My one request that would enable me to recommend this to my musician friends is an export feature, along with a promise of adequate notice before a shutdown of the app, to allow people to export their recordings in a worst-case scenario.
The one thing that may keep musicians using Apple Voice Memos despite your app seeming much better is that they often make a lot of recordings, and losing them all would be unimaginably tragic.
> Plaid would retain access to their credentials and use them to mine, aggregate and then sell users’ financial transaction data to third parties (including to the fintech apps that use its services) for purposes unrelated to the plaintiffs’ use of the fintech payment apps. [1]
This is allegedly from the lawsuit. I can see your perspective — that it made sense to settle because of the privacy accusation, but you still deny the other accusations. I understand that perspective, though as I'm sure you can understand, it's hard to know for sure based on the allegations and the settlement.
(IANAL either) I understand and agree that part of the issue is that they, allegedly, underhandedly collected this data. My question is focused around the potential selling of that data, which took place according to the lawsuit and was likely the reason to collect the data.
From the article you linked:
> Plaid would retain access to their credentials and use them to mine, aggregate and then sell users’ financial transaction data to third parties (including to the fintech apps that use its services) for purposes unrelated to the plaintiffs’ use of the fintech payment apps.
Thank you for the response — I know you're likely very restricted in what you can say here, but:
You just settled a claim that you sold customer transaction histories, and from the article linked, the plaintiffs' lawyers claim that you have agreed to implement meaningful business practice changes to remediate these issues.
(1) If you've never sold transaction histories, why settle a lawsuit alleging that you sold transaction histories?
(2) What meaningful business practice changes could you be making if there's no issue to begin with?
(I'm relying on the article here as a source of truth).
> Plaid has settled a $58 million class action lawsuit over claims that the fintech firm passed on personal banking data to third party firms without user consent.
and selling transaction histories:
> the plaintiffs alleged that Plaid has “exploited its position as middleman” to obtain app users’ banking login credentials and use that information to gain access to and sell their transaction histories.
For what it's worth I haven't read the actual lawsuit yet, but would love a link if it refutes the article.
I actually mentioned in a thread about Plaid in 2018 that they sold transaction history to third parties, and the cofounder came onto HN to explicitly deny that [1]. I actually felt convinced they didn't afterwards, as I couldn't imagine such a direct and clear refutation if it were true.
> certain illegal acts (like breaking into certain websites, illegally obtaining documents, etc.) should be legal if done for the purpose of proper journalism
This isn't the case in any country and almost certainly should not be.
In some countries, a journalist is generally free to publish anonymously sourced information, regardless of its source (which may have been a hack), and report on that information. Journalists are never allowed to hack websites. Hacking websites isn't legal.
Making some level of allowed-hacker as long as they're labeled a journalist would be crazy, as it would (1) result in the aforementioned semantic debate over who is a journalist, (2) would be the antithesis of privacy to have hackers that are allowed to hack you legally.
> If a stranger mentions being into crypto but then does not actually seem to know much about it, consider that they may simply be fishing for a specific type of victim.
Or, more likely, they're just trying to impress you and find common ground! I've seen this many times on dating apps but have never been drugged.
A lot of this advice is great, regardless of whether you're into crypto, but this point is a bit much.
This is quite a bit of misinformation. From the article:
> The account has also shown a preference for cultural conservatives in its “likes”, which these include ... Roger Scruton, a man known for making a career out of his prejudice; and Leon Krier, a disciple of Hitler’s chief architect Albert Speer.
Roger Scruton was knighted for his contributions to public education [0] and helped establish an underground academic network in Soviet-occupied Europe. He was also one of the best contributors to the New Statesman which I suppose is now cancelling him?
Leon Krier was in no way a disciple of Albert Speer. Speer's only mentioned in the footnotes of Krier's Wikipedia article [1] because Krier wrote a book about Speer where he asked, “Can a war criminal be a great artist?” [2]
It seems that the problem to this writer is conservatism as a whole, and of course these accounts are conservative! The whole point of the Twitter accounts is pro-conservation!
Yes, and that being OK is the magic of how emotions work! That's the exact valid point being ignored.
If you don't have a better response to a catastrophic nuclear disaster than "well, it killed people but coal definitely killed more people over time," then as the commenter said, you really don't have a satisfactory political response [1] to a nuclear disaster.
You're acknowledging the difference in our emotional response between gradual deaths over time versus a nuclear accident, but then hand-waving it away as irrational and unworthy of response, and ignoring that those irrational people form the majority of voters in the country.
[1] A satisfactory political response is one that will keep public opinion positive towards nuclear energy after a disaster.
I agree with you that your comment wasn't condescending like the above commenter suggested, but disagree about modern reactor designs. They'll always carry this risk.
Sure, reactor design has changed since Chernobyl in various ways that help mitigate it, but what about Fukushima?
Fukushima was devastating, and the result was the NRC asking US reactors to reconfirm their flooding and earthquake preparedness. I don't know of any measures taken in European countries.
As climate change progresses, there could be some disastrous consequences, and it's unfair to say that the skepticism is outdated.
This isn't to say that nuclear is worse than coal (it's not), but that it isn't just handwaving.
I think that's exactly what the above commenter was saying in: "European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima."
If a country experiences a nuclear accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima, your "number of casualties is lower than if we moved to coal" argument won't work. Cold numbers won't beat emotion.
Edit: On downvotes, it's very demographically consistent of HN to not believe or want to hear that emotions rule over cold numbers for many people in the world. I'm not saying that coal is better than nuclear (it's not per the numbers), but you need a satisfactory answer when a disaster happens, and rationalizing the deaths of thousands of people as "a preferred alternative to more deaths over time" won't cut it.
I think degrees are remaining a requirement because a hiring manager and recruiter at a large company are risk averse.
There's an old saying: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
It basically means that, if you use IBM for something and it doesn't work out, you can tell your manager "who could've guessed — it's IBM!", and you'll be mostly off the hook. If you were to use some promising new startup, even if it's more likely to do a great job, the fault is squarely on you if it goes wrong.
Similarly, when hiring an engineer, the recruiter and hiring manager can explain away a bad hire to upper management by saying "what a fluke, they have a degree from Harvard!", while they would be in a tougher situation if they made a bad hire and that person had no degree.
Parent comment was responding to a comment that used the term "male." Responding with equivalent phrasing and saying "female" in that context makes a lot more sense.
It's fair to point out because people not in finance colloquially think of "bank president" as leader, not as "not leader, and not even actual president of the whole bank."
As for the influence of a Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis president, it's complicated. They're appointed by the board of directors of the Minneapolis Fed, and the directors are elected by the member banks — it's not a top-down process. To give perspective on size, the Minneapolis Fed has around $40 billion in assets, compared to the Fed's total of $8 trillion.
There's way more that also matters, but the Minneapolis Fed's president is nowhere near Jerome Powell in influence.
> Dogecoin branded as Ponzi by the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneaopolis.
Important to note that this is the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (misspelled in the article), not the Chair of the Federal Reserve, who leads what we generally think of as the "fed."
This is true, and it wouldn't suggest anything is amiss.
In the US for example, there's a lot of factors in increasing labor supply: (1) From 1955 to today, women have gone from 36% labor force participation to 59%. (2) The percent of immigrants in the US in the 1950s to 1970s was less than 50% of what it is today.
When the labor supply grows, it'll push downward on wages as the equilibrium price shifts.
America's a country designed to be optimized for freedom, which includes women having the ability to participate in equal numbers to men in the workforce if desired, and immigrants having the ability to come and build their lives here if desired. That will lower wages, which is just one part of the picture in terms of economics and policy.
As someone quite into fashion (and worked in the space before), this is a very astute comment!
Fashion trends in the past few years have often progressed increasingly into a level of irony. It's become about what level of craziness/funkiness you can pull off while making it look intentional and attractive.
This includes hairstyles like dying your hair platinum blonde or purple and buzz-cutting it, or wearing loud, maximalist patterns, or even ironically wearing defunct fashion brands or cultural symbols opposite of your everyday life, like the popularity of Bass Pro Shops hats. The comeback of 'dad sneakers' and 'mom jeans,' while even retaining those monikers but in a positive way, are other good examples.
> Jeff Bezos wants to pay the least for the most amount of work, and the workers want the most money for the least amount of work. It sounds like both parties should meet themselves half-way as opposed to living in what is effectively modern-day slavery.
The way it currently works is what you describe here. Amazon pays the least they can for the most amount of work, and workers work the least they can for the most amount of pay. They meet at the equilibrium where Amazon receives adequate labor, and the workers receive adequate pay.
There's nothing radical or communistic about that idea.
My one request that would enable me to recommend this to my musician friends is an export feature, along with a promise of adequate notice before a shutdown of the app, to allow people to export their recordings in a worst-case scenario.
The one thing that may keep musicians using Apple Voice Memos despite your app seeming much better is that they often make a lot of recordings, and losing them all would be unimaginably tragic.