akarma

I love this!

My one request that would enable me to recommend this to my musician friends is an export feature, along with a promise of adequate notice before a shutdown of the app, to allow people to export their recordings in a worst-case scenario.

The one thing that may keep musicians using Apple Voice Memos despite your app seeming much better is that they often make a lot of recordings, and losing them all would be unimaginably tragic.

(IANAL either) I understand and agree that part of the issue is that they, allegedly, underhandedly collected this data. My question is focused around the potential selling of that data, which took place according to the lawsuit and was likely the reason to collect the data.

From the article you linked:

> Plaid would retain access to their credentials and use them to mine, aggregate and then sell users’ financial transaction data to third parties (including to the fintech apps that use its services) for purposes unrelated to the plaintiffs’ use of the fintech payment apps.

Thank you for the response — I know you're likely very restricted in what you can say here, but:

You just settled a claim that you sold customer transaction histories, and from the article linked, the plaintiffs' lawyers claim that you have agreed to implement meaningful business practice changes to remediate these issues.

(1) If you've never sold transaction histories, why settle a lawsuit alleging that you sold transaction histories?

(2) What meaningful business practice changes could you be making if there's no issue to begin with?

(I'm relying on the article here as a source of truth).

The link mentions third party firms:

> Plaid has settled a $58 million class action lawsuit over claims that the fintech firm passed on personal banking data to third party firms without user consent.

and selling transaction histories:

> the plaintiffs alleged that Plaid has “exploited its position as middleman” to obtain app users’ banking login credentials and use that information to gain access to and sell their transaction histories.

For what it's worth I haven't read the actual lawsuit yet, but would love a link if it refutes the article.

> certain illegal acts (like breaking into certain websites, illegally obtaining documents, etc.) should be legal if done for the purpose of proper journalism

This isn't the case in any country and almost certainly should not be.

In some countries, a journalist is generally free to publish anonymously sourced information, regardless of its source (which may have been a hack), and report on that information. Journalists are never allowed to hack websites. Hacking websites isn't legal.

Making some level of allowed-hacker as long as they're labeled a journalist would be crazy, as it would (1) result in the aforementioned semantic debate over who is a journalist, (2) would be the antithesis of privacy to have hackers that are allowed to hack you legally.

> If a stranger mentions being into crypto but then does not actually seem to know much about it, consider that they may simply be fishing for a specific type of victim.

Or, more likely, they're just trying to impress you and find common ground! I've seen this many times on dating apps but have never been drugged.

A lot of this advice is great, regardless of whether you're into crypto, but this point is a bit much.

Yes, and that being OK is the magic of how emotions work! That's the exact valid point being ignored.

If you don't have a better response to a catastrophic nuclear disaster than "well, it killed people but coal definitely killed more people over time," then as the commenter said, you really don't have a satisfactory political response [1] to a nuclear disaster.

You're acknowledging the difference in our emotional response between gradual deaths over time versus a nuclear accident, but then hand-waving it away as irrational and unworthy of response, and ignoring that those irrational people form the majority of voters in the country.

[1] A satisfactory political response is one that will keep public opinion positive towards nuclear energy after a disaster.

I agree with you that your comment wasn't condescending like the above commenter suggested, but disagree about modern reactor designs. They'll always carry this risk.

Sure, reactor design has changed since Chernobyl in various ways that help mitigate it, but what about Fukushima?

Fukushima was devastating, and the result was the NRC asking US reactors to reconfirm their flooding and earthquake preparedness. I don't know of any measures taken in European countries.

As climate change progresses, there could be some disastrous consequences, and it's unfair to say that the skepticism is outdated.

This isn't to say that nuclear is worse than coal (it's not), but that it isn't just handwaving.

I think that's exactly what the above commenter was saying in: "European nuclear advocates really don’t have a satisfactory political response to Chernobyl and Fukushima."

If a country experiences a nuclear accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima, your "number of casualties is lower than if we moved to coal" argument won't work. Cold numbers won't beat emotion.

Edit: On downvotes, it's very demographically consistent of HN to not believe or want to hear that emotions rule over cold numbers for many people in the world. I'm not saying that coal is better than nuclear (it's not per the numbers), but you need a satisfactory answer when a disaster happens, and rationalizing the deaths of thousands of people as "a preferred alternative to more deaths over time" won't cut it.