Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Verified by Twilio

twilio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–247 of 247 posts

Re: Verified by Twilio

#241

Post by boring_twenties »

shaklee3 wrote: post #183
boring_twenties wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I've been praying for a Google Voice replacement for around a decade now, I guess this it it!

What's wrong with Google voice? Afaik it's not being deprecated.

AFAIK it isn't, but it's Google, so there's a 50/50 chance it could be deprecated tomorrow.

I'm dying to jump ship whether or not it's deprecated though, because the web and Android apps are just unbearably shitty.

The web app simply fails to keep up with my typing speed (I can't even imagine how they accomplish this), and the unread counts are usually incorrect.

The Android app doesn't even handle the compose SMS intent, so you can't use it as the default for outgoing messages... this was briefly fixed when they folded Voice into Hangouts, but then broken again 6 months later or so when they decided to roll that back.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#242

Post by bildung »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #227
bildung wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60% of the median is the definition of relative poverty. This is what the NY Times article was about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Relative_poverty You are free to find that delusional, but if you want to partake in the scientific discourse about poverty, it would be advantageous if you don't redefine the core concept.

Yes, and my point is it's an entirely useless definition. If 40% of the population were billionaires and the remaining 60% were millionaires. The millionaires aren't in poverty. "delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder." It is quite delusional to create new…

Are you aware of the difference between absolute and relative poverty?

I mean, really, take a step back and consider these two possibilities:

a) Thousands of researchers have researched the topic for decades, and no one ever considered it problematic to directly compare the poverty in Congo and the US using the same metric. But finally, after als these decades, during a few seconds of flying over a blog link, commenter fuzz4lyfe on hn finds the error and renders decades of research obsolete.

b) You err.

What is more probable?

Re: Verified by Twilio

#243

Post by zbentley »

jdc wrote: post #221
fjp wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They actually do try to enforce it, but right now it's a losing battle. You can spin up a new voip company and start blasting scam calls from an overseas call center in a weekend, then spin that company down before anyone has any idea who you are. Customers complain to carriers, who then either get the offending voip provider to block the scamming customer, or just threaten FCC action. But the whole cycle is so slow…

Here's a kind of adversarial test of that hypothesis: 1. Spin up new voip company 2. Issue death threat to US President (or similarly powerful man) 3. Spin down voip company 4. Wait to see if/when someone finds out who you are

How is that a test of GP's hypothesis? Their claim was about commercial spam or scam calls, not potentially felonious threats.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#244

Post by jdc »

zbentley wrote: post #243
jdc wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a kind of adversarial test of that hypothesis: 1. Spin up new voip company 2. Issue death threat to US President (or similarly powerful man) 3. Spin down voip company 4. Wait to see if/when someone finds out who you are

How is that a test of GP's hypothesis? Their claim was about commercial spam or scam calls, not potentially felonious threats.

It seems to me the claim is that identifying VOIP subscribers is not feasible.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#245

Post by boring_twenties »

shaklee3 wrote: post #183
boring_twenties wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I've been praying for a Google Voice replacement for around a decade now, I guess this it it!

What's wrong with Google voice? Afaik it's not being deprecated.

Oof, I don't know how I forgot about this one, but attachments. I just got a "text/x-vcard" attachment from someone. Google Voice helpfully displays it as "file type not supported" -- there is no way to download it, view it as text, or do anything other than tell the sender that I'm using a shitty Google product and please copy/paste the info out of it manually and send it to me.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#246

Post by zbentley »

jdc wrote: post #244
zbentley wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that a test of GP's hypothesis? Their claim was about commercial spam or scam calls, not potentially felonious threats.

It seems to me the claim is that identifying VOIP subscribers is not feasible.

Feasible (as in practical in general to identify spammers/scammers) and possible (as in "could a concerted legal effort identify a single caller who made a threat against an official?") aren't the same thing.

Re: Verified by Twilio

#247

Post by jdc »

zbentley wrote: post #246
jdc wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me the claim is that identifying VOIP subscribers is not feasible.

Feasible (as in practical in general to identify spammers/scammers) and possible (as in "could a concerted legal effort identify a single caller who made a threat against an official?") aren't the same thing.

Absolutely. So now that we've established the possibility, the question is, why exactly is it infeasible to use our existing means to identify spammers. And what do we have to do make it feasible?
Post reply on HN