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

Telegram Isn't for Sale

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 182 posts

Re: Telegram Isn't for Sale

#161

Post by aaronbrethorst »

snowpanda wrote: post #55
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm citing my sources. You could at least show me the courtesy of doing the same.

Not OP but he's right, your statement is slightly misleading, not many people actually paid that (fewer than 10,000 households[1]). A good source as you asked for can be found here: [1] https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

The Tax Foundation has been called a “deliberate fraud” by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation)

Also, 10,000 households in the 1950s is roughly equivalent to the top 1% of the top 1%, and exactly who i’d expect to be taxed at a rate of 90%+.

Re: Telegram Isn't for Sale

#162

Post by zeratax »

herogreen wrote: post #160
b3lvedere wrote: post #73

I'm still not sure which one is better: Signal or Telegram.

If you want to use one on your Android phone without Google apps, then only Telegram will work. I use Tox with my geek friends and Telegram with my less geek friends. I also plan to give a try to ring.cx

This is just wrong, pls stop spreading misinformation.

The gcm dependency was removed 10 months ago: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/commit/1669...

You can get the apk outside of gplay on their website: https://signal.org/android/apk/

Re: Telegram Isn't for Sale

#163

Post by ekianjo »

Vinnl wrote: post #155
thriftwy wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being 32, I fail to understand how it benefits my bottom line.

The theory is that you both a) have relatives/other people that you care about that benefit from this, and b) that you will benefit from it when it's your turn to live even longer. Of course, it's yet to be seen how well b) will play out in practice.

We already know that b) is not going to work in practice, because of the population curve. So, there's that. Why should you pay for something you will never get yourself?

Re: Telegram Isn't for Sale

#164

Post by ekianjo »

adrianN wrote: post #48
ekianjo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ok, so he's basically suggesting to get of rid government. Nice Strawman. So complaining about high taxes means you are either for or against having a government?

It does sound like he is against all taