_9vpl

The major difference is you don't have an easy way to turn off the call blocking with the iOS 13 setting if you need to accept a call from an unknown caller (recruiter, scheduled call, whatever). On iOS 13, it's hidden in the settings app and there is no way to temporarily disable for a period of time so you don't forget to turn it back on.

Another shameless self-plug, this is why MyHumans is better because you can temporarily turn off the call blocking for a time period, like an hour, and it will automatically turn back on.

It's a legitimate thing to consider and something I've thought about. If the call comes from a loved one's phone then the call won't be blocked. If it's a major emergency where the call is from a hospital line then they will leave a voicemail and I'll find out soon enough when I glance at my notifications (although not immediately).

I honestly would use that instead if there was a quick way to disable without digging through the settings app.

I got pretty fed up with robocalls and none of the existing iPhone apps that use a blacklist approach really worked since robocallers and spam callers can just fake their number or use recycled numbers.

I created an iPhone app called MyHumans that takes the opposite approach with a whitelist using your phone contacts. Other callers are sent to voicemail without ringing your phone. It has an easy to access switch where you can temporarily disable any blocking for a time period, like an hour, if you're expecting a one-off call from a recruiter or whatever.

It works really well for me. Spammers rarely bother leaving a voicemail and legitimate businesses leave a voicemail that I can follow-up on later.

https://www.myhumansapp.com

It's easy - let the candidate choose what works best for them.

To clarify, Apple takes 30% of in-app subscriptions for customers < 1 year. If you retain a customer for a year, then they take 15% of the revenue after 1 year.

If a customer signs up and setups payment for the service outside the app, then Apple doesn't take a cut. That's why you can't buy books in the Audible iOS app, or subscribe to Netflix via the iOS app. But you can login and watch/listen to content you've already bought or subscribed to.

Residences, not residents. Buildings, not people.

Yeah, commercial property makes no sense either, especially if you consider the original intent of the law, but it bothers me less than residences as at least those properties, in theory, are doing something productive for society.

I agree, it just tells me how utterly broken the current state of affairs is with data privacy in the U.S.

Here we have the FBI telling us if we don't want to be spied on by TV manufacturers with cameras to just use some black tape :facepalm:

I would say overall California’s high income and sales taxes and low property taxes are far, far more regressive, see this at the extreme:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-proper...

This is true but it’s insane that California allows children to inherit the lower tax basis:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-proper...

I'm well aware of the multitude of scams, hacks, etc. involving [centralized] cryptocurrency exchanges, but it doesn't actually have much to do with blockchain technologies itself, at least not in the context being discussed here.

If you give over control to cryptocurrency by sending your cryptocurrency to some entity that exists outside of a trust-less blockchain system (centralized exchange or otherwise) then that entity can do whatever they want with it (technically-speaking), and you are essentially then reverting back to and relying on non-blockchain technologies at that point (The exchange was probably just a typical web app built with some common web framework and RDBMS). Obviously, ponzi schemes are possible without blockchain technologies and in a purely blockchain world, because of the transparency of transactions, it would be very difficult to pull off without having willing-participants.

There is a separate discussion to be had of how to use blockchain with "legacy" centralized systems and how to make it user-friendly for non-experts, but it's not an actual problem with blockchain technologies itself, but more of a second-order problem.

The main thing being discussed was digital assets, so if you have 2 pure digital assets that are compatible with smart contracts, you can exchange without any trust and it prevents things like ponzi schemes. Government money, like in the example, really is more of a "legacy" centralized system, which allows for this. That's partly why you are seeing entities like Coinbase try to create "stable" cryptocurrencies [1] that try to mirror the value of government money.

[1] https://www.coinbase.com/usdc

I don’t follow your analogy

The immutable ledger and consensus algorithm is the basis for allowing ownership of digital assets and freedom.

Solving the trust issue is what an immutable ledger and consensus algorithm is all about.

Without a way to agree on who owns what and a way to enforce that then there is no way to have digital ownership or freedom without an army of lawyers and law enforcement, or trust.

You probably already have ownership of digital assets without blockchain: it’s called a bank account, equities, bonds, and maybe a title or deed to a car or home. But that ownership is all enforced by an entire system of laws, attorneys, law enforcement, and other fallible human beings. If you remove the reliance on that system and fallible human beings, you then begin to enable a greater amount of ownership and freedom than previously possible.

> especially when it's one of these singular company examples.

Blockchain is most useful in situations where there is a lack of trust between parties. Seems like a lot of people on HN distrust PayPal because of being bitten by frozen accounts or having their earned money revoked. That’s why money is a good use case for blockchain.

Voting is another - maybe you don’t trust that your vote for the radical will be counted correctly.

Smart contracts are another. If the other party decides they don’t like the current state of affairs (they are losing) then it’s much easier and less expensive to have the contract auto-enforced than using a army of law enforcement and lawyers.

If HSBC is actually using this to create an immutable record of transactions that ensures integrity of the logs then it would be a good use case, but I have my doubts.

It’s the same as the credit industry creating identity theft instead of protecting against attacks on their own systems

It’s hilarious how all these articles are about how to protect yourself instead of talking about why the carriers don’t better protect against this

How are purchasing juul pods any different than cigarettes?

Sounds like Office Space. ICYMI, the main character quits his job at a tech company and works outside doing construction.

When you look at the smartphone market for apps, I think you could make a pretty good argument that there is monopolistic behavior between the two giants, Apple and Google. Call it a duopoly or what have you. The fact that both stores have very similar policies regarding revenue share (70/30) seems to support this.

Both stores having the same exact revenue share may just be a consequence of there being a duopoly, or it may be more nefarious where active collusion has occurred between the two. Remember when Apple and Google got caught a few years back colluding against labor? https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-po...

Now, yes, Android does allow you to download apps outside the Play Store, but not by default. Microsoft was able to make a similar argument with Internet Explorer and Windows with it's monopoly cases. If you are one of a few large powerhouses like Fortnight or Tinder, you may be able take advantage of being able to bypass Play Store.

The entire podcast is like this, highly recommend the entire episode.

Starts right about here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udlMSe5-zP8&feature=youtu.be...

2:10:56

This is a great point. I'd be interested in seeing some data where words/definitions/"generic trademarks" are better protected. For example, I remember reading something within the last few years about the FDA considering cracking down on companies using "milk" in non-dairy products like almond milk, soy milk, etc.

It's almost a tragedy of the commons where there is a generic trademark that isn't protected, or maybe in the opposite case where everyone colludes to dilute the generic trademark to increase profit margins. Like using "blueberries" that aren't real blueberries but just made up of sugar and some artificial ingredients.

> There was a company that recently started trying to sell stocks at retail outlets (walmart, etc)

Sounds like Stockpile - They sell gift cards for stocks.

FWIW, I'm very familiar with Plaid as I've worked in several FinTech startups using Plaid for various reasons. If you simply want to revoke Plaid's access all you need to do is change your bank password. Of course, all past data will live on in Plaid. If you're a EU user, you can request to have your data removed. Curious what their response might be if you're not in the EU. Hate to be cynical, but I bet they'll ignore you as is all too common for customer service these days.

When I first became interested in the idea for the app, I quickly ran into the same limitations with CallKit. What my app, MyHumans, does is relay the call through a backend service which sends it to your phone via a VoIP call using CallKit. CallKit allows the incoming call to act nearly the same UI-wise as a normal incoming call. The backend service is then able to filter calls using salted hashes of numbers from your contacts.

I've been wondering the same, I recently made MyHumans for iPhone to do just this. I think this works for a lot of people, and it has completely solved my spam problem.

I just created an iPhone app that uses a whitelist from your contacts like you described. It's available on iOS 11+ and called MyHumans.

I've tested out the "silence unknown callers" feature in the iOS 13 beta and it works very much in a similar way. "Unknown callers" seems to be any call that isn't in your recent calls or in your contacts.

When I made MyHumans (just launched in the last month), I knew there was a risk of something like this appearing in iOS 13, but I'll be adding some more features.

I recently just created an iPhone app that basically does this. It only allows calls through from your contacts, all other calls go directly to voicemail that you can review later. Most other apps out there attempt to use a blacklist, which is basically useless as it's trivial to recycle phone numbers or just spoof phone numbers. Imagine if social media worked the same way phone calls do, where anyone's effortless contact is treated the same way, regardless of their degree of connection. I think for a lot of people, this is a great solution, and pretty much eliminates the constant distraction of spam calls. https://www.myhumansapp.com