Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | yid's comments login

> In the ad, SoFi vows to propel its members to “greatness,” but says not everyone fits the bill. “Find out if you’re great at SoFi.com,” the voiceover reads. “You’re probably not.”

If there's one thing the majority of people watching the superbowl love, it's condescension from a corporation.

-----


Exclusivity is a common marketing strategy.

The US Marines or the British Parachute Regiment heavily promote their status as an elite corps. Advertising for theme parks and even toys often uses the "Are you tough enough?" trope. The Hermes Birkin bag has become one of the most sought-after items in fashion, precisely because Hermes won't sell them to the 'wrong' sort of people.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/12/25/460870534/episo...

-----


often uses the "Are you tough enough?" trope

But there's a world of difference between "are you tough enough?" and "you're probably not tough enough".

I agree with the GP poster, condescension won't play well.

-----


The only way for this to work for them is if the ad is controversial enough that people talk about it online after the game. Being incredibly condescending might work.

It's definitely an obnoxious strategy, and it's kind of sad to see. Unfortunately that doesn't mean it won't be effective. After all, we're talking about them here.

-----


Eh, If there's one thing I've learned about people, it's that nobody thinks they're not great. The ad is a challenge and it'll be very successful at driving traffic to their site.

-----


It's like negging. How lovely.

-----


Either I live in a world where a startup is being stupid and flagrantly spending millions on an ad during superbowl, or they'll be a raging success....by spending millions airing ads which appear to insult their potential customers and pandering to base exclusivism...

Its like a social desirability Catch 22...either way, we lose.

-----


If your're not, you're not the target, if your are, you'll feel all the better about it.

-----


> Is something like HHVM considered a tech breakthrough?

A largely backwards source-compatible, JIT'ed interpreter for one of the world's shittiest designed but most widely deployed languages? That runs the frontend fleet for the #2 site on the Web? While supporting new core language features and extensions? Yes, I would say that's a breakthrough in interpreter implementation, and thus tech.

-----


What about transaction latency, driver/passenger reputations and ratings, local legal compliance, payment for auxiliary services like maps and point-to-point navigation? All those things sound like they'd be worse off.

The end benefit to the consumer being monopoly prevention isn't likely to outweigh the service guarantees of a centralized service.

-----


How does Craigslist handle reputation? And yet, I'm sure you'd rather use Craigslist for certain purchases than eBay.

-----


Yes, but I'd ideally go to a licensed, brick-and-mortar store for the reputation and reliability over either eBay or Craigslist, if it weren't for the prices and availability of items. My point is that the benefits of centralized, non-blockchain solutions can outweigh what you lose when you go decentralized, and that's something that should be questioned of every new blockchain application.

-----


Yes. Good point. It's an interesting thought experiment.

What if the broad spectrum of Craigslist service providers included car drivers who could (somehow - hand wave) offer rides on Craigslist?

How much confidence would you have in them?

What condition would you expect their cars to be in?

What kind of driving record could be expected from the drivers?

How would you choose a driver from that spectrum?

Would you expect to pay less or the same as for an Uber ride?

Under what circumstances would you just avoid using a Craigslist driver altogether?

-----


> There is no reason a blockchain based app couldn't be implemented.

I don't think anyone is doubting this bit. It's the overwhelming current trend of forcing everything onto the blockchain, whether it improves the application or not. The interesting questions (frequently not answered) revolve around why one should do this.

-----


To me, the supposed benefit of using blockchain was so obvious as not to require stating: Removal of any central authority over connecting customers to service providers. And you might not want Uber tracking your travels, for example.

There are good arguments for centralization, too. Not saying the blockchain argument win out. Just saying, the benefits are the same as for every other blockchain application, and well understood.

-----


> And you might not want Uber tracking your travels, for example.

Surely a blockchain would only change that to anybody being able to track your travels, though?

-----


The whole system wouldn't have to sit on the blockchain - only the parts that are needed to put out a request. The only part that would need some thought is the initial location. One option would be to put out a general location, within 10 miles, then only give exact location to those who request it and have a proven record of being good drivers. That's another problem as well - how do you create a ratings system on the blockchain that can't be manipulated? Perhaps a page-rank style algorithm could do that.

-----


No more or less than anybody can track my bitcoin transactions, right? If I want to be anonymous, I use a new bitcoin address for each transaction.

-----


The presence of both "so obvious as not to require stating" and "Not saying the blockchain argument win out" suggests that it's probably not as obvious as it seems. :)

-----


This is so absurdly simple and yet devastating. Reading some of the comments on the Github issue you posted, this stood out (I don't know anything about lucky7coin):

> So disappointing such code was not reviewed by Vern and team before running it on the server where damage could result.

So this code was actually put into production somewhere at some point -- wow. And cursory code review and compiling from source will do absolutely nothing here.

-----


This is why you dump out source after the preprocessor has had its way with it.

gcc -E somethinghokey.c | less

The only thing you could hope to do would be to look for PRIVMSG in the binary after compiling or to look at the file post preprocessor.

-----


That often expands into hundreds of thousands of lines though. It's more routine to go backdoor-hunting in binaries; you've given me the interesting idea of running `strings` on the binary and looking for anything that's not in the source.

-----


Watch out for running `strings` on untrusted input!

See e.g. https://lcamtuf.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/psa-dont-run-strings...

-----


This makes me sad. Literally the whole point of 'strings' is for poking around in unknown files, and they managed to break even that.

-----


Instead, do it like a pro and run it from a live CD or a throwaway VM. Any work on untrusted code should be done in an trust-reduced environment.

-----


The same-origin policy is not an optional choice that can be "violated".

-----


> For stream processing engines, configuration will be code. Unfortunate, but unavoidable.

How so?

Kafka is a stream processing engine that uses plain old Zookeeper data structures for config.

Edit: Kafka also seems to have the missing features you mentioned if Riemann should be taken seriously as a general-purpose stream processing engine.

-----


I would argue Kafka isn't a stream processing engine so much as a stream shipping engine. Kafka barely looks at the content of your messages.

I'd also argue that Zookeeper nodes are anything but "plain" :)

-----


...until you realize that you've broken every single NDA you signed, and your (already-tiny-sized) startup finds out who you are, and you're out of a job.

-----


Forbidding employees to discuss pay is not legal in the United States. Is discussing the terms of equity compensation somehow different?

-----


Might be a case of MySQL natively supporting multi-master replication, whereas with Postgres you have to use a third-party/commercial solution.

Especially if you're not using any particularly advanced Postgres features, the operational simplicity of having built-in multimaster replication might outweigh any PG benefits.

-----


Are they actually using multi-master replication? I gleaned from the article series that they have many small independent MySQL clusters, each with one master and two slaves, and that their worker layer handles requesting data from the correct cluster for whatever shard a request routes to. Writes to a cluster can only go the master. So this seems more like a single-master design, just replicated a bunch but without the masters communicating with each other.

That said, I haven't used MySQL much at all. Am I just missing something or misunderstanding what multi-master means in the context of MySQL?

-----


The interesting thing here is that you can set the iframe size to a regular desktop-like size, and then use CSS3 transforms to scale the rendered page down to thumbnail size.

-----

More

Applications are open for YC Summer 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: