About Last Week’s Announcement
64 points • 61 comments
Recent @collectedparts Activity
About Last Week’s Announcement
64 points • 61 comments
Nit: I think you meant "I don't think anyone would dispute that it's a blow".
Saying "I don't think anyone would argue that X" means "I don't think anyone thinks X".
I have 3 different Heroku accounts of different vintages, one of which I haven't logged into in ages. Sure enough, each got the notice. So yeah, ready to call BS on this being "a portion" of users.
One thing that I suspect is true, but sort of hard to avoid and not really anyone's fault (although, potentially part of the "deliberate" value of HN) is that HN dwellers tend to be pre-disposed look up to YC companies, implicitly favor them, etc.
Ie, "brand halo" as it relates to ease of getting to #1 on HN is by its nature based on "brand halo in the eyes of HN dwellers", not "general tech brand halo."
I'm not saying that makes HN dwellers think that Stripe can do-no-wrong or whatnot. Just that their prior on how interesting an eng blog post on $topic will be is probably higher for a well-known YC co than it would be for a generically equivalently well-known non-YC co.
FWIW Bolt (at least their official corporate LinkedIn, not sure about their founder) refers to Stripe as a "partner": https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bolt-com_the-fintech-50-2021-...
By add in Lyft, I assume you mean the fact that Lyft is not actually a YC company? (vs, the tweets refer to Lyft as Stripe's batchmate)
Ask HN: Tool for dashboards / alerting on operational health metrics?
3 points • 5 comments
If I had to guess, the wording is in the study's FAQ is carefully chosen: "an application detailing our research methods" doesn't necessarily mean "an application with the verbatim text of the emails we planned to send, including our thinly veiled legal threat at the end."
Not trying to turn this thread into a generic flameware against "academic" research methods, but this whole things seems oddly reminiscent of the "let's try to insert malicious code into Linux" fiasco . I'm conceptually fine with generic passive tools like web crawlers to conduct research, but since when did the internet become a place where nonconsensual interactive research became fine?
My take on this is that Ireland is now willing to come into compliance because post-Brexit, they now have a monopoly on "urban core that could sustain an HQ for multinationals in a natively-English-speaking country in the EU."
In other words, they relied on tax advantages as a differentiator for companies to choose Dublin over London for their EU HQ. But now, what would you choose if not Dublin? Obviously Paris and Berlin are candidates but if you're a straightforward multinational, or certainly a company that is actually based/headquartered in the US, you're going to experience a lot less of a shock in a natively-English-speaking country.
So it seems to be that Dublin wins now, tax advantage or no tax advantage. Which likely makes drawing the ire of other countries for being a "haven" less worth it.
They technically announced it , but I agree that it got next to no coverage. Presumably they deliberately "silently" put the announcement on their blog without circulating it to news outlets. HN discussion at the time .
Discussion last Friday (re: California notice): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28719786
Think of ETH fees as more or less an auction. When you submit a transaction to the Ethereum network, you're hoping it will be mined as soon as possible. Miners select which transactions to include based on the miner fee.
The minimum miner fee that is required for a transaction to be processed promptly is therefore constantly an open question / constantly changing, which gives rise to services like https://ethgasstation.info/ which attempt to tell you how much you should reasonably expect to pay.
In terms of how today's outcome is possible: when you are submitting a transaction, any amount of ETH that you have on your account could validly be spent as the fee.
So in this case, either by human error or a software bug, someone with a large amount of ETH in their balance essentially spent all of it on the transaction fee.
The miner _gets_ all of those ETH. So some lucky miner just got a huge spike in profit.
Er, yes. The topic of the linked article - the reason that this is coming to light in the news now - is indeed, that a shareholder lawsuit has been brought against them (Zuckerberg, Sandberg, etc are named defendants and the company is nominal defendant). Direct link, from the article: https://655e71e2-f98d-40e9-822b-081bc894b6af.filesusr.com/ug...
(Granted, that is from prior to these most recent fiascos.)
This piece addresses (and provides data to refute) the common claim that increased unemployment benefits are the source of worker hesitancy.
But it doesn't address eviction moratoriums, which to me seem like they could be a pretty significant driver of this phenomenon. If you've been able to just stop paying rent, I would think the need to work is heavily diminished (or rather, other government benefits that would never be sufficient on their own can be stretched to cover all non-rent expenses).
No idea the scale here; haven't found anything more recent than https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/nearly-20percent-of-renters-...
> “The lesson to be learned from this is to keep the value in bitcoin, that the profit from the crime should be 36 bitcoin, regardless of what value the bitcoin has at the time,” [the prosecutor] reportedly said.
It sounds like the police tripped a loophole in law by liquidating some of the BTC. Sounds like if the police had HODL'd they'd have been fine defending it as just look, these were the assets he had, we seized them. But since they liquidated, the defense got to say, hey, you already got the full proceeds.
The cofounder was telling the truth (or, at least, nothing in the lawsuit implies that he was not).
The plaintiffs in this case are claiming that when they linked their bank accounts to PayPal/Venmo/etc using Plaid they didn't realize what they were doing, or that it's somehow unfair that Paypal/Venmo/etc got their banking data (despite knowingly inputting their credentials into Paypal/Venmo/etc).
Paypal/Venmo/etc is not a third party in that case. They're the party that the customer was knowingly interacting with.
A third party would be an unknown / unrelated data broker. Ie, the cofounder is claiming that they don't turn around and resell data to anyone other than the app that the customer was deliberately using.
I guess it might technically legally be fraud but OTOH I wouldn't call it "wrong" because if you maintained CA domicile you'd keep paying CA income tax on your income.
And with TX not having income tax, it's almost like your CA income tax pays into the benefit pool...
IANAL but my understanding is that companies have to register to do business in each state that they want to employ remote workers in. So if you're a Texas resident, the CA company would have had to register in Texas to have you on payroll, and that relationship would be governed by Texas law.
Of course if you kept your driver's license in CA and just happen to physically be in Texas without telling your employer that, then it'd be CA.