HN user

kalmi10

338 karma
Posts7
Comments131
View on HN

I think the idea is that if one in a loyalty program, and it provides them with some discount/benefits, then they are more likely to shop there instead of at some other chain. This way they spend their money at that chain, and that is good for the store. It's just one more way stores are competing with each other. It also provides the chain with some data, but I am uncertain of its utility. I don't really believe it to be useful for them in general for anything other than targeting.

I remember hearing on France 24 (from Anastasiya Shapochkina iirc) when the sanctions were just being introduced that the sanctions would effectively make it cheaper for Russia to finance the war as most their monetary assets are in foreign currencies while most of their expenses are in rubel.

I remember reading that card transactions have different costs aspects for the parties involved depending on if the card is actually physically present at the time of purchase. And iirc Apple managed to convince the banking sector that Apple Pay is equivalent to chip card security, so that they get better rates.

According to reddit, Apple Pay works on jailbroken devices, but still, something like this might be at play in all the other similar scenarios.

Good point about the experimental Tor support and the Onion IPFS gateways.

Is there a reasonable way to use untrusted gateways while upholding the data integrity guarantees? I think it should be possible in theory.

I understand that no one is going to tamper with the data. Everybody (who is running a full node) is gonna get what they ask for, but then they are gonna go and announce it to the world that they have it, and that worries me privacy-wise.

The thing I worry about with IPFS is privacy. If you use IPFS directly (as intended, not via a public gateway), and you visit a site, then you are automatically going to be seeding (like a torrent) the visited content, and thus you will be announcing/broadcasting the fact to the world that you (your node/your IP) have visited it. My current understanding is that this cannot really be avoided, since one needs to be able to find the nodes that have the content for any given hash.

I found this in the FAQ:

If I want to share a calendar with my spouse, do I need to get two subscriptions? No. You can just create a normal subscription for yourself, and an "Associate" subscription for your spouse. Then share the calendar with the second account, and that's it. However, Associate accounts can't create their own calendars. So in order to have a personal calendar (that you can't see), your spouse will have to get a normal subscription too.

.. so you can live swap routes and endpoints even with dynamic routing (without performing any hot-reload dance in your own code), which actually sounds like a neat feature at first.

Strange thing is that I never intended or expected my regular ad blocker to skip Spotify ads. I just kinda noticed one day that there seems to be more ads on mobile, and I left it at that. Then one day I noticed a bug related to looping on the desktop web client, and while trying to figure out what's going on.. that's when I finally realised that my regular ad blocker is skipping Spotify ads, and is messing up looping in the process.

So.. I guess there might be others who are kinda unintentionally blocking Spotify ads too. Terminating accounts without warning for people who are not even aware that they are in the wrong is gonna result in backslash, I think.

Fun fact: Not even the whole of number type is safe to clone with the JSON method, because Infinity or NaN turn into null.

So one can’t infer JSON-clonability from TypeScript/JavaScript types. Learned this the hard way.