akarma

I love this!

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.

[1] https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2021/05/11/plaid-federal-e...

(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).

The link mentions third party firms:

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.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18655417

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.

In one of the biggest heists ever (still unsolved) at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum [1], alarms went off before the theft occurred.

Interesting to hear this being validated as a tactic in another art theft.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Stewart_Gardner_Museu...

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!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Krier [2] https://www.monacellipress.com/book/albert-speer/

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.

Good point!

There's an old quote: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."

Large companies tend to be more risk-averse, so if there are two companies you can use for a service — $PromisingStartup and IBM — large companies will generally make a decision that's optimal to the specific decision-maker, not optimal to the company.

There are two options if you, as the buyer, choose either $PromisingStartup or IBM: success or failure.

If IBM or the $PromisingStartup succeed, then you've done your job.

If IBM fails, you can tell your manager "Who could've guessed! It's IBM!"

If $PromisingStartup fails, you'll have a harder time explaining your decision, and the fault will be with you.

The "Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM" idea is useful to look at every decision large companies make, whether it's pivoting, choosing a SaaS product, or hiring.

TripleByte, in its current form, has been beneficial to candidates as well by giving enterprise employees a justifiable signal towards hiring them regardless of pedigree.

America is certainly the country with the most opportunity for the most people.

A shift that has occurred from the 1950s to present is that there is less of a guarantee of an upper-middle-class lifestyle through a moderate [1] amount of effort.

That easier opportunity, however, was unique to the era. Prior to 1930, immigrants knew that America was a place for exceptionally hard work and tons of opportunity and freedom - that was the American dream. Not high taxation and government-funded class movement from lower-middle to upper-middle.

[1] 40 hours a week, one full-time job for an established corporate company supporting a family

If you're conspiratorial about everybody who supports free speech not really supporting free speech, and instead just saying it in bad faith(?), you're going to have a tough time with meaningful debate and enjoying HN. One of the core tenets is a belief in the principle of charity — assume the strongest interpretation of the commenter's argument, not the weakest.

This is great content, and much of it applies to other roles as well!

I've been trying to summarize for my partner (a UX designer) what helps in doing a senior role well and gradually growing into leadership, and this says much of it better than I could have myself.

I'm choosing a specific sentence that has been highlighted as unacceptable and is meant to disgust. I'm sure there is much more to the book Chaos Monkeys than "SF women weak," yet he was fired for that comment within his book, with no care given to context.

Hence the question, why the double standard?

In my case, I almost always want paste to override most formatting — if I copy something from a website, I want it to match my formatting.

What I'm looking for, though, is particularly for the font itself, the font color and maybe the size to match. If something is bolded, or italicized, that should ideally be retained.

A good configuration could be to ask whether you want the formatting of what you're pasting to match the document, and then ask if they want to set that choice as default.

Being reassigned as opposed to fired is quite the privilege.

Everyone in the comments is viewing it as completely different than the Damore fiasco because this racist blog post was written in 2007, but are we forgetting that Antonio Martinez wrote Chaos Monkeys 5 years ago and was fired for it now? [1]

What's the difference between:

1) Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naïve despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit

2) If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing

I think it's absurd that the former is worth firing and the latter isn't. Google has a reputation to be a more 'progressive' company than Apple; is that just code for undertones of anti-semitism?

[1] https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world/employee-fired-for-s...

It preys on and fuels women’s insecurities to sell them throwaway products made by borderline-enslaved Cambodians.

It sounds like you've never used Depop or learned about it before writing this comment. Depop is the exact opposite. It's a solution to what you're framing as a problem. Depop is a way to recycle clothing rather than throwing it out and buying more - it is actually a reaction to the exact fast fashion you're complaining about.

(I'm not the above commenter but also disagreed with your prior comment)

The creators just sold it, private company, private service they could have sold it to anyone they wanted.

I understand and agree with your take now, but this sentence from your last comment seemed like a different line of thinking.

If a creator can just sell it to anyone because it's a private company, that's false and that's a different argument than the specifics of this case not triggering antitrust law.

WhatsApp being bought by Apple could have easily been construed as anticompetitive, so it wasn't just that a creator can sell a private company to anyone they want. (Also, Facebook Messenger could be a reason that Facebook's purchase of WhatsApp is anticompetitive, but neither service was as prevalent at the time).

I'm not looking to argue for or against either side here, but:

"How I raised a $5.1M seed as a first-time, female founder" =/= simply referring to a woman as a woman.

"How I raised a $5.1M seed as a first-time, male founder" would certainly prompt questions about why male is relevant, particularly more so than attributes like low-income, immigrant, dropout, etc.