><USER2> Sorry if nobody likes this (by the downvoting) but it's the way things are.

Is exactly the same problem with the authentication in AppEngine applications. We never see the passwords, just Google telling us this person is really this user, but people don't care about the details, we just don't want to share our passwords.

Note that I myself have to use this scheme and even I didn't check your web just because of the authentication problem.

This makes me remember to tell you one more thing: don't ever expect your users to read anything you write on your web.

EDIT: Also, it's a bit silly, but try to put some screen captures to get more conversions, even if it's a text based game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The simple, text-based UI is refreshing. Reminds me of a cleaner-looking Utopia (the game).

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess one of the things I'm wondering is whether there is room for a game that is text-based. On the one hand, I like the semi-retro feel, since it is based on a classic game. but on the other hand, I'm wondering whether a text- based ui will prevent the game from getting any significant traction.</comment></comment>


Learn Difficult Concepts with the ADEPT Method - <AUTHOR> http://betterexplained.com/articles/adept-method/ <comment><USER2> When I was taking linear algebra and calculus in university, I found that there was a lot of focus on deriving formulas from underlying principles, with the notion that this constituted a "fundamental" understanding of the mathematic concept. I got quite good at being able to derive formulas for anything, and did well enough to scrape by on my exams. However the concepts didn't really stick with me. Going through Khalid's site I quickly discovered I had a terrible intuitive understanding of mathematical concepts, almost embarrassingly so. Somehow, derivation from first principles doesn't quite capture intuitive insights for me, especially once I start worked at higher levels of abstraction removed from easily understood foundations (i.e. multi- dimensional vectors).

The two things that I found most helpful in relearning math is (1) building up a foundation for mathematical concepts through betterexplained's intuitive method and (2) turning it into code as soon as possible. For the latter, I have a side project that is a sort of platform to test all my various ideas, from city performance modeling, to procedural form generation, where I am constantly trying to rework or tweak with new math formulas. It's amazing how much more efficient and useful this is as a learning method.

<comment><USER3> Kalid from BetterExplained here, it's awesome to hear the approach is working for you. I had very similar reservations, I could derive many results (like a robot) but had little intuition behind e, i, pi, radians, etc. (let alone how they all came together in something like Euler's Formula).

My litmus test became: If I can't intuitively describe i^i (an imaginary number to an imaginary power) I don't understand it. I don't care if I can derive the equation 15 different ways. If I couldn't spit out some properties of i^i (positive or negative? Real or imaginary? Big or small?) after a glance then I knew I didn't know it. (Why can I spit out properties of 2^3 or 3^(-4) in a few seconds, but not i^i?)

Code is an excellent way to practice these ideas; the bugs in your logic correspond to the bugs in your thinking, and you see (very explicitly) where to correct them.

<comment><USER4> Kalid: you should really check out geometric algebra (a.k.a. Clifford algebra). It will give you a much deeper understanding of what _i_ is and what the exponential function is, and how they generalize to higher dimensions and more complicated models, and it will help stitch together the weird inconsistent little fragments of understanding provided by imaginary numbers, quaternions, matrix algebra, Lie theory, differential forms, etc. into a more unified/cohesive model.

This is the model all high school and college students will be taught in 100 years, or perhaps even in 50 years, and it will prevent an enormous amount of confusion and misunderstanding. It's already becoming the practical tool of choice in many geometric computing problems, and among niche groups of physicists.

"Reforming the Mathematical Language of Physics", [http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/OerstedMedalLecture.pdf](http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/OerstedMedalLecture.pdf)

"Grassmann's Vision" [http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/GrassmannsVision.pdf](http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/GrassmannsVision.pdf)

"Imaginary Numbers are not Real" [http://geometry.mrao.cam.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/Im...](http://geometry.mrao.cam.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/ImagNumbersArentReal.pdf)

"Geometric Algebra" [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5935v1.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5935v1.pdf) (this one is a good place to go if you get stuck in another source).

(Or books might be better sources for going in depth. Search for _New Foundations for Classical Mechanics_ , _Geometric Algebra for Computer Science_ , _Geometric Algebra for Physicists_ )

You'd also probably enjoy Hestenes's work on modeling in physics teaching, e.g. [http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/ModelingThryPhysics.pdf](http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/ModelingThryPhysics.pdf) [http://worrydream.com/refs/Hestenes%20-%20Modeling%20games%2...](http://worrydream.com/refs/Hestenes%20-%20Modeling%20games%20in%20the%20Newtonian%20World.pdf) [http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Notes_on_Modeling_Theory.pdf](http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Notes_on_Modeling_Theory.pdf) [http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Hestenes- ModelingTheory2007.pdf](http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Hestenes- ModelingTheory2007.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd love to seen an ADEPT method explanation of Laplace Transforms.

I got through most of math fairly easily by having a mental model of what was going on and could always check that I was on the right track as it made sense in my mental model. However, when I got to Laplace transforms I never figured out how to visual what that meant. Everything collapsed into transform into the magical space where you can do some things easier and then you can transform out into a new place. I could never be sure of how I got from a to b without a tedious examination of every step to ensure I applied the rules correctly.

I'd love to have a mental model for Laplace Transforms.

As a generalization, how does one explain things where no good mental model exists?

<comment><USER3> Kalid from BetterExplained here, my quick intuition:

The Fourier Transform breaks a signal into its "cycle recipe" (what circular paths are present?). The LaPlace Transform breaks a signal into its "spiral recipe".

Circles are made from a type of exponential (given by e^ix), and spirals are the more general version, where the radius changes (if s=a+bi, then e^is = e^a * e^bi, aka a circular path where the radius changes exponentially).

The LaPlace transform actually deals with decaying spirals (negative s) -- why is this useful?

Well, perfect circles that never decay (the Fourier Transform) are nice for analyzing audio samples, as in music. (Repeated drumbeat throughout the song.)

Decaying spirals model things in the real world, where friction, etc. dampen the signal over time. The Laplace transform can cleanly represent this scenario, whereas you need an infinite number of cancelling terms in the Fourier Transform to represent the "decays over time" setup.

Engineering applications prefer Laplace, compression mechanisms may prefer Fourier. (Separately, Laplace/Fourier make differential equations easier to solve by writing functions in terms of exponentials, which are easy to derive/integrate. The Laplace transform is more general and powerful in this regard, since it can handle any rate of decay, including 0. The Fourier Transform is embedded within the Laplace.)

Just some quick thoughts from an amateur on this :).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great article! This is the most intuitive description of imaginary numbers I have ever read. I'm going to try the same technique with Software Defined Networking (SDN), which has been on my "must figure it out" list for a while. :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Having skimmed the article I want to ask: How about the first principles method ? How does this [ADEPT] compare to it [fp] ?

<comment><USER8> It seems the main point being made by the article is that even if you are going to teach principles, it can be more effective to start by giving some context and motivation before getting into the detailed technical explanations. Deriving results from first principles may well result in better understanding than simply learning results and proofs by rote, but it's still useful to have some indication of why those principles might be useful and relevant as well.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. Even if teaching or reasoning from first principles, you would explain them via analogies, diagrams, examples, etc.

Teaching from first principles solely from the technical definition wouldn't be very pleasant for most.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Excellent! I always think that people, like myself, that work with somewhat abstract and/or complex concepts need to improve our ability to explain them. Really happy to see a concrete method to do this.

</comment><comment><USER10> I see one thing missing from the ADEPT method, which is "what's the story?" in the literal sense. Storytelling is one of the most powerful learning techniques and even a self-learner can create a story about the concept to be learned. The story doesn't need to be picturesque; even a dry story is much more useful than just the facts and description.

Some of the examples they provide are stories ("Academic progress on imaginary numbers took off only after the diagrams were made!"), but the notion of teaching with a story isn't made explicit in the steps of the method.

<comment><USER3> Great point. I enjoy using stories, history, humor as effective tactics for presentation. ADEPT is mainly about the raw ingredients I find helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Fourier transformations clicked for me from your previous articles, this outline really shows the skill of "sharpening" rather than "building" knowledge. Helpful for young kids to adults alike.

<comment><USER12> I had the same experience. However later when I encountered new properties of fourier transforms, such as the convolution theorem, fast fourier transform and the fourier transform of boolean functions, I felt my acquired intuition no longer fitted. Did you also experience this? If so, how did you get past it to that "next level"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Cool. I am currently learning something new and something that have stuck with me is the "if you can explain it, you know it". So while I am learning I am writing a set of instructions about what I am learning and some of what I have written down seems to resemble parts of this article.

Some analogy, visualisations and plain english.

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting article.

I think I'm going to try explaining git branching/merging to newcomers via interpretative dance in future.

</comment><comment><USER15> Anyone want to explain the Y combinator with this method? I find the wikipedia article on it completely inscrutable.

</comment><comment><USER16> Analogies are dangerous in math. They give you the illusion that you understand, but you actually don't.

<comment><USER3> Only if you stop at the analogy :). Last step is Technical Definition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hard to fully get the Haskell Monad with analogies. The way to understand them is to use them.

Coming to think of it same for OO. All those silly Dog is an Animal examples spring to mind.

