vjvj

I got a shabby and scuffed up 10 year old leather jacket cleaned recently. It cost me less than £50 and came out great. Buying a new one would have cost £250+

I wonder where the biggest opportunities are to get people reusing and repairing their things rather than buying new ones.

It's satisfying, usually functionally-equivalent and cheaper once you know where or how to get it done.

This. I started with a BB Storm and stayed through several BB10 handsets up to the Passport. There was no second guessing the UX with Blackberry. The menu was always in the same place and Hub was great when you have so many accounts.

I found the UX in iPhone apps so irritating. Settings could be virtually anywhere and were commonly scattered across multiple places.

That said, I now use my iPhone very differently to how I use my Blackberry and I wonder if I would still appreciate Blackerry features if I go back.

By this I mean I get virtually no notifications. I don't have work emails on my iPhone and only the red badge icon turned on for personal email accounts. Whatsapp only fetches new messages when I open the app. The only app notification I get is from screen time every Sunday.

One of the best things about Blackberry was the subtlety of notifications but I've just chosen to go low-notification with iPhone and I don't think I'll ever revert that.

I like the way the author has articulated this.

It can be built on by applying the economics concept of "externalities" - i.e. side effects (positive or negative) from a particular action such as the exercising of a right or freedom.

To get us closer to a perfect world, we need to start measuring the value of externalities (arguably not always easy to get right but possible to estimate) and to whom this gain or loss in value occurs so that they can be compensated by the externality creator(s).

I agree with the author that most people do not consider the negative externalities of a particular freedom being exercised.

We should require our legislators to more clearly articulate and value externalities from a given policy and identify groups it creates negative externalities for, and how they should be compensated (or why they do not deserve to be compensated).

Can someone paste the contents here?

You're right but if this kind of security becomes the norm rather than the edge case, it becomes far more acceptable.

Follow up from previous HN submitted article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14340137

Surprised more app developers are not creating solutions to this kind of thing - e.g. some form of multisig authorisation to access certain files or 2FA that relies on the second factor only being available at times access is genuinely needed.

Oops - of course! Corrected, thanks.

This will only get worse if Theresa May actually wins the vote / public approval to be PM. As Home Secretary she came up with fantastic ideas such as:

* Let us monitor every single call, email, text and website to catch terrorists and peadophiles (1)

* Let us ban apps like Whatsapp and iMessage because terrorists might use them (2)

* Let us use tax payer money for a fleet of vans to drive around areas with a high % of non Brits telling them to "go home". Which to be fair did result in 11 people leaving the country. (3)

(1)http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/03/theresa-may-inter... (2) http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new... (3) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/31/go-home-vans...

What effect does this have? AFAIK spoiled ballot papers counts are not announced at all (or not very widely if they are) so what's the point?

You can try but the facebook algorithm will have the final say on how many of your friends will see it ;)

Cool concept, looking forward to seeing roll out. Under your definition of p2p would heyguevara.com not fall into this too?

This might still work as fb-only ad blocker: http://www.fbpurity.com/

I've been using it for years and have turned off my entire news feed on desktop. I don't miss it one bit.

This seems excessive and petty - not good business practice and (imo) suprising from Elon Musk. I wonder if there is more than the brief outline of events reported.

Wow. I had a similar experience with Skype too. They couldn't care less that someone had got access to my account and made calls. The attacker even added his own mobile number (in a different country) but Skype wouldn't bother investigating or escalating...

I'd reason that legacy costs would be an issue for black taxi drivers even if they could set their own fares:

All registered taxi drivers have already spent £££ getting "qualified" to be a taxi driver. If they suddenly have the ability to set lower fares to compete with minicabs, they wouldn't be happy to do so given they have already incurred the costs (albeit sunk) of being able to do what they do.

If I were to start planning a solution, I would look at other ways taxi drivers can be given value-adding advantages without harming minicabs or worsening current levels of service for consumers. e.g. Only black taxis (not minicabs) can use bus lanes so anyone wanting a faster journey would be happy to pay a premium for black taxis.

However, I fear this has become too politicised for intelligent consideration of the issues at hand.

I'm surprised a lot of the posts here are missing the key point.

The main argument black cab (taxi) drivers are making is that Transport for London (the regulatory body) forces them to go through a bunch of extra steps before they can work (1) whereas minicabs (e.g. Ubers) are free from this.

That said, it's definitely a good thing these measures did not pass because they simply made minicabs worse rather than trying to improve the situation for taxi drivers whose "it's unfair" argument is a valid one.

Even as someone who is open to new tech, there are nuanced arguments on both sides which are often overlooked.

(1) For example, taxi drivers must do a navigation test learning the vast majority of roads in London ("The Knowledge"); be CRB checked where minicab drivers do not.

Thanks for clarifying. It was an all or nothing option for me - i.e. if I denied location access I couldn't use the app.

why does this app require access to my current or saved locations?

Unfortunately many roads in London have 20mph speed limits now.

They do have a purpose at certain times of day but the inefficiency of doing 20mph when the road, cycle lanes and pavements are largely empty is disappointing.

This is a fascinating exercise with a disappointing argument and pre-determined conclusion.

The writer notes that higher speed increase likelihood of an injury in the case of an accident. There is no comment on the factors that influence the likelihood of an accident and how these change with speed. By this logic, every road should have a 20mph limit - clearly this would do more harm than good overall.

A better analysis would take into account the utility of all relevant parties (including drivers). This would mean superior solutions such as those that maintain car speed as well as improve cyclist/ped safety could be considered rather than simply constructing an argument to fit one solution the writer has proposed without any evidence that it would even work.

> "...with pages that only work properly in Google Chrome or its derivatives."

This is already well underway. Facebook's advertiser power tools will only work with Chrome.

Whose products will you use? Not Google and Microsoft sure, but even Apple has been the subject of similar accusations [1].

Then you're left with the niche stuff. If that has similar flaws you might not even know unless you (or someone in the significantly smaller user base) notice(s) it.

[1] http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/your-iphone-knows-exactl...

Following recent news I've begun to question the worth of these "certified by XYZ" logos and branding.

See stories about -

Coffee certified by the RainForest Alliance: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34173532

Tuna: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/tunaleaguetable

Free range certified eggs came from battery hens suggesting the "British Lion" mark is meaningless: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/mar/11/free-range-eggs-fr...

As someone who went back to BlackBerry when BB10 was launched, I'm not sure I'd buy this phone - in my opinion the Android UX is just so ugly and I'm not convinced that the Blackberry hub will work as well on Android as it does on BB10 (the two things I love most about my phone).

My Z10 is now 2.5 years old and I'm considering replacing it with a brand new one. I'll take a look at the Priv but my thoughts are it's too expensive and won't be as effortless to use as it would have been if it was running BB10.

To me this reads like a sponsored article/advert. The research wreaks of the type that is sponsored by a corporate/brand who would benefit from improved public perception of coffee.