Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this has anything to do with "cracking" the algorithm, or really with cracking anything.
YouTube openly admits to having a metric for scoring videos, which, of course they do. Then they accidentally, seemingly, leak the scores of videos. It turns out that content that is really successful on YouTube has a really high score. Meaning the score... works.
I suppose there's the question of whether the score is the cause or an effect of the success of these videos, though it's almost certainly a bit of both, since that's how virality and feedback loops work.
I think the thing a lot of content creators object to is the lack of equity in the system and the sieving process that happens to content.
All else being equal, content that can be paired with ads is preferred over other content to the extent that equal access to the base service is impaired. IE, Youtube is not a fair place where anyone can upload a video and become a sort of "star", it's just another extension of the existing Media corporations, where advertising dollars rule and the standard for what content is "ok" is based on the complaints of the most easily offended segment of the population.
I know you didn't ask for suggestions, but here's mine: the one thing I care about a CRM doing really well is pipeline / funnel management, i.e, the ability to define a set of stages that a contact goes through to close a deal or reach some other desired result and track contacts as they move through the pipeline(s).
For example: unqualified lead -> qualified lead -> responded to email -> discussion with sales rep -> made purchase
Being able to organize my contacts in this way and quickly see which contacts are at which stages and easily move them between stages (ideally with an API endpoint) is a super powerful way to drive day to day workflow (and automations like follow up emails, assuming there's an API endpoint for querying).
I’ve replied to someone else regarding Odoo, but the CRM addon has this as a default workflow. You can define a pipeline for different sales teams and track sales from leads all the way to acquisition/customer. From there on you can process sales orders, have it tie into manufacturing etc.
Flexibility of labelling is definitely the way to go with pipeline management. Different organizations have very different ideas about sales processes (and even what constitutes a sale/deal/partnership) and a CRM aiming for simplicity should simply let users define (and reuse) their own.
Hey, thanks for your feedback. I did not say it before but I am also considering implementing a pipeline. I myself realised today that I will need that .
An API is also in the works for a third plan: Entreprise ($50/month)
Wrong TLS certificate. I wouldn't feel at ease giving away my contact and business information to a startup that can't even properly manage its web server...
I am not saying I will implement every single feature people request but I will take any feedback my customers give me. I will continue working on Micro CRM and provide updates and fix bugs.
All I'm trying to do here is build a app that people will use and be happy with.
I very much agree with this, particularly the part regarding having active social media profiles. I can see the practicality of using active social media as a heuristic for "realness", but I'd go so far as to say that this is a borderline unethical hiring practice. When companies systematically preference candidates with active social media profiles they're applying a market force that literally coerces remote workers into being active on systems that we know for a fact use psychologically manipulative practices to drive addictive behavior (not to mention the privacy and potentially negative psychosocial implications).
This is completely unfounded speculation not found in that article or in any other writing on the topic(s) (of social credit scores and the study the great nation app). Or possibly it's an attempt at some dark humor through hyperbole. Either way, I see a lot of these sort of extreme claims on HN whenever China comes up, and I think we'd all do better to discuss what's actually happening rather than our wildest fears. This type of speculation really muddies the waters and makes it hard to have a thoughtful discussion about anything China-related on here, and China is a big, complicated, important topic right now that deserves careful consideration. It also risks undermining legitimate criticisms of Chinese policy, or at least making them less believable, which I assume is the exact opposite of the intent of the poster here.
I think that predicting possible restricting ability to buy food is not “unfounded speculation” but rather pointing out something that can literally be one step away. If you help someone with a low social credit score who has been restricted, your score also lowers. The AI can track where you’ve been and who you helped. Uyghur markets are gone. Their freedom of movement has been restricted as they are in the re-education centers for years.
Are you really taking issue with the suggestion that food can be next, how much hyperbole is it given the scale of what happened in 2018 and 2019 thus far alone?
I don't want to have a big debate over what will and what won't happen in China in the future as I see you and I are working from very different assumptions and have very different approaches for extrapolating into the future. I'm just taking issue with the form of your previous comment, which took your personal fear of a Chinese policy that has not been suggested by the Chinese government, any China scholars, or even the most fearmongering clickbait hungry US reporter, and stated it as fact like so:
"Extreme claim not based in fact, stated as fact"
[link, implied to support the claim but doesn't]
When you do this, some percentage of people are going to take what you're saying at face value and believe that this is actual policy, especially since you seem to have provided a source (even though clicking on that source reveals it to be a paper thin cnet article that provides no support for what you're saying).
Frustratingly, you're doing it again here - you say "purchases for mobility and communication are restricted by social credit scores", and then you provide two links - one for cellphones and one for trains - that just say you need to use IDs to sign up for mobile plans and to buy train tickets in China, describing policies that existed long prior to social credit scores and have nothing to do with social credit scores. Those are also policies that exist in a lot of other countries, the first link you provide even says this in the first sentence:
"...joining many European and Asian countries in curbing the anonymous use of mobile technology."
Also, at least in my personal experience, you need an ID to buy a train ticket in the US as well. Also your source for that is a comment in a trip advisor thread about needing an ID to buy bus tickets, not train tickets, and consists entirely of people speculating and things they've heard second hand - a truly horrible source if ever I've seen one, and not in support of what you're saying even if it was a good source.
Without going through it, as I think it's pretty clear at this point that you're being very sloppy with your sources, that business insider article doesn't say what you're saying it says either.
Even looking past the many false claims here completely unsupported by the links you're providing, you can't just list a few things you don't like that seem "unfree" to you and then say you think that predicting keeping people that don't use an app regularly enough from buying food is a reasonable prediction. Or rather, go ahead and say it if you want but please just make it clear that it's your prediction rather than a fact like you did above, and be careful that the links you provide as supporting sources actually relate to what you're saying.
And please, please, please, be careful with how you summarize linked content - the way you do it here and appear to be doing it in your previous post is so inaccurate and so mixed with your own predictions and fears that I'm giving you a lot of benefit of the doubt by saying it's "sloppy" rather than "intentionally deceptive".
Well of course it’s my prediction, and a flippant one also, but one that’s designed to draw attention to the problem, the same way that 1984 was designed to draw attention to certain policies.
We’re talking about a country that has extrajudicial detention facilities to detain for years and re-educate huge numbers of people who committed no crime, based not on due process but on their religion alone, including Falun Gong and Uyghurs and probably some underground Churches and Buddhists. They probably already have the food-based control I’m talking about. I mean, the trajectory and overton window is REALLY worrying. What I said is coming to be within that window.
For what it's worth, I just tried opening the supposedly blocked site using Wechat, in China, on a Chinese phone (xiaomi) with a Chinese mobile plan (China unicom) and it works fine. Not sure if that's because it was never actually blocked or because they realized blocking it was a bad move and rolled it back.
The block has been (mostly? I guess) lifted. If national news paper[0] joined the discussion, nobody dare to keep the blockage. Especially they (the web browsers) was lying about the reason of block.
No particular preference - I'm fairly comfortable in South East Asia already, so that would be slightly easier - but anywhere would be fine - Africa or Central America seem like good options as well. I just can't seem to find any established programs that let me donate my skill set anywhere. It's really surprising. I'd be happy to pay airfare and, assuming it's affordable, my own room and board.
You should probably consider putting these and any other similar content you have front and center on the website. As it is now it looks a little thin on actual proof and comes off sounding a bit vaporware-ish.
> The language in the indictment about BTC-e’s “criminal design” mimics the indictment against Liberty Reserve — an anonymous currency service taken down by law enforcement in 2013 — which also accused the online exchange of having a “criminal design” and a system “designed so that criminals could effect financial transactions under multiple layers of anonymity.”
Basing the indictment on the intent of the design - something hard to prove or reason about objectively - seems like a very slippery slope. Couldn't a similar statement be made about almost any system that protects user privacy? Or maybe they're referring to specific legal requirements not being conformed to rather than a general "criminal design"?
There is no such thing as privacy from the state when dealing with money.
I don't know your salary and income, you don't know mine, but the state wants to know this for everybody.
This is the law of the land pretty much anywhere, and any large scale operations which try hiding this from the state (not from you and me) will be in trouble.
So if you don't do the KYC/AML thing, that can be called "criminal by design" since KYC/AML is kind of universal in the western world (including Bulgaria/Cyprus/BVI)
The money laundering statutes are so broad that you are a felon under them if you take money out of your savings and put it in your checking in order to make your credit card payment one month. Even if all three are at the same bank and none of the money is the result of a criminal activity.
I highly doubt that scenario exists without some other incriminating action, behavior, or police observation.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is an attack on private property and the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty", but there has to be _some_ suspicion of a crime (usually alleged drug paraphernalia) or simple corruption on the part of the police and/or judges.
There is a money-laundering-related charge, IIRC called "structuring", in which the reporting threshold of $10k/day/person is intentionally avoided (eg. by $9,999 transactions on consecutive days). This isn't usually charged "out of the blue". In the recent Hastert structuring case[1], he told a bank employee that he was avoiding the reporting threshold even though his money transfers weren't actually money laundering after profiting from a crime.
There is a lot that I disdain about money laundering laws and civil asset forfeiture, but I'm not inclined to believe that "rothbard-rand" (the surnames of two famous Libertarians) has no dogs in this fight, so to speak.
https://origamei.com