What came to mind when I saw the list was what is might say about the founders that YC is selecting.
You could easily conclude from this list that it's rich peoples kids creating solutions to imaginary problems - "Oh, how could my poor feet possibly survive the arduous journey from my front door to the uber in an off the shelf pair of shoes? I need a tailor!".
I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt though since these companies are presumably a small subset of those they've invested in.
A more charitable explanation might be that since these companies are in SV then it makes sense for them to start out selling stuff to affluent customers who are not overly price sensitive.
Some questions for anyone who happens to have been following this closely:
1. What exactly is being stored? I have seen stories/comments saying it is domain names visited from web browsing but does it also cover other internet activity? Or is it being left vague?
2. Does the requirement to keep data for one year come with a corresponding obligation to delete it after that? Are they allowed to keep it longer (perhaps summary/derived data for cost reduction) ?
3. Can the organisations with access make bulk requests for all the data or do they have to request records one ip addr/person at a time? (yes, I know an IP is not a person etc).
4. If the data does have to be destroyed at some point does that only include data collected by the isp or also include copies made by those with access?
5. Are there any published numbers on roughly how many people will have access to collected data?
The new guy publicly throwing the old guy under the bus is actually a a step in a recommended strategy for turning a company around. See this blog post from Marc Andreessen's archive: http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_big_companies_part1.html
This is something I would both love to develop something for but could never allow into my house. I know I could do both but it feels kind of wrong to make anything that might encourage other people to have one given the terrifying privacy implications.
I accept your correction. In fact, now I think about it, essentially 0% of apple customers would likely be aware of this possibility at the time they make their purchase. I should have considered that most consumers won't follow stories like this as closely as the tech crowd.
I do stand by my assertion that it is legitimate for apple to behave in this way though. They get to present their business as they choose to just like any other company and the customer get to choose whether to accept their terms. Personally I don't but, empirically, most other people seem to.
I would however support requirements (as legislation) that consumers should be made aware of such practices at the point of purchase such that they can factor it into their buying decision.
I don't see why people are upset or surprised about this. Apple is a pioneer in making electronics difficult to open up and play with.
It has always been their approach to control every interaction that every customer has with every part of their business and every product produced by it.
The best way that I could explain it is with the phrase "out of sight, out of mind." Issues have much less of an impact if a person doesn't see and feel the direct consequences in their lives.
This sounds like a general problem with modern democracy. Theres so much going on that none of us can keep up with it, including the people who work in politics full-time. The inevitable result is an inability to make intelligent decisions in our own interests. The wisdom of the crowd is all that saves us, except when it doesn't.
That website reminded me of parrotsecrets.com made & written about by cringely [1]. It is designed to slowly increase excitement in the reader as they progress through the page (that's why it repeatedly insists you slowly read the whole thing instead of skimming) as it leads them towards a sale.
Background: I bought my mum one of those customisable calendars for christmas where you can upload your own photos for each month. Since then I’ve been wondering how the on-demand printing industry works. My calendar was cheap, good quality, & delivered next day which I thought was very impressive.
I decided to do an experiment to see what I could learn. As a first step I’ve made some mug designs and I’m using zazzle.com for the manufacturing/purchase handling etc. This lets me see how their funnel works for product designers. I picked mugs because I wanted some for myself.
I needed a niche audience for my experiment and I chose HN readers. Mostly that was just because I am already familiar with the audience but using HN also gives me the benefit of being able to reach customers quickly and free of charge via a Show HN post.
It's nice that he is setting a good example but what's really impressive about this is that he has managed to get fb into a state where him taking two months off is actually possible. How many other large company CEOs could do that without a lot of things going wrong?
Would it be possible to have the macro available using the HN ui and accessible from a link in the orange nav bar? (Don't read this as a criticism of your design; I just think it would be more convenient).
Someone should start a petition to change the name back to startup news.
edit: I should have written a more than a single sentence. Obviously I'm joking; hn is what it is now and it's not going to go back to the good old days.
There is a point that is worth making though: when the site was focused on startups it was a much nicer place and people posting new things got help in the comments section rather than just commentary and opinions. That has been lost mostly because of the growth in users but I can't help think that the increase in scope had a negative impact too.
> Tellingly, Google's security efforts were also a top-down reaction to a major security incident.
What was that? All I can think of is when the chinese stole their source code but the response to that would presumably be more about managing who has access to what internally than improving the security of their user facing products.
edit: to be clear I'm thinking of the time they had code stolen by a chinese employee in their china office, presumably on request of the govt.
You obviously don't trust the motives of the people posting here. That's fine, but perhaps you could phone whoever is your contact at YC for some friendly advice? Their interests are aligned with yours.
I really get the impression that you don't see how bad your comments in this thread are. It's difficult when you're in the middle of something to take a step back and see it from other peoples perspective but you would really do yourself a favour if you just stopped posting here altogether at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if the op took your posts and made them into a follow-up blog post.
I understand you are under a lot of stress here but your defensive behaviour is making your situation worse rather than better. You are going through the comments on this story and adding posts trying to defend your mistake instead of apologising for it. This will not solve your problem.
I'd guess this sort of thing results from the obsession over growth. They are desperate to make their user aquisition/retention numbers look good so they do scammy things to keep accounts. It's sad to see the aggressive behaviour though.
The basic problem here is that business is now global whereas taxation is still at the nation state level. Countries have to compete for business and smaller states with limited resources can bring in money by becomming tax havens. I don't really know of any solution to this.
I think it's worth pointing out that even from the perspective of most businesses this situation sucks. Smaller companies or startups lack the resources to benefit from tax avoidance schemes so are at a disadvantage to their larger competitors.
And if you do start a company that is growing large you don't really have much choice but to start doing it too. You won't be able to compete if you are paying 20% and the competition is paying 2%. You have to do it because everyone else is doing it.