Not if the Passkey was synced (ex: you used iCloud keychain). If the passkey was not synced, then I would have to assume it would be the same if you lost a physical hardware key.
Not yet, but Google wants them to become ubiquitous. So in that (far) future, backing your passkeys up in a cloud (that is also protected by passkeys) doesn't help
Remember when they tried to force everyone to accept the new terms or they would disable access after a certain date? Then they walked it back after people started using alternative platforms.
The privacy policy was never "walked back", they decided to do it anyway after the controversy (on HN and other platforms) died down.
Here's a newer article showing the metadata being sent to Facebook (presumably for advertising purposes), it includes your phone number, device ID, and location.
I used to use tower, but I switched to fork for two reasons - it was more performant with my work monorepo, and fork's a one time payment and tower's an annual subscription (and more expensive). I'm not affiliated with them at all but I'm a happy customer and recommend you give it a shot; they have a free trial.
I’m not the GP. I don’t like subscriptions and looked at Fork after your comment. I couldn’t find the policy on versions and upgrades. Is it a one time purchase with updates for major versions or for a period of time (after which updates wouldn’t be available) or a one time purchase forever (how would the developers and the product survive)? The purchase page says one license is for up to three computers. It doesn’t explain it there is some activation process (in which case there needs to be a way to deactivate and reassign).
Hi! I develop Fork with my wife. We don't have manager, marketing team, designers, etc. We also don't have meetings which makes us more efficient :). So, we don't need too much money to survive.
Answering your question, yes, it's a one-time purchase which includes future updates. We may release a major paid update in the future, however currently we don't have plans for that. The license is cross-platform. You can activate, deactivate and reassign the license.
This looks really cool! Any plans to offer one time payment as an alternative to subscriptions? Also heads up clicking login on your main website didn't work for me - I had to use signup to go to app.notesnook.com and then switch to the login modal
As for one-time subscription, no unfortunately not. I personally don't think it's sustainable because we'll be rolling out releases often. The $4.49 subscription gives us a good breathing room and support to work on more features. In return our users get new features and bug fixes very fast.
Enormous difference between having a margin account and trading on margin. A margin account simply means you're allowed to trade on margin, not that you have actually done so.
>Enormous difference between having a margin account and trading on margin. A margin account simply means you're allowed to trade on margin, not that you have actually done so.
You're technically trading on margin when you open a new account and trade before your cash has cleared. This is most likely what happened.
Still, this is a horrible message to show a user who is in that situation and who did not place a sell order themselves (message wording from the article):
“We’ve received your order to sell [#] shares of [stock] at the best available price.”
This is poor communication from RH. A preventable own goal.
Yes, but money takes a few days to clear. If you open a robinhood account right now, deposit 1000$, then buy 500$ of stocks you will be buying on margin because the money hasn't cleared yet. How many people buying gme waited for the cash to actually be in their account before buying? In a strictly cash account you would be forced to wait, invisible margin accounts was one of robinhoods "innovations"
This is directed at thatguy0900, but we have reached the reply nested limit...
What you and many Robinhood users probably are missing is that your trade actually does take days. Actually go read the Robinhood settlement period info.
This is not explained clearly, but it is essentially 3 days to settle (T+2). So if you sell a position you don't have the cash to buy for three days. If you have traded on Robinhood you have probably noticed that you "immediately" have the buying power from the shares you sold. That's not your cash, because it hasn't settled. For three days that's margin and therefore you could get a margin call.
The instant deposit is limited to $1000 (margin). But there were people saying they were forced to sell out of much larger dollar holdings. Those were probably people that sold out of one stock holding and then immediately bought into GameStop, AMC, etc... So they likely believed they were buying with cash, but they were in reality buying on margin.
Just to be clear, I don't think this is a good thing at all. A brokerage should not be invisibly providing you with margin, it should be very clear to users that this is happening.
Your trades don't take days, depositing cash into your account does. I imagine that applies to them as well, they just all already have 2 billion in there. They will also have margin accounts that gives them instant funding, like you do. Addmitedly I doubt they get their margin orders canceled very much when they buy risky things.
Not quite - it seems like when you deposit cash, some up to all of it is made available immediately for trading if you're on the default account settings. My guess is that most users believe that when they buy stocks with this money, they think it is cash when it is in fact margin, and these are the people who got margin called.
Hopefully this becomes more widely understood. It's definitely not obvious enough for their target market to understand, and it's not a stretch to say they try to obscure it.
Re: Amazon, many companies do the same thing (e.g. CVS, Target, Costco). With Costco in particular, Kirkland products are higher quality and cheaper than the competition in almost all categories they are in, which is a benefit to me as a consumer. Should Kirkland be broken off just because other companies can't compete with it? If not, what's the justification for Amazon?
I don't see why not, but admittedly I haven't thought it through any further than that.
The comparison with store brands doesn't really work because Costco and Sam's and Target don't invite third-party sellers to build their businesses on what amounts to sharecropped shelf space. Procter & Gamble and Berkshire Hathaway can hold their own in any negotiations with Costco and Amazon. For small businesses, the situation is more like the complaints we always hear about Apple's app store, where the company buys or builds their own first-party competitors in categories that prove unexpectedly successful.
Dirty pool, but legal enough... at least as long as you (a) don't hold a monopoly on distribution, or aspire to do so; and (b) didn't just get back from Washington, DC where you told Congress that you didn't do this. Both of these factors are problematic with Amazon, IMO. It's true that they don't hold a monopoly on distribution, technically speaking, but where else are third-party sellers supposed to turn?
