killer1loop

Switzerland has one of the best weather data and possibly the worst UI for accessing it. So I fixed and gave it out for free.

Keep complex analysis grounded, keep marketers in the driver's seat, and let the AI handle the parts that scale poorly with humans

I have a specific trading style that is serving me well so far. I bet on select stocks and SP500 every day in the 3 hours before open and close. I calculate the signal strength by looking at volatility, price action and other factors. I normally bet when probability is >75% and <95%, and the signal is above 7 or 8. Returns are calculated based on probability, strenght and upside profit %. I'm planning to expand my logic with skipping bets on macro-economic events and other factors that could impact on probability. Not financial advice, read the discalimer first.

Correct. The tool is a work in progress and I am focusing on the signal algorithm at the moment. The idea is that the probability as traded on PM doesn't accurately represent statistical probability. I have added many of my observations to it to basically capture opportunities in the 3 hours before resolution, for probabilities between 70 and 95% that show potential higher than what the market is trading.

I would like to pick your brain on this B2B SaaS that just launched. The angle is to provide a better DX to technical marketing teams frustrated with other marketing platforms and offer data privacy by design, including added data privacy protection thanks to Switzerland's advanced privacy protection laws.

We always wanted a marketing platform like this so we built it our own. Each organization gets its own PostgreSQL database, its own API and business intelligence tool. User data is kept private and encrypted, and opens up to creating a large marketplace of user data based on the blockchain.

Being naive means refusing to recognize that most people confuse the internet with facebook. Most true in developing countries, where facebook's plan for universal internet access includes setting facebook as their homepage.

I can't blame you, I don't even take myself seriously. But going back to the point, is anything in my article inaccurate – as far as you know? The being overheard thingy isn't scientific research, one would reckon. Do we agree that trying to inform and empower people is a sensible way to progress? I could argue that our blog is probably doing better than FB and the philanthropist Zuckerberg.

Going back to WhatsApp, some of the aspects of its encryption layer are still unclear, to quote your link:

"The threat is remote, quite limited in scope, applicability (requiring a server or phone number compromise) and stealthiness (users who have the setting enabled still see a warning–even if after the fact). The fact that warnings exist means that such attacks would almost certainly be quickly detected by security-aware users. This limits this method."

This paragraph alone, when put in context, would at least ring a bell and make you question the security and encrypted statement. Especially when it's coming from one of Zuckerberg subsidiaries.