Not my project. Looks very interesting though!
504 karma · joined January 15, 2017
Interests: Entrepreneurship, Philosophy, Technology, Sports, Mentorship
---
This extension would be able to read and alter web pages and see your browsing history on this website. This could include sensitive information, including passwords, phone numbers and credit cards.
You can change this later in the Websites section of Safari Settings.
Focused UX is something I feel has been really lost by many apps coming out today.
Australian Financial Review
The Australian Signals Directorate could be given authority to directly commandeer the IT systems of almost every company in the country that suffers a cyberattack under reforms proposed after the Optus and Medibank hacks (http://www.afr.com/category/slug-20180225-p5bqo6.html). The proposal for a controversial and dramatic potential expansion in the agency’s “step in” powers comes from an expert group established by Labor after the high-profile hacks last year. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will also announce, at an industry roundtable on Monday, the creation of a federal coordinator for cybersecurity backed by a National Office for Cyber Security within the Home Affairs department. The move to sharpen bureaucratic management (http://www.afr.com/category/slug-20180225-p5c4q5.html) and the possible expansion in security agency powers in the face of attacks on companies follows frustration within the Labor government (https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/australia-warned-to-bra...) since the damaging attacks. Home Affairs and Cybersecurity Minister Clare O’Neil in October described current laws as “bloody useless” in dealing with the Optus breach of 9.8 million customers by an anonymous hacker. She subsequently tapped former Telstra boss Andy Penn (http://www.afr.com/category/slug-20180225-p5c4zl.html), alongside former Air Force chief Mel Hupfeld and head of the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre Rachael Falk to come up with potential solutions. Speaking on Monday as she releases Mr Penn’s discussion paper, Ms O’Neil will say the case for change is clear. “Australia has a patchwork of policies, laws and frameworks that are not keeping up with the challenges presented by the digital age,” she will say. “Voluntary measures and poorly executed plans will not get Australia where we need to be to thrive in the contested environment of 2030.” Expanded definition of critical assets While security agencies led by the ASD-based Australian Cyber Security Centre already have powers to manage attacks on critical infrastructure such as power stations or energy grids, the discussion paper urges the government to look at shaking up the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act (SOCI), which was passed in 2018 to safeguard key systems. “This could include adding customer data and ‘systems’ in the definition of critical assets to ensure the power afforded to government under the SOCI Act extend to major data breaches such as those experienced by Medibank and Optus, not just operational disruptions,” authors stated in the discussion paper. The expansion in the definition could potentially impose reporting obligations on any company that holds customer data as well as expose a wider range of directors to penalties if they fail to demonstrate cyber compliance. Mr Penn’s discussion paper also calls for consideration of a new national cyber security law aimed at unifying corporate legal obligations and standards between government and industry. Businesses of all sizes “Our national resilience, economic success, and security rely on us getting our cyber settings right,” Mr Penn writes in the discussion paper. “If we are to lift and sustain cyber resilience and security, it must be an integrated whole-of-nation endeavour. “We need a coordinated and concerted effort by governments, individuals, and businesses of all sizes. “We believe that the development of a new forward-looking Strategy for Australia is a unique opportunity for us to be ambitious and innovative. “Any successful strategy must be national in scope, enduring, affordable, achievable, and allow for flexibility to account for changes in the dynamic cyber environment out to 2030.” The Australian Financial Review reported last week (http://www.afr.com/category/slug-20180225-p5clf5.html) that the cost to companies of expanded national security requirements could reach more than $9 billion combined. Boards more culpable Ms O’Neil last week signed off on a risk management protocol that will make board members culpable for failure to properly secure assets, and will cover companies across energy, healthcare, water, food, transport and communications. “To achieve our vision of being the world’s most cyber secure country by 2030, we need the unified effort of government, industry and the community,” Ms O’Neil will say on Monday. “Together, we can equip our community to reduce the number and impact of cyber incidents through improved cyber hygiene and provide clear advice on how to respond confidently when they occur.” Labor’s plan to appoint a coordinator for cyberattacks is aimed at avoiding what happened after last year’s hacks on Optus and Medibank, which triggered a scramble across govern ment over who was responsible for managing the fallout.
It is understood the new coordinator will be tasked with leading the triaging of action in response to a major cyber incident.
They will also lead cyber policy development, support the hardening of Commonwealth government systems and support Ms O’Neil during major cyber incidents.
Overall I understand the concept.
What baffles me is how they are executing the transition.
In the middle of it all, with very poor communication, they are conducting A/B tests on the pricing page at checkout BUT explain that they charge would still be the same as the public pricing.
I dont understand how this is a good A/B test if youre just going to charge the same amount?
From Webflow (quoting the link): Sefket here from the Webflow Support Team. I hope you’re having a great week so far! :blush:
Thank you so much for your message about different pricing being presented on your project’s Billing tab and Check-out modal compared to what is shown on Webflow’s pricing page.
We are aware of these pricing differences as we are currently conducting an A/B test on the check-out page, meaning that some customers may see alternate prices during check-out compared to what is shown on Webflow’s pricing page.
We sometimes conduct these sorts of tests to help us make informed decisions on how to best serve our community as we plan for the future.
I can assure you that these alternate prices are merely part of the test, and your credit card will be charged according to our current pricing as listed on Webflow’s pricing page :arrow_upper_right: 3.
When check-out is completed, a success screen with the actual amount paid will be shown, and you can also navigate to the Billing tab in your project’s settings to further confirm that you have paid the current price. For any and all pricing changes, Webflow will always communicate directly to our customers.
