Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sharperguy's commentslogin

I would even call it mid 2020s. I think in a couple years people's attention spans will be so short they won't even finish reading comments.

"But I came crawling back to iOS because I'm weak and the orange iPhone was pretty and the Pixel 10 was boring and I caved to the blue bubble pressure. But the keyboard on this beautiful phone is worse than ever. "

I don't understand. What could Apple possibly have that is better than a working device?


"blue bubble" here is undersold. It means Apple has anti-competitively broken the experience of speaking with loved ones on purpose if you leave their ecosystem.

As a European it's hard for me to comprehend the influence that iMessage has on the US.

Tiktok will never have any competitors after this law comes into force. They will have the resources the implement the require changes, and the customer base will remain with them. Anyone starting a new service will have a tough time building something that jumps through all the hoops required by the EU, on top of the usual problems with network effects.

It's typically with this type of headline "X people are doing Y" means "at least 2 X people did Y".

To me, it's just further evidence that trying to assert ownership over a specific sequence of 1s and 0s is an entirely futile and meaningless endeavor.

Regardless of your opinion on that (I largely agree with you), that is not the current law, and people went to prison for FAR less. Remember Aaron Swartz, for example.

This bill would effectively make prusa illegal, which is my main issue with it. I refuse to buy anything else if it is not open in the same way.


Not all stablecoins are intended as investments. For many it's just a way to send money internationally without dealing with the SWIFT system, waiting periods, banks losing payments etc.


I still wonder about that. I don't have a contract with the advertiser to provide genuine data back about what ads I've clicked and what I haven't. The website operator does have such a contract and so cannot hire a bot farm to spam click the ads.

If it's something that's been held up in court already then of course I have to accept it, but I can't say the reason seems immediately intuitive.


There's a very general law that says something about using a computer to cause money to move


>I don't have a contract with the advertiser to provide genuine data back about what ads I've clicked and what I haven't.

Charges of fraud doesn't require a contract to be in place. That's the whole point of criminal law, it's so that you don't need to add a "don't screw me over" clause to every interaction you make.


How is that a fraud, when I don't get any money from the scheme?


Gaining something isn't required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Civil_fraud


By this logic, vandalism would be fraud too.


Vandalism involves making material misrepresentations?


Damaging property cost money to fix.


Where's the misrepresentation?


Where is the misrepresentation in clicking on links?


Surely making use of a new tool that makes you more productive would increase your value rather than decreasing it? Especially when, knowing the kinds of mistakes AI could make that would affect your codebase negatively in terms of maintainability, security etc would require significant experience.


> Surely making use of a new tool that makes you more productive would increase your value rather than decreasing it?

Think wider. You, sharperguy, are not and will not the only person with access to these tools. Therefore, your productivity increase will likely be the same as everyone else's. If you are as good as everyone else, why would YOU get paid more? Have you ever seen a significant number of companies outside FAANG permanently boost everyone's salary just because they they did well on a given year?

A company's goal is to the shareholders not to you. Your value exists relative to that of others.


> If you are as good as everyone else, why would YOU get paid more?

If every coal miner could suddenly produce 10x the amount of goal, do people say "well now we can just hire one coal miner instead of 10". Or do they say "now thousands of new project which were not economically viable due to the high price of coal are now viable, meaning we actually need to increase our total output beyond even 10x of what it was previously."


Coal miners are cheap, easy to replace and have little negotiation power. Devs are expensive, harder to replace and have some leverage. Coal miners can take a pick or an axe with them when they leave. Devs can take away with them valuable operational knowledge with them that can bring to a competitor. Not comparable.

Plus, look at the job market. Every single tech company out there has been laying off devs in the last 3 years. If maximising productivity above expenses was so valuable, every tech company out there would be hiring like crazy because senior devs are cheap as chips nowadays. But they aren't, devs might be cheap but money itself isn't right now so they are prioritising lower expenses over increased productivity. Because that makes shareholders happy. And that's what every company aims for.

Maximising productivity is only an absolute goal in the minds of devs not in the minds of executives.


They know that you likely read some email from HSBC and if you happen to read the same one again they will know it was the same one.


Right. But even over HTTPS it's not rocket science to figure out that connecting to www.email1.hsbc.co.uk pretty strongly suggests you've opened an e-mail with an image. And the number of times you request the same URL tells someone... what exactly? Because HTTPS still tells people the number of times you access any URL on a domain.


Worst case scenario is the HTTP pixel request tells attackers that there is a verification chat happening.

HTTPS the attackers know a conversation is happening, but no idea what

But, I personally think the threat is being overblown (I am happy to be corrected though)


Its not only overblown, its totally non-issue.

The main problem seems to be tracking pixel itself to deduce involvement. The suggested approach to send email to confirm email seem better, unless it contains link to login page (as it can be phished). So, the best seems to be that one should send email that explains user how to confirm e-mail by logging manually to the app.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: