While we're talking about currency, why hasn't anybody in the US(to my knowledge) made a payment processor that works by generating transaction numbers, and then sending those numbers instead of sending people payment authentication credentials?
Let's say George wants to give Sally $5.
1. George logs into his PayCo. account. He clicks generate transaction, amount $5. The server returns a very long randomly generated key.
2. He copy-pastes that key into Sally's pay-info server.
3. Sally sends that key to PayCo.'s server, money changes hands, and the key is no longer valid.
I've thought about a similar idea, except in mine, you send a "locked" payment via email to the recipient, and give him a pin-code to unlock the payment. This allows for exchange of money in person (say, you're buying a used car from someone, and want to see and drive it before handing over the money, and don't want to carry the cash - neither party trusts each other to wire the money ahead of time or after).
The recipient can easily verify and claim the transfer using phone, SMS or online.
This "rebranding" is obnoxious. If I was kid I'd be pissed. Kids can tell when you're bs'ing them. They're exposed to enough propaganda already.
The path to healthy food isn't in telling kids what to do, but exposing them to something better. Look at what Japanese kids eat. I _know_ kids would prefer salmon-roe onigiri and fried rice to potato chips and twinkies.
(I think this is a good thing if, and only if, the food is healthy and worthwhile to eat - as here. It's easy to rail against branding and advertising - it's harder to prove it doesn't work.)
I learn something new every day - thanks! If I were going to be evil and do a ninja edit, I could pick any of 100s of weird, in-your-face Japanese products, but it appears I have been hoisted by my own petard on this one.
I think I misunderstood your message. What Japanese kids eat seems to be excellent and I support healthy food choices. What I sensed, however, was an unfair antagonism towards branding and packaging design as a way to achieve that. If my inference was wrong, apologies!
Cool picture but I have no idea what any of that is. Obviously rice 3 of the plates have what I would guess are eggs, beyond that there are some random vegetables about like putting lettuce, tomatoes and pickles on a hamburger.
No, no it wouldn't. It would be more effective to stop subsidizing unhealthy food. The long-term effects of such legislation are almost guaranteed to be a net-negative because of edge cases. There are already way too many laws. You should always look first at what can be removed, rather than what can be added.
No, what would be effective is if the parents of children stopped letting 'em eat junk food all the fricking time. "Mummy, I want a Snickers". Bad fricking luck, kid, eat your fricking vegetables.
It's somebody else's issue, and I refuse to accept any responsibility or worry over the fact that somebody else's kids are fat. I have enough problems of my own, I've got better things to do than accept part-ownership of the easily-soluble problems of others.
When you actually read this what do you do? You work inside-out to understand it. You figure out what 'data-set' is, then you figure out what '(lambda (x) ...) does to it, and so on.
You (or me at least) also write the code inside-out. You start with the data, and an idea of how to transform it, and you work your way towards that transformation.
This, in my opinion, is one of the greatest strengths that OOP has over FP: data.map(...).reduce(...). It doesn't really have anything to do with OOP, you could just as well have such a syntax for calling functions. In F# you do have the |> operator that does something like this.
This may seem superficial, but it helps readability a lot. The human mind (or mine at least) is just not well suited to unraveling nested structures.
The odd thing is that the semantics of the Unix pipeline model is more similar to lazy sequences in Haskell or Clojure.
It is common to have one function generating a lazy sequence, another taking the output of that function and generating another lazy sequence, and so on until you get your final results out at the other end. The nice thing is that at no point in time is it necessary to have the entire sequence in memory.
A Unix pipeline is similar, in that one process consumes the output of another process as it becomes available, as opposed to having to wait for the first process to complete its task before the next process in the pipeline can start.
I'm writing from a phone and lost a longer reply to expired link. In short:
You and the OP (cf. his assumption that you read functional code inside out) seem biased towards a chronological, bottom up reading of code.
An outside-in reading of prefix code is useful to get a top-down general grasp of the structure.
Both approaches are useful and complementary.
This duality also applies when writing code. Cf. "wishful thinking" in SICP: sometimes you want to assume away auxiliar or extraneous functionality to sketch an outline of your program.
In both reading and writing, alternating approaches helps to find the kernel of the problem quickly and to build a whole understanding at your pace, so you don't get bored or stuck.
To that effect, I find prefix notation more balanced, that is, easier to read both ways.
As a practical note, if you follow the 80 column convention long().call().chains() are space hogs and awful to break up. The equivalent problem in lisp is solved with a two-space indent.
But that's just an instance of the syntactic sugar debate. My point is not about notation but how you approach the code.
Depending on where you live, the hottest hours of the day are usually between 12 - 5. Maybe it's instinctual for predators to not want to do stuff during those hours?
Don't underestimate kids. They've been battling parents for control for centuries. The average 13 year old will find 10 ways of cheating the system in the first day of having it. Three categories come to mind:
1. Stupid way: lie and give your phone to a friend while you go to your boyfriend's house,
2. Social engineer: turn it off every other day, telling your parents 'my phone just keeps crashing since you installed this virus on it. And how do you know it's not sending my location to hackers?'
3. And some of them might even be inspired enough to learn some real hacking: this will encourage a generation of hackers into hackerdom.
Technology might advance quickly, but human relationships stay more or less the same.
Step 1) edit /etc/hosts to serve the whereoscope website locally
Step 2) Run local server to serve doctored version of whereoscope showing yourself in a safe location.
Step 3) Party.
I think there's probably always going to be ways that these sorts of systems will be evaded; it's just the nature of the beast with computer systems.
What we're hoping we'll be able to do though is to build this in such a way that there's value to the kids as well as the parents. If the choice is between getting an annoying phone-call everyday to ask where you are and having this app, I think for all the times when the kid isn't doing something malicious, they'll prefer to just have the app. Similarly the app lets kids locate their parents as well -- this can be handy if they're waiting for a lift for example.
The last line of defence is that we plan to build in features to tell parents when the app has been disabled by the kid. Saying that the app has crashed is one thing, but if that results in an angry phone call telling them to start it up again -- even if it has just crashed -- I think kids will be less inclined to keep playing that card.
"The last line of defence is that we plan to build in features to tell parents when the app has been disabled by the kid. Saying that the app has crashed is one thing, but if that results in an angry phone call telling them to start it up again -- even if it has just crashed -- I think kids will be less inclined to keep playing that card."
So in other words you do plan to (help parents) invade kids privacy even when the kids actively don't want their parents to know where they are. The word "defence" in that sentence is pretty revealing - your frame of perception seems to be that of a battle between kids trying to get away from your app and parents who don't want them to.
Your " kid who want to see how far away their mother is when she's coming to pick them up," scenario doesn't need this feature.
"We, like you, hate the idea of abusing trust and privacy.
However, children who want their parents to know when they're getting home from soccer practise, or see how far away their mother is when she's coming to pick them up, is quite a different scenario."
Yeah that's why kids can't turn the app off without letting their parents know ;-).
"We, like you, hate the idea of abusing trust and privacy."
is very believable, given that feature ;-)
I guess it is all right (must be a dumb kid who'd accept such a poison pill gift ) as long as there is no sugarcoating involved and everyone (including the kids) knows what they are getting into. The latter (kids knowing what they are getting into is somewhat dubious).
Somewhat slimy product in my personal opinion, but hey if it makes money I can't blame you for trying to get some.
Next step: Spouse tracking so you know they aren't having an affair on the side. ;-)
Next step: Employee tracking so you know how much time they are spending by the watercooler or the coffeeshop or whether they are really attending the tech conference your company sponsored , or even if any two employees are spending time in each other's bedrooms.
As I said it must be a dumb person who'd accept this kind of un-switch-offable- without-warning-Big-Brother app on his or her phone. No different from an electronic monitoring device (as mandated by law for people under house arrest say) as long as you want to use your phone. The only difference is that it isn't strapped to you.
If you could somehow add a breathalyzer to the IPhone you could broadcast the alcohol content in your blood to your parents. How about letting your parents know how long and when you spoke to whom? Maybe add some speech recognition to catch any "dirty language". All unswitch off able of course!
