abritishguy

If this is what it seems then that is ludicrous.

I like this a lot, it's always tempting to think that we can create a perfect language that would be the best in all situations but we can't.

Rust is great for projects where its values are valued:

- Speed

- Memory Safety

- Concurrency

Go is great for projects where its values are valued:

- productivity (from being able to immediately understand a new code base due to the small and simple language to the toolchain it provides). - concurrency

Likewise, Ruby and Python are great choices for some projects.

LONDON ONSITE Head of Security & Android Engineer

Mondo Bank, London https://mondo.workable.com/

We are a startup, building a bank from scratch. We recently closed a funding round that included £1m in 96 secs via crowdcube. Check us out at https://getmondo.co.uk

You can add you American Express (or whatever) card to Apple Pay, the protection and points are not in the plastic.

I know but the semantics are different.

I wonder how buggy thus is. For example, how do symlinks work given windows doesn't have an equivalent that behaves the same.

What happens if a package is depended on but contains pirated things?

I've always liked this article by one of Stripe's interface designers:

https://medium.com/@bdc/chrome-is-the-new-ie-1a21c1efc133#.3...

>Chrome is unfortunately contributing to the web’s bad reputation by caring more about developers than end-users. Mobile Safari can easily handle, say, a Photos.app-like interface with a translucent navigation bar, native-like swipe gestures and smooth animations. Chrome handles none of this. No position:sticky, no backdrop-filter, no scroll-snap-type (heck, even IE supports it). It’s concerning that Apple is doing better on a phone than Google is on the most powerful desktop.

One of the difficulties Concorde had was the sonic boom, drawing attention to it doesn't seem wise.

The former, something like Rust.

So many memory corruption issues, I'd like to think in 5/10 years time this would be solved and everything written in a safe language but maybe I'm being optimistic.

If this is genuine then it is absolutely inexcusable - this isn't some complex attack, that is web 101 stuff.

Agreeing to the terms could be giving permission though...

Insurance is for if someone suffers losses because a valid certificate was issued to someone it shouldn't have been.

It doesn't say anything about remote install - in fact it says "physical possession" several times.

[I work at Mondo]

>at the expense customer experience and true security

I always call this "lazy security"[1] and it's what you get when you hire some security professionals to "make it secure". It's a mistake to separate security from product design, the two should inform each other to come up with a compelling product that remains secure. Separating them misaligns interests, the security team will push for a change that improves security irrespective of any impact it may have on user experience.

I think Touch ID is a great example of how a novel solution can improve both security and usability.

At Mondo we are committed to investing time and energy into finding these solutions, security at the expense of user experience is a last resort.

[1]https://medium.com/@danielchatfield/lazy-security-32acc31fbd...

[I work at Mondo]

Like any bank we will have an anti-fraud engine that proactively declines transactions that have a high risk of fraud. We are going to work very hard to ensure the false positive rate is very low.

That being said, the system will never be perfect and I'm sure you can appreciate that it may be common for fraudsters to purchase bitcoin which could cause some legitimate transactions get blocked.

If you have any questions feel free to email me daniel@getmondo.co.uk

>After 2008, unfortunately, regulations have made it much more difficult to incorporate a bank

The capital requirements to launch a bank have actually been relaxed since the financial crash. The government wants more competition in the industry and the regulator has been working to make that happen.

Not the only one, I wonder if it is US only (I'm UK)

I don't see a distributed lock implementation being both 100% correct without any support of the resources guarded by the lock and actually feasible.

For data which absolutely must never violate the lock then the underlying data storage has to be involved. The vast majority of times where a distributed lock is used is where the underlying storage doesn't provide any support and the distributed lock is good enough, failures are exceptional and not disastrous.

If you want perfect correctness then you can just not have auto-release but practically this will cause more problems than it solves.

This is interesting, I'm not sure how digital ocean would be a good fit for a startup.

Check out https://getmondo.co.uk/docs/

That is harder than just running the experiment online.

Wow, strange that people weren't reporting these merge issues when they were clearly impacting people.

>you end up with a ton of spam on your statements

We think we can avoid that. It's going to be hard to get it right all the time but over time we should be able to learn which transactions settle for amounts less than or greater than the author amount and show these in an appropriate way.

Could you explain what problems you have consolidating your bills with credit card statement - I'm not sure how number26 do it but after 48hrs our statement should be the same as if we didn't show you the auths.

The only feature I think is actually pretty useful is the autocomplete of the title underlines.

I can guarantee that this cannot guarantee both of:

- system stays online when any server goes down

- after confirming a write it will always be returned in corresponding reads following a failover

The AI can assist the human as well. It may not be confident that its response is accurate and the human just clicks send.

No system that attempts to typeset from source in the browser will be able to compete.

It can easily take more than a second to compile a laTeX document with a moderate number of formulas. Sure, some of this could be optimised but not _that_ much - the best you can do is either force the user to wait for you to typeset accurately or show some close approximation that will never be on par with TeX.

They changed it because people were using them as likes rather than favourites.

I originally used them as "favourites" (for links that I was interested in but didn't have time to read now) but others didn't. Twitter catered for the majority and made the list of your favourites harder to get at and started putting things you favourite into other people's timelines.

Whilst I preferred how it was originally it is clear to me that this change was motivated by how the community at large used the feature.