We apologize for any confusion caused, and I hope you find this information reassuring.
Please let me know if you have any further questions, and I will be happy to continue the conversation.
I agree that the different VS Studio development on Apple Silicon vs Intel will probably be problematic. Mainly thinking build pipelines and package management.
The Pace-Layered Application Strategy Model from Gartner distinguishes three layers, which are helping organizations improve their applications by categorizing, selecting, managing and educating themselves on those applications. As a result, organizations are finding that it is more efficient, faster and more economical to change, differentiate and innovate, as well as realize returns on their investments.
Having been in several styles of organisations, I'm finding it more than often that organisations (both startups and enterprise), who do not have an understanding and thus a view to implement a pace layered approach find it very difficult to scale efficiently (tech, people, process, market).
Has anyone seen this approach and implemented it successfully to obtain the speed of innovation and market growth it promises?
My view is that a single identity is a better experience than multiple isolated identities.
For example, we have "farm managers" that are actually members / associated with multiple farms. One Farm manager that helps manage multiple farms owned by different organisations.
BTW most of these farms are SME style farms, and thus dont have their own domain and thus dont have unique first.last@uniquedomain.com email address. As a result, users use their personal email address to access the system.
But yes, Need to have a one user to many organisation structure.
This helps me think about the hierarchy of the relationships.
So it makes sense to have a user account be a member of an org.
Then have orgs have a relationship with products.
Im still questioning where I would apply role based permissions.
If a user account is a member of an org should I apply the role permission at every level?
Im currently building one of fashion as it’s a huge interest of mine.
I realised while I’m building this, the solution is not the tech but actually the community providing the posts abs the moderation. I love hacker news because of the highly safe space to be able to have great open discussions.
I get more value from the discussion thread than the link that this shared.
How Afterpay makes money
BNPL companies like Afterpay earns their revenue in two ways: Merchant fees from retailers: the company takes a percentage fee of every dollar that is transacted via its platform. This commission rate, referred to as “Afterpay Income” varies is between 3% and 6%, varying depending on the size of its is retail partners; and Late fees from consumers: the company charges late payment fees of $7-$10 per late payment.
Breaking down Afterpay income
Merchants pay Afterpay a commission, referred to as Afterpay Income. This commission ranges between 3% to 6%. The more volume you do with them, the lower the rate I gather. In FY20, the income as a percentage of underlying sales, or Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) transacted through the platform was 3.9%. This indicates that there is a portion of retail partners that pay less than 4% of fees to Afterpay. Hot Tip: If your retail business offers Afterpay and you’re paying more than 4%, then perhaps it’s time to get a price check.
There are costs of sales associated with earning Afterpay income.
Afterpay’s cost of sales include: - Provision for bad debts (customers that are at risk of not paying); - Other variable transaction costs (processing fees); and - Financing costs (cost of working capital).
After deducting these variable cost of sales, Afterpay’s gross profit was 2.25%, referred to as Net Transaction Margin (NTM).
In other words, for every $100 that you spend using Afterpay, the company collects $2.25 of gross profit.
Finance costs
Like most businesses, a constraint to Afterpay’s growth is working capital. Afterpay needs cash to fund the gap from when funds are paid to its retailers to when it eventually receives the cash from consumers in six weeks.
Let’s break this down. Say you buy a $1,000 pair of Yeezys via Afterpay. The retailer will get paid $940 upfront, being $1,000 less a 6% commission. On the same day, Afterpay collects its first installment from the consumer of $250. Afterpay is out of pocket by a total of $690. Aftepay will collect the remaining $750 from the consumer over six weeks.
Afterpay needs capital to fund this $690 gap. It does so by borrowing from several Tier 1 lenders: Goldman Sachs, CitiBank, Bank of New Zealand and NAB. The average interest rates on these facilities ranged from 1.65% to 3.2% in FY20.
How it really makes money: Capital recycling
So summing up, after starting with a 4% merchant fee, Afterpay’s Net Transaction Margin drops to a mere 2.25% after paying transaction fees, interest and bad debts.
Doesn’t sound that special, does it?
Well yeah, it doesn’t.
But here comes the big reveal that gets investors salivating about the BNPL business model.
It boils down to the company’s velocity of recycling capital.
Traditional banks make money by earning the difference of interest between what they charge to borrowers (mortgage holders), versus what they pay to depositors (savers). Most banks make a net interest margin of ~2% per annum.
But what the banks earn in a year, Afterpay makes in six weeks. Customers are required to repay Afterpay over 42 days (six weeks), and Afterpay makes the same amount of commission even if they decide to pay it earlier.
In fact, it’s better for Afterpay if customers pay off their debt faster, because it means that Afterpay can redeploy the capital faster.
To put this in practical terms, let’s assume that a consumer spends on average $100 per transaction via Afterpay.
If this consumer only uses Afterpay once per year, Afterpay makes $2.25 per year of transaction margin and a 2.25% Return on Capital (ROC) before operating expenses.
But if the consumer uses it 10 times per year, Afterpay makes $22.50 per year. The initial $100 of capital that Afterpay borrowed is redeployed every time a new transaction is made. The return on capital is now 22.50% because the same $100 is now generating $22.50 of annual net transaction dollars.
In its FY20 report, Afterpay reported that its longest cohort of users are transacting up to 25x per annum — which implies that Afterpay could be generating a whopping 56% of ROC per annum on its oldest users.
Source: Jason Andrew