We're the first to admit that it's going to take some time to get the balance right. Fundamentally though, we're pretty committed to the idea of making this useful for both parents and for children, and hoping that "last defenses" won't be needed.
As an example here, we built the system intentionally such that children would know their parents' location in addition to the parents knowing the child's. That's got a few implications that are pretty important, but for starters it means that parents aren't asking their children to do something that they're not willing to do themselves -- that actually raises the bar pretty significantly, and I think it does drive home to the parents exactly what it is that they're asking of their kids.
Do we think that parents should know when their kids have disabled the app? Right now: yes, we do. I'm open to the idea that we might be wrong on that, but to my mind it's just an extension of the negotiations about trust and so forth that parents and kids already need to engage in: if you want time when your parents won't be tracking you, you negotiate to get that time. It's like the negotiation that happens whenever a child wants to do anything without parental, or adult supervision. To my mind privacy invasion and responsible parenting are different things, and I think the straw-man arguments presented in that direction are a little unfair to parents, though I concede that there will always be exceptions.
We did actually look at doing this for spouses -- not to detect cheating (a cheating spouse will be even more motivated to subvert the system than a child), but to help out with stuff like "are you near the supermarket? Can you pick up some milk?", but fundamentally people don't seem all that interested in it. I think employees would be kinda similar: you get fired if you're not getting your work done, water cooler or no.
> We did actually look at doing this for spouses -- not to detect cheating (a cheating spouse will be even more motivated to subvert the system than a child), but to help out with stuff like "are you near the supermarket? Can you pick up some milk?", but fundamentally people don't seem all that interested in it.
They just call each other in this situation which means there's no need for some additional program on a special phone that they may not even own.
"if you want time when your parents won't be tracking you, you negotiate to get that time. It's like the negotiation that happens whenever a child wants to do anything without parental, or adult supervision."
The above is valid only if kids without your product have to negotiate right now for every moment out of sight of an adult. I don't think that is true (in general) anywhere. That would be a terrible childhood (and adolescence).
You are shrinking the time kids do have away from adult monitoring (at least as far as their location goes) to zero (with the unswitch-off-able version).
Just replace kids with employees. You can "negotiate" with your employer to not track you when you are off work, (he'll just get a message that you've switched off). So what's the problem? No adult will accept such a service (and there are good reasons for it). Why don't they apply to kids (including teenagers)?
But the problem isn't one of negotiation. The idea of subjecting anyone to potential 24 hour surveillance is terrible, especially when you dangle some bling in front of kids too young to realize what exactly they are opting into. Yes other people (including governments) are doing it but "he's doing it too" was never a valid defense.
(Imo) Kids shouldn't have to "negotiate" not being monitored every second of their lives. At least adults have the intellectual sophistication to think through the consequences of a leash like this and would flee from any such product like the spouses you interviewed, iow adults, are doing. Of course they aren't interested. Adults see the potential for misuse easily).
Kids are more likely to be too blinded by the thought of an IPhone to fully understand what they are giving up. And frankly I think only immature kids will ever consent to this kind for trackability.
I don't know you guys from Adam and I don't blame you for building this. You are trying to make money and not building anything illegal (I think). All I said is I think it is a slimy product (in other words ethically slimy not legally) and would never buy it for any kids I know.
This might make sense for very young kids or old people suffering from dementia or Alzheimers or something, but these don't need to be bribed to give away their privacy with an IPhone they couldn't otherwise afford.
All this needs is for one nasty incident for this to blow up in your faces. I am (slightly) surprised Apple allows this on their phones (and that YC is funding this. wtf?!!). As I said, not illegal, but (again imo, feel free to differ, ymmv etc) a somewhat unethical product.
To repeat, I am not condemning you as evil people. I do think you are being somewhat disingenuous with the "kids can opt in too" argument. Kids are not in a position of equal power with parents/other authorities for their "opt in" to have much value as a justification.
All that said this is your business. You (and your investors and customers) have to think this through. I am just a remote person expressing his opinion on the ethics of this thing.
I don't think you're condemning us or anything -- I appreciate the honest feedback. Founders love people who disagree with them (at least a little bit :)) -- we much prefer to hear what's wrong with our products that we can fix rather than hearing about what we've gotten right.
I think it's perhaps a little disingenuous to suggest that kids lack the intellectual sophistication to evaluate the consequences of using our app whilst simultaneously suggesting that they are fully capable of evaluating all the dangers in the world that they inhabit: if they don't need the supervision of parents, then surely they can figure out what deal they're taking? If they can't make that kind of decision, I'd argue that they probably do have some growing up to do before their parents could responsibly let them leave their supervision.
I say that not only as an interesting intellectual puzzle, but also because we've spoken to kids about this as well as parents. There's definitely an age where kids really, truly can't evaluate what's going on. I don't disagree. What we've found though is that mostly parents don't trust those kids with the kinds of phones they'd need to run this software (even if we did port to Android et al). Indeed, I don't think we've spoken to anyone giving their kids a phone of any kind at age, say, 7, and these kids are under basically constant adult supervision. At the other end of the spectrum, by 16, kids know exactly what's going on, and they're of an age where they could have the kinds of phones they'd need for this.
I should point out that these are not numbers I'm pulling out of the air, but summaries of actual conversations we've had with actual kids.
The question is really whether there's an age in between where there's a legitimate need for supervision, yet they're responsible enough to be trusted with a phone, and where the children are wanting to start exploring the world and gain some freedom -- it's typically going to be the kids pushing to get more freedom, rather than the parents willingly thrusting those freedoms onto the child.
Our position is that there is such a transitional period, when a child goes from basically constant supervision to basically none, and that parents have a legitimate need to know where their kids are. It will vary for different kids and different families, but I do think that easing both parents and kids through that stage with an app like this is a net win for all concerned: if having this app gives parents the confidence to let their kids go farther afield, then we're accelerating the development of the child, rather than stunting it.
As for why YC is funding us, we ask ourselves that every day! :)
"I think it's perhaps a little disingenuous to suggest that kids lack the intellectual sophistication to evaluate the consequences of using our app whilst simultaneously suggesting that they are fully capable of evaluating all the dangers in the world that they inhabit: "
Since I never made that suggestion, I don't have to defend it.
Your "kids live in a dangerous world they can be protected from my constant surveillance" is an argument/frame you added not something I said. You are taking one part of my argument, adding some bits you thought up and creating a false dichotomy.
What I said.
(1) Kids don't have as much intellectual sophistication as adults to see through the wiles of product marketing folks.
(2) Kids are not in a position of equality of power with parents. This is ok in general and is only an issue with folks like you use the "but kids opt in too" as an argument. "Consent" is dicey in a situation of unequal power. In other words I am thinking your "opt in" argument is weak.
Now that is what I said. Where is the disingenuousness again? The rest of it is your frame. The following is your opinion not mine - (1)Kids live in a very dangerous world and are at high risk of bad things happening to them unless they can be monitored constantly. (2) Parents can protect them by tracking them constantly (and letting some random company store and process this data)
What I think
(a) Most kids don't live in an an ultra dangerous world, Sure there are dangerous parts of the world. Most kids do just fine avoiding those.
(b) Parents who are constantly worried about their kids being abducted or killed or whatever and need to spy on them to reassure themselves and have to bribe them with phones to get their "consent" to be spied upon are probably paranoid.
(c) irrespective of the "danger level" of the world, constant surveillance by parents is not the solution.(This is the same argument governments make when they try to reduce privacy of their citizens _ "See there are all these terrorists out there and dangerous things may heppen to you when we are not looking so we have to snoop on you for your own good. If you aren't doing anything sinister what is your problem anyway?". Sure it is a good scare tactic, but hardly a sound argument.
(d) Whether constant surveillance by parents actually reduces any existing danger is yet to be shown. You are only addressing the paranoia not the danger.
(e) All of this this has nothing to do with your product reducing the kids privacy to essentially zero from some non zero value, (sure "just to protect them" ;-) ).
I am trying to give you feedback honestly (since this is HN. I wouldn't bother elsewhere) Please don't put words in my mouth.
That said, now I am getting dubious about you guys personally. You are meeting honest feedback with mis characterization. Not a good sign. I am done talking to you gentlemen.
Have this mindset - your kids are better than you at computers. Accept it.
Their iPhone was jailbroken before it was featured on engadget.
Setup call forwarding on the iPhone itself
Google Voice
Dual boot the OS on the iPhone.
Pre-paid - either just a sim or even a 2nd phone
'Accidentally' leave the phone at school enough times that mom/dad stop bothering w/ the service.
Or maybe you tell your kids they get to have iPhones as long as they have this app installed and if its mysteriously giving problems and getting terminated then maybe its time to get a simpler phone :)
"Let’s begin with the Perry Preschool Experiment, which consisted of 123 low income African-American children from Yspilanti, Michigan."
and three sentences later...
"The differences, even decades after the intervention, were stark: Adults assigned to the preschool program were 20 percent more likely to have graduated from high school and 19 percent less likely to have been arrested more than five times."
The above passage contains the only numbers I could find (cited paper's behind a paywall).
Those numbers mean _nothing_.
123 people
20 % more likely to graduate = 67 graduated, 56 did not 67 - 56
The author suggests that 11 people graduated high school because of pre-school. He/she could have said "11 more people graduated high school than did not", but he/she didn't. Tried to obfuscate it.
"19 percent less likely to have been arrested more than five times."
They obviously tried to find something that reinforced their point instead of looking at reality. They didn't say "19 percent fewer arrests", they said "less likely... more than 5 times". Because the real difference in mean arrests is probably much smaller.
Again the study is behind a paywall so I can't read it, but I suspect they're not even wrong.
I lived in Japan for two months. I've been to China for a week. I'm fluent in Japanese and I've taken a Mandarin class.
There is no doubt in my mind that English is the superior language and we'd all be better off if the Chinese would learn English rather than the other way around.*
* We'd probably be better off still if we all learned Esperanto, oh well.
Bill Gates dad is the co-founder of one of the largest law firms in Seattle, and his mom knew IBM's CEO. Being well connected is not a skill*. If somebody with fewer connections tried to pull off what he did it'd probably bite'm in the ass.
Being well connected is most definitely a skill. It helps when you can bootstrap your connection circle from your parents, of course, but that does not mean he could not have created a network on his own that he could then use to create Microsoft. Plenty of people are not born well connected, and yet become incredibly well connected (Dale Carnegie and Keith Ferrazzi, have books you should check out)
edit: Not to mention that you completely missed the fact that connections alone won't do anything for you. You must see the opportunity that those connections present. I'm sure many people knew the CEO of IBM at the time, but how many of them tried to build an OS for him?
Bill Gates was well-connected from the birth. You can't learn to have a rich lawyer as a father.
Microsoft didn't build an OS for IBM. The group that actually built the OS probably turned down IBM's offer because they couldn't get away with what Microsoft did.
There's very little admirable about what Bill Gates did to get where he is, and unless you have connections like him you probably shouldn't try to succeed doing similar things.
And yes, I know "How to Win Friends and Influence People", etc. etc. There are plenty of people who are much, much smarter than Bill Gates who tried to do similar things and failed, or weren't nearly as successful because they weren't born into it.
I know a lot of extremely well-connected people due to a degree program I was in. I, on the other hand, am not so well-connected except to them.
I found that about 2/3 of them were connected through their parents' achievements, and 1/3 of them did it entirely on their own. They relentlessly go to parties, shamelessly buddy up to the highest-status people at the parties, learn golf and go network at the golf course, etc. etc. Some of these people come from truly humble backgrounds and blue-collar families.
In fact, when IBM agreed to sell CP/M-86 alongside PC-DOS with every PC, Digital Research was surprised to learn IBM fixed CP/M's price at six times PC-DOS's US$40 pricetag.
