Derek_MK

I mean metaphorically sure, but in this case it's literally using the exact same system; it's just the clients are changed to look like a chat app instead of an email app. This is more like if two people were sending telegraphs over actual telegraph lines, with morse code and everything, then at the end they type it up into a Word document and say "It's email!"

I mean, the whole point of that issue was that the FBI wanted Apple to develop tools that would make it a lot easier for the FBI to do it later if they wanted to. It probably cost them a lot of money/time to do it the way they did. Plus, wasn't that the suspect's work phone anyway? So there really couldn't even be much that would have incriminated him on that phone. The point was setting a technological precedent.

TL;DR: "[Coding perfectly and anticipating any possible change to how the tools work] are not reasonable expectations of a human being. We need languages with guard rails to protect against these kinds of errors."

I definitely agree with this. And it also applies to a lot more than what the article is focused on (low-level security). It seems that right now the entire programming ecosystem seems to jump to "you just don't understand it" rather than "this should be more intuitive, or at least safer by design."

> It’s quite surprising that 35% of Python users don’t use any testing frameworks and are presumably not testing their code.

That's some olympic-level conclusion jumping there

People search for Trello more.

It wouldn't take more space. That decision was made for the same reason as the decisions to make as much hardware locked down as possible - So you have to pay Apple more to replace them.

Neither does the SEC investigation that got him for fraud

EDIT: SEO > SEC - Context switching is hard

He caused the SEC investigation that probably impacted them enough to miss the targets mentioned in the article. He also has a DOJ investigation in progress against him and Tesla. He is a liability.

That basically comes down to whether RISC-V's current partners decide to jump ship for something more well-known.

The reason why it's hard to become a bank in the US is because there are regulations in place to keep companies from screwing over customers for their own gain or in their own stupidity. In this case, Robinhood didn't look into what they needed to do to follow those regulations. If they DID follow the regulations, then they could provide their banking service.

>But hardly anyone outside medicine does hypothesis preregistration yet.

And that's where this idea fails from a practical standpoint. This system gives scientists the means to do something that hurts their chances at publishing/funding.

Now, if it were somehow enforced, then you'd have a different situation, and it could give some serious benefits.

Hopefully the author here is right in that the SEC will continue to step in and say "No, you can't just call it something else. What you're providing is a bank account."

If Robinhood manages to get away with saying "It's not a bank account; it just does everything a bank account does", and therefore that it doesn't require the same level of regulation, then that's going to be a HUGE problem.

To be fair, they only got negative attention among the people who wouldn't have used Robinhood anyway. Their business model is going after people who don't know better.

It seems to be one of two options, IMO:

1. They are doing everything like this (i.e. with not enough legal analysis), and have only just now happened to do something illegal. This would make sense if the top-level people at Robinhood were techbros and not people with experience in finance, but that seems kind of unlikely given that they're able to set up an investment app in the first place - I would assume that's very hard to do if you're not already neck-deep in that industry.

2. They are (for some reason) trying to set this up as a "Robinhood vs The Man (tm)" thing. They're already branding themselves hard on the "Giving financial freedom to the average person" thing, and I could totally see this giving them some free advertisement if they choose to take advantage of the "Big bad government hurting poor people's opportunities!!!" idea.

I mean, if you consider the adblocking, tracker blocking, etc, then it's faster than Chrome, and may have been even before the switch (citation needed on that though). That stuff takes a long time to load, even on Chromium.

So the idea is that they've always been loading fewer things (so it's faster in that aspect), but now the speed of loading the same content is better.

And he'll still blame the SEC for him not making money

Now that I think about it, yeah, I think Microsoft is probably gonna land in some big trouble with GDPR because of this. There's not really a way out of it because of how little control they give the user. I think it's just going to take time, because there's so many high-profile GDPR cases going on right now.

Plus, it's not like the big companies can afford to get hit by GDPR in a way that small companies can't. GDPR fines are based off of the company's revenue, which works well for preventing Microsofts from making more money from doing it anyway and paying the fine.

The solution shouldn't be "make all the apps work around Microsoft being anti-consumer". It should be "Make Microsoft stop being anti-consumer".

It's the same reason why everyone wants everyone else to fix climate change: The negative effects from supporting China won't affect the people who actually make the decision to support China.

Eh, they're actually going for both millenials and younger. A lot of their advertising is in YouTube ads and YouTube podcasts, which is definitely aimed at a younger audience than millenials.

Yeah, the younger crowd doesn't trade, not because "the maaaan" is keeping them from it, but because it's a very complicated way of making money, and they typically don't want to learn how to do it right. What this startup is doing is telling the younger crowd that it's the former, while also saying "Look how easy this is!" and deliberately oversimplifying complex systems.

The use of the word "trick" here is well-warranted. This is really more of a UI thing (i.e. it's a little too easy for a user to accidentally click "Ok"). Applications have responded to concerns like this by just having the "Ok" button be non-clickable for a full second after appearing.

I feel like the arguments given here are kind of weak for not implementing HTTPS. Plus, fingerprinting and such can be cirumvented pretty easily by adding padding data to the payload of a random length.

That said, I don't think it matters too terribly much here, and in situations where privacy is much more important, Apple seems to be blowing Google out of the water, since their business model isn't inherently anti-privacy.

Solid piece, I'd give it a B+. We'll see if there's any improvement at our next review.

This isn't advertising. The article talks about a specific action, which is paying someone to buy cheap things from you, so you can tell investors that you have a lot of sales.

> “A key challenge is that when much of the information in the application has been hidden, it’s hard to establish a clear picture of the know-how and capability of the applicant,” the city’s resolution says.

What exactly do you learn about a candidate's know-how and capability by knowing their name, gender, etc? Unless you are so deep in denial that you'd just blatantly say "Men are more capable than women".

Don't forget the first step "Do you not really care about the technology and just want to write a webapp that gets mad investor money?" and an arrow that goes straight to "Yes"

He doesn't really do much of the things he markets. He frequently makes a big announcement for something huge in 1-2 years. Then, 1-2 years later, he makes another big announcement to keep the previous announcement out of the news.

The most relevant example is actually his recent public statements about a Mars base. He actually stated in 2016 that he would be sending an unmanned rocket to Mars in 2018. 2018 is almost over, so he quietly pushed plans back until about 2023, and started hyping up his Mars base stuff for the far-future.

> selling Tesla like hot cakes

That would be great if they could make enough of them to deliver to the people who bought one.

There are places where relational DBs are inherently better than noSQL (namely when you need fully up-to-date information on every query, no matter what) - But those situations are becoming more rare compared to situations where potentially stale data is an okay tradeoff for performance gains.

Honestly, IMO the biggest issue holding noSQL databases back is lack of good documentation/support a lot of the time. Technically, though, they're going to become the standard for most use cases soon.