<comment><USER18> I agree, if you want to learn something, you have to spend your time and focus on it. There is really no other way. I can accept it can be more digestible for many if it is packaged nicely in method X. Helping people learn is a very noble goal, but it should come with a fair warning there is no shortcut in understanding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Does anyone have a link that summarizes this new field of "learning methods?"

How does it compare to "How to Solve It"?</comment>


Ask HN: Alternatives to software startups? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
Lately I've been wondering about something: you hear a lot about web and software startups, and a few things about hardware startups now and then, but virtually nothing about other types of startups. Of course, there are good reasons the aforementioned types are so popular (lack of enormous cash requirements comes to mind), but have you ever thought of 'alternative' startups? Startups in the chemical industry? Biotech? Maybe even mechanical engineering?
So what do you think: do you think there's room for those kinds of startups in those areas (despite the fact that web/software is probably easier), or do you think this is something you need a big business to pull off? Have you ever had a startup idea in one of those areas?
Just curious. :) <comment><USER2> You will read on Hacker News mainly startup that are focusing on web technology. Startups focused on chemical industry, or biotech, are more likely to be on specialized magazines/websites. Moreover, a startup of Biotech is likely to make use of innovative technologies that mostly people (without an education in that industry) can't understand. Web products like Istagram, facebook or Google are better understood by more people because they use every day

</comment><comment><USER3> In the last quarter life science startups received about the same amount of money as internet startups (both were around $1.7bn). Plenty of startups exists in other areas, you're just not likely to find those kind of founders on HN.</comment>


Build a Real-time Bitcoin Pricing and Trading Infrastructure - <AUTHOR> http://www.pubnub.com/blog/build-a-real-time-bitcoin-pricing-and-trading-infrastructure/

<comment><USER2> Interesting. I know a few exchanges who could definitely use an improvement like this.</comment>


Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers - <AUTHOR> https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Mazes-World-Corporate-Managers/dp/0199729883 <comment><AUTHOR> Excerpt:

This classic study of ethics in business presents an eye-opening account of how corporate managers think the world works, and how big organizations shape moral consciousness.

Robert Jackall takes the reader inside a topsy-turvy world where

 _hard work does not necessarily lead to success_ , but

 _sharp talk, self-promotion, powerful patrons, and sheer luck might_.

What sort of everyday rules-in-use do people play by when there are no fixed standards to explain why some succeed and others fail? In the words of one corporate manager, those rules boil down to this maxim:

 _" What is right in the corporation is what the guy above you wants from you. That's what morality is in the corporation."_</comment>


Show HN: My First (Useless but Successful) Neural Network - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/seisvelas/0d68e3639012356fe2b7169229409869 <comment><AUTHOR> I know it's super basic, but if anyone has critiques of how it could be improved I'd be glad to hear!

I'm also very interested in small, tiny problems slightly harder than this that a total beginner like me could tackle.</comment>


A Holacracy of Dunces - <AUTHOR> https://pando.com/2015/07/03/holacracy-dunces

<comment><USER2> Note: This article is paywalled. You need to be a Pando subscriber to read beyond the first page (even if you're coming from Google).</comment>


Pen Plotter Programming: The Basics - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@fogleman/pen-plotter-programming-the-basics-ec0407ab5929 <comment><AUTHOR> Check out this twitter thread where he displays a sparkline representation of the contents of RAM during 5 seconds of Donkey Kong. Even got retweeted by Tufte!

[https://twitter.com/FogleBird/status/954464508705234944](https://twitter.com/FogleBird/status/954464508705234944)</comment>


Ask HN: What was that random image site posted a few weeks ago? - <AUTHOR>

Searching for it is an impossible task. Someone was showing off a service where foo.something.to/random would display a random image of foo. <comment><USER2> Might it have been this?

<http://quickimage.heroku.com/index.html>

Edit: I should mention that I hadn't seen this before, and did a simple search based on your information: [http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=sho...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=show+hn+random+image&start=0)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm sure this is what you're looking for:

Http://(Type any keyword here).jpg.to/random

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://Jpg.to></comment>


Ask HN: Value of business/sales/idea guy early on? - <AUTHOR>

Being surrounded 24/7 by engineers, I've never been exposed to the mythical "business/idea" guy persona that you always read about on sites like our very own HN. You know the stereotype: they have the great ideas, you work all day to turn it into reality, they reap all of the fame.<p>Back on Earth, how much of that persona is true, and how much is just software developer bias towards "suits"? Is there value that a guy who doesn't code can bring to a startup in a very early stage, when you're still testing the water, trying to validate the very basic hypotheses? If so, what kind of skillset does this person have to have? <comment><USER2> A very, very good business guy can call up his rolodex and sell your software X times for 6/7 figures a pop prior to a single line of code being written. To do this, you need a) a rolodex, b) personal credibility, and c) sales skills. That guy is richly worth the half of the company he's getting in a two-man founder scenario.

Sadly, really good business guys are rare like really good engineers, and totally incompetent business guys are (bare minimum) as prevalent as programmers who can't FizzBuzz. There are many people who can, by writing their best idea ever on a napkin, deprive the world of a perfectly serviceable napkin.

(Really good business guys are priced higher than really good engineers, principally because their skillset necessarily includes not being totally stupid about money, negotiation, leverage, or scarcity.)

</comment><comment><USER3> I personally believe this is a balance thing. I used to be the 'business/sales/idea' guy, but taught myself to code.

So to answer your question, yes this person exists. Why did I decide to teach myself to code? I didn't want to have to rely on developers to build and test my ideas.

A business/sales/idea guy can overthink and plan all day. Build requirements docs, plan marketing, research the market, etc etc.

What they can't do is build, release, and see what the response is in the market.

Personally, I think it is a Business Canvas vs. Lean Startup, and I do see these two methodologies in conflict. I've recently witnessed businesses where people spend more time planning than it would have taken to actually build a beta and see what happens.

On the flip side, there are engineers who really don't get the business/sales/ideas side of things. They sometimes need that person to bring the business to them. However, I think it is more rare that an engineer can't find a business.

<comment><AUTHOR> Would you say that a super-early stage startup that already has a strong engineering skillset doesn't need a "business/sales/idea" guy in most scenarios? I'm trying to think of something that I'd really need that kind of guy for that I just couldn't do myself.

<comment><USER4> To build a business it takes someone who either understands the particular nuances of that particular business from their prior history or are capable of picking it up very quickly and effective on the fly. at im saying there's not value in testing a theory and not over analyzing, but an effective idea guy is necessary to truly disrupt a market. To win at disrupting, you have to understand a market as its currently is, all of its inefficiencies and weaknesses combined with future changes in capabilities and technology. However usually an engineer as likely to be an effective idea guy, combined with their ability to build and ship it puts them at an advantage. Great idea guys are rare, but when they surround themselves with the proper technical talent its a thing to behold . Tarantino, Jobs, list is endless

<comment><AUTHOR> So, if I'm understanding correctly, you'd be looking for a particular market/industry insight in a business person like that. You'd be looking for experience, deep understanding and successes in that industry.

Is that more or less correct?

It also follows that without any track record, it's really hard to trust that a "business guy" will know how to contribute, and so you're taking someone on faith alone. It's kind of like hiring a developer who can't prove that he's ever written code before.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


New Service, Same Old Equifax: Credit Locking App Freezes Up - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/your-money/new-service-same-old-equifax-credit-locking-app-freezes-up.html <comment><USER2> I didn't know what the difference between a freeze or a lock is, but the article mentions it about halfway down.

>Equifax's new app offers a lock instead of a freeze. Locks works similarly to freezes — both restrict access to your credit file — but it should be easier to unlock your credit file since you can do it from your phone with a swipe, and doesn't require a 10-digit pin or a fee.

>What is not clear, however, is what disadvantages may come with locks. Many state laws exist that govern freezes, offering consumers protection. By creating locks, the companies avoid them.

Looks like it's a nice end run around existing laws. I don't understand why they are allowed to do things like this without any consequences.

<comment><USER3> I hate the credit agencies as much as anyone (and the poor quality of the app is shameful), but the "skirting the law" angle smells like an unfair criticism to me. Surely the heavy amount of regulation around credit freezes _prevents_ an app like that from being created in the first place. The simplicity and ease of switching it on and off probably conflicts with some regulation or another. (Anybody in the know want to fact check me on that?)

And it's not like they did away with freezes. They just added a alternative alongside. I've never frozen my credit because I didn't want the pain of having to unfreeze it at an inopportune moment. The concept (if not the implementation) of having locks as an alternative might convince me to actually use them. I hope it catches on.

<comment><USER2> I think it's fair to view anything they do with suspicion after their mishandling of the leaks. They haven't shown me any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt, and ample reason not to do so.

<comment><USER3> Okay, fair enough. If there's the slightest whiff of anctual wrongdoing related to the creation of credit locks, by all means, rake them over the coals.

But, really, what should they have done instead? Do you think they shouldn't have implemented credit locks at all? Because I'm sure then you would get articles about how they weren't doing enough to help consumers secure their credit, just the same old inconvenient credit freezes (and I would agree).

I think that, for a person's criticism to carry any weight, there has to be a course of action that that person wouldn't criticize.

<comment><USER4> > But, really, what should they have done instead?

Let me opt out, dammit. Permanently delete my data.

It's not like I'm alone in that thought:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/your-money/credit- scores/...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/your-money/credit- scores/equifax-hack.html)

"And though the words differ (and some are unprintable in this space), the messages all end with the same demand: I want out."

Even better, require opt-in, thus driving the credit raters out of business. These enablers of identity theft cause more misery than they provide value, it's just inconvenient to sue them. They should not exist.

<comment><USER5> Let play through some scenarios. If you opt out, then there is not credit for you, so there would be no chance of a loan. Which is probably ok for people that decide against credit, but not for those that don't have enough savings stashed away where they need credit (car loan, home mortgage, etc).

Now if it is opt in, well then you have the issue of free speech. If someone takes out a loan and doesn't pay it back, why wouldn't the institution lending the money have a right to tell others about that (through a third party)?

If this isn't the case, where we have opt in by default, and it destroys the credit industry, that may also not necessarily be a bad thing. Because a lot of necessary items (housing, car ownership [for certain geographical regions], college) would fall in price to be more affordable if people couldn't get loans for them.

Of course, the real issue that most people have with credit reporting agencies is the fairness of a credit score or credit report, in that it may not actually reflect the risk of a given loan. This is an area where I feel they can and should do better. After all, if a lender is turning away customers that they shouldn't, then they are leaving quite a lot of business untapped. What would be better is if credit items were categorized based on credit type and circumstances.

For example, if you fall behind on sudden medical bills, but keep up on your mortgage and car payment, well that shouldn't affect your ability to buy a house or car on credit. In fact, if I was a car dealer I'd be happy to extend someone credit that treated their car payment as more important.

Or, if credit cards fell behind during an unemployment stretch. In that case if your credit report shows that payments pick up again as soon as you are back on your feet, then if I was a credit card issuer, I would lower interest rates during unemployment and only bring them back up a month or two after you got a job. And as long as the record shows that someone is employable (was only out of work during times of a down economy, but otherwise could hold down a job and make regular payments while working), I would think that they would be a good credit risk.

Another situation -- lets say you are a cosigner on a loan, and the person you cosigned for fell behind on payments, and you refused to pick up the payments. Well, that should only affect your ability to cosign in the future, but not anything else (assuming all other lines of credit are showing good).

So this is where I think that the market is ripe for disruption, in using extended information to bring in credit customers that are otherwise left behind by the current situation. But this requires much more tracking details

<comment><USER6> Or better yet, people learn how to once again learn to live within their means and not spend money they don't have for things they don't need.

<comment><USER7> I'm glad you can afford to buy a house with what's in your checking account, but some of us can't.

<comment><USER8> Or buy a house or go to college.

<comment><USER9> Or even a car. What percentage of car purchases are financed as opposed to bought in cash?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Software can be shipped at any level of completion.

Initially, software could only be distributed over physical media like disks. And because of this, it had to be stable enough.

Today, software is distributed over the internet, and you can amend mistakes.

This has enabled the release broken of software, that over time becomes better.

This doctrine is seen as efficient, but is not good faith and not the best interest of the user in some cases (e.g: Equifax).

<comment><USER11> > This has enabled the release broken of software,

Yes.

> that over time becomes better.

Debatable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> You can't opt out of being stalked by these evil clowns, but there are ways to hurt them. Your employer probably uses something called "Work Number," which basically involves sending Equifax your pay stubs. When presented with repeated proof of Equifax's staggering incompetence, your company may discontinue the service. See [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/your- money/equifax-breach...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/your- money/equifax-breach.html) .

<comment><USER13> The Work Number is just a particular product within their Workforce Solutions employee-intelligence business unit.

Pay stubs aside, if your employer uses it then they likely also have your direct deposit account, all your personal PII, and your W2s among other things. It's a goldmine for fraud.

<comment><USER12> Exactly. The Work Number is a goldmine for fraud, and Equifax's guards on that mine are about as effective as a couple of guys sleeping off a hangover in the corner. Your employer should not trust them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Freezing and locking up would be preferable to what their last mobile application did:

[https://www.fastcompany.com/40468811/heres-why-equifax- yanke...](https://www.fastcompany.com/40468811/heres-why-equifax-yanked-its- apps-from-apple-and-google-last-week)

</comment><comment><USER15> Somebody put them down, already.

And, if the U.S. presidential election had gone the other way (however you feel about that), we might currently have an _effective_ CFPB that was on its way to forcing these companies to perform freezes for free and to place control of access (for credit assessment) into the hands of those to whom the records pertain.

I don't care whether you're Democratic or Republican or Librariantarian (yeah, not real, but it should be!). This would be a good, cost effective means of at least partially mitigating a lot of current problems with related data theft and fraud / identity theft.

And to the extent it added a bit of cost, that would probably impact the current uses that are least beneficial. E.g. less hits to ratings for "excessive" credit checks, when a company can't perform them without first soliciting access from the target.

<comment><USER16> >if the U.S. presidential election had gone the other way (however you feel about that), we might currently have an effective CFPB that was on its way to forcing these companies to perform freezes

What on earth gives you the impression that either party cares about personal data privacy or free credit freezes? They're both happy as long as the debt- driven economy continues to roll...

<comment><USER17> The CFPB (consumer financial protection bureau) was the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren and implemented under Obama.

It was and still is heavily disliked by numerous Republican members and is being stripped of a lot if it's powers by the current administration.

Claiming "both parties are the same" is just false in this case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Credit locking app freezes up... the irony.

<comment><USER19> I think on the roadmap is a credit freezing app that locks up, as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why would anyone install their app?</comment>


Show HN: LocalStorage.js – LocalStorage Polyfill v2.0 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mortzdk/localStorage/

<comment><AUTHOR> The remaining storage capacity vary a lot between the different mechanisms. Furthermore it is possible to change the amount of capacity for the native localStorage in some browsers as well.

The only way of testing the remaining capacity would be to try and reach the point of full capacity and check the size of the string that reached it.

As mentioned in the README, the storage will throw an exception when you reach the point where there is no more memory left.

</comment><comment><USER2> Nice work. Question: is there way to check the remaining capacity/storage available for your data? (Or check if you've run out of room)?

I imagine the amount of possible storage would vary widely based on the underlying store mechanism right?</comment>


Yawn, Google Introduces iPhone Clone - sid- http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/analysis-yawn-google-introduces-iphone-clone/

<comment><AUTHOR> I really hate these arguments. The argument basically comes down to this:

      No one should make *any* smartphones unless they can
      immediately top the iPhone. If you can't top the iPhone
      on day one, then just don't bother competing at all.

It's one thing to call out hype. It's another thing entirely to say, "X is over-hyped therefore it shouldn't exist."

> _But it's still effectively tied to the smallish T-Mobile cell phone > network._

No it's not. So far as I can tell, you can use it on AT&T's network. The only catch is the you can't use AT&T's 3G with it. But this seems to be a one or the other choice. AT&T and T-Mobile apparently use different frequencies for their 3G (T-Mobile's is non-standard), and no one seems to be putting out phone that support both (in my limited research on the topic). This leads me to believe that there must only be chips that support one or the other. In that case, there's no pleasing everyone. If you choose AT&T, you'll piss off a bunch of people, but you'll also piss off a bunch of people if you choose T-Mobile.

> _And the Nexus One lacks the convenience of being connected to iTunes._

So... the only phone that will _ever_ appease you will, by definition, need to be an Apple-branded phone.

> _The Android app store is a fifth the size of Apple's._

It's the quality, not the quantity of the apps that matters. Comparing on size alone is useless. There have been a number of articles on the number of crappy and rehashed apps that get poured into the AppStore marketplace by people hoping to use the shotgun approach to AppStore success. And how exactly is Google supposed to remedy this with the launch of a phone? Make the phone iPhone-compatible and hack their way into AppStore access?

> _Meanwhile, Apple is getting ready to announce an entirely new iteration of > its iPhone in three weeks — the tablet — that will likely make every other > player in the market look like a laggard — again._

This is the stupidest thing I have read lately.

> _Why didn't Google offer a phone with both a GSM and a CDMA radio that would > work on any U.S. cell phone network?_

It's not that simple. See the GSM 3G comments above. I thought that there used to be GSM/CDMA chips. Maybe they were part of that whole Qualcomm lawsuit a few years ago?

<comment><USER2> "The only catch is the you can't use AT&T's 3G with it."

That would effectively cripple the phone. So while it may be possible to use on other networks, it's really only practical to use on T-Mobile.

<comment><USER3> Why are T-Mo and AT&T the only options? Couldn't you use this on say, Verizon?

(I don't live in the US)

<comment><USER4> Sadly, AT&T and T-Mobile are the only nationwide GSM carriers in the United States. Every other major player uses CDMA.

<comment><USER3> Man that sucks. I can understand all of the US using a different standard from the rest of the world (like with NTSC and imperial measurement) but having the US use two standards at once is clearly not in their own interest.

<comment><AUTHOR> Canadian carriers are the same. The only difference is that all of the smaller carriers have been swallowed up and you basically have the choice of 'The GSM Carrier' (i.e. Rogers who grew their empire out of cable tv) or 'The CDMA Carrier' (i.e. Bell -- the government mandated telephone monopoly).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A couple of things in that article stood out as particularly flawed:

"Meanwhile, Apple is getting ready to announce an entirely new iteration of its iPhone in three weeks — the tablet — that will likely make every other player in the market look like a laggard — again."

The tablet is aimed at a different niche than the "mobile phone/mp3 player" space. Very few are going to buy a tablet and ditch their phone.

"Why didn't Google subsidize the Nexus One so it was half the price of an iPhone, instead of the same price?"

Perhaps because they like making money?

<comment><USER6> You could also argue that the tablet market is already interesting despite Apple -- e.g. Lenovo's Skylight, ChromeOS, other Android tablets (e.g. Archos') and even Nokia's venerable N800 series.

And that's ignoring fully Windows/Linux capable systems like Samsung's Q1's, and Viliv's range.

<comment><USER5> True. Although if Apple produces as much of a leap forward with its tablet as it did with the iPhone it'll probably make most of the existing market look archaic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm really really excited to get mine. I've had the 3g Iphone for almost 2 years now, and I cannot wait to stop using it.

Maybe its just the developer inside me screaming, but I cannot deal with Apple and how they deal with the guys who are really making the iphone popular -- the programmers.

</comment><comment><USER8> I guess one just had to make his "counter-article" to the flow of "wow, amazing google phone!!" we see recently.

Of course in itself it's pretty much only a rant, with fallacious arguments, but it fulfills its goal of generating a lot of "how can you say that it's stupid" answers.

I mean, I even clicked on it just for the sake of the title, like probably many did. Mission accomplished, so, people click and react on it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sort of like "Yawn, Microsoft introduces clone of Mac called 'Windows'". But with less evil and more open source.

<comment><USER10> No, with more evil. They introduced open source so Intellectual Ventures could sue the writers for patent infringement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's a smartphone. They existed before the iPhone. Even app stores existed before the iPhone - at least in Europe, some companies made millions by selling J2ME apps for "classic phones". They discredited themselves by exploiting gullible teenagers, but still. For all I know, they might still be raking in the big money - they certainly still do TV ads.

What exactly makes a phone an iPhone clone?

<comment><USER8> The iPhone is a smartphone with a touch screen, The Nexus is a smartphone with a touch screen, Therefore the Nexus is an iPhone :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Gotta admit. I want one, not because I see it better than X, but rather because on it's own it's an awesome phone. I just had hoped that it would be released with a version compatible with AT&T's 3G network. HTC is manufacturing a CDMA capable phone, and do make phones for AT&T so why not produce a second GSM version compatible with AT&T? Unless AT&T works hard to get a very nice android phone soon, I'm likely to switch carriers.</comment>


GOTO considered helpful - <AUTHOR> http://erehweb.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/goto-considered-helpful/ <comment><USER2> I can identify with this article. My own experience makes me agree with it completely.

At the age of 7, I learned BASIC on Spectrum 48. At the age of 9, I wrote a program for my mom to use in her biology class. It's still the most awful spaghetti programming I can remember seeing in my life. It had some really toxic uses of GOTO, but I remember it also had a few uses of GOTO which were actually attempts at more structured programming (GOTO X simulating a switch/case).

Fast forward to the age of 12 and Oxford Pascal on Commodore 64. Programming without line numbers (or even memory addresses like in assembler) seemed like a novel approach, but I didn't have much trouble getting used to repeat..until and while..do, especially when I realized that I _finally_ didn't have to worry about "renumbering".

Fast forward to today. At work I use Java _and_ C _and_ C++ _and_ Python on a regular basis. As a hobby I use ActionScript 3 for game development. I've had fun writing an application in Common Lisp, fooling around in Haskell and messing around with Io.

I once heard a university professor say "If you've programmed in BASIC once, you're scarred for the rest of your life." I don't feel scarred. Honestly, if someone tried to teach me programming without GOTO at the age of 7, I'm not sure I would've grokked it. Sure, I might have, but my point is that even though that's not the way it happened, even though I've been exposed to GOTO for 5 years of my life, I'm not a bad programmer because of it.</comment>


GoDaddy Moves DNS to Competitor VeriSign - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/09/godaddy-moves-to-verisign/

<comment><USER2> VeriSign manage .com so they are a supplier. The availability of DNS depends on 'competitors' working with each other. The bigger DNS hosts all have backup servers with each other.

So the headline is a bit misleading and not really the full story.

</comment><comment><USER3> This isn't unusual, amazon.com uses a combination of UltraDNS and Dyn, not their own AWS Route53 DNS service.

</comment><comment><USER4> Could someone explain to me why the majority of startups seems to use GoDaddy? Their user-interface is unintuitive and ugly and there are plenty of other good alternatives. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't use GoDaddy, but why does a mediocre-at-best service have such a high market-share?

<comment><USER5> Price.

<comment><USER4> Does it really matter for a startup if they save a few dollar a year compared to any other solution? GoDaddy charges $13 per year for a .com. My current (random) German registrar charges around $16.5 per year incl. German VAT. Unless you plan to buy thousands of domains price shouldn't make a considerable difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wouldn't consider VeriSign and GoDaddy competitors. Verisign is a domain registry, whereas GoDaddy is a domain registrar.

VeriSign also offers large network availability services for much larger clientèle. While GoDaddy offers web hosting and web services for smaller businesses.

</comment><comment><USER7> Horrible reporting: This article leads people to believe Godaddy moved all of their customers DNS over to Verisign.

All Godaddy did was temporarily move their single godaddy.com DNS to verisign so they could display a 'we are working on it' message to visitors during the attack.

</comment><comment><USER8> In other news, Ferrari buys Yugo saying we need an entry-level model for our price-sensitive customers.

It's interesting that I don't have a good impression of GoDaddy _or_ Verisign. One provides sleazy marketing for a substandard product on the cheap, and the other extorts vast sums of money just to provide a guarantee of identity.

I'd be happy to pay a reasonable fee for both to get good customer service, but I'm guessing there's collusion between the certificate providers to keep prices high.

Good luck to both of them.

<comment><USER9> Verisign does not have an ssl/identity business anymore. This was sold to symantec in 2010.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Tomorrow's news: "VeriSign's DNS is down."

<comment><USER11> That would be interesting, because Verisign has, as these things go, a fairly sophisticated anti-DDOS system; I would, on the other hand, be surprised to hear GoDaddy had much of anything at all.

<comment><USER12> I would have thought that AT&T had a robust DNS system too, but a DDOS took it down for most of a day a few weeks ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Isn't this the definition of counterparty risk?

</comment><comment><USER14> What happened with the big GoDaddy thread?!

<comment><USER15> Here it is: <http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4500993>

The moderators must have removed it from the front page. In such cases, HackerSlide[0] can prove very useful.

0: <http://hackerslide.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> well i moved to namecheap after i heard godaddy help crafting the SOPA bill. I guess they deserved it

<comment><USER17> Just used namecheap, so much simpler than godaddy, no upsell, reasonable priced anon registration. Beauty.

<comment><USER18> I bought my last domain at Namecheap because they said that they provide a free secondary DNS service for your domains. After I tried to set it up I was informed that you can use their free secondary DNS only for domains that where not bought with namecheap!!!

Then I bought GoDaddys premium DNS solution for 35$/year and I use their DNS servers as 3rd and 4th DNS servers for all my domains (primary and secondary are on my servers).

This was really the best offer I could find for slave DNS hosting and it works pretty great, even when GoDaddy is down :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> AND NOTHING OF VALUE WAS LOST</comment>


Show HN: AskToby.PHP – Open Source Search Engine Seeking Contributers - <AUTHOR> hello, world
Over the past two weeks I've been working on building a really crude search engine (AskToby.PHP), and have just finished managing to hack together a working prototype. The prototype has tons of bugs, only looks good on one monitor size, but it runs! At the moment its running on a Virtual Private Server crawling along at about 18,000 sites a day, crawling only the homepage of each site. But I think it has the potential to run much faster on a home-web server as my VPS appears to have much less bandwidth than my personal internet service. Anyway... If anyone's interested in working on a fun open source project hit me up.
You can check out Version 2 of AskToby.PHP running on my website here:
https://personalhomepage.xyz/asktoby.html
And you can check out my hacked-together code here:
https://github.com/crispytx/asktoby.php
If anyone is interested in contributing, feel free to contact me:
email@example.com <comment><USER2> Um.. Ok wow. I know we're supposed to not be negative. So.. let me be clear I'm not trying to discourage you, so think of this as constructive criticism.

Firstly. Get a template system. It doesn't need to be complex. I use a simple object that accepts variables, stores them in an associative array, and then when you call it's render() method, it uses extract() to make those local variables and does an include of the template file - which can then have whatever _template_ logic you require (loops, ifs, etc).

Next up. Your DB connection is using hard-coded strings. Use some kind of configuration for this. I'm very partial to environment variables, but it could also be an ini file, an environment-specific PHP file, etc.

Um.. 3? I don't know where Im up to now. Anyway, your DB query in the search results file is extremely naive and insecure. Look into parameterised queries.

4 I guess. Just looking a the above referenced query indicates that any given site is limited to just 13 keywords. I realise this is likely a learning experience but basically that isn't going to work for any meaningful sort of results.

5? You have a cron script, and then make a http request to call something else. Why? Just execute the script you need to run.

I think that'll do for now..</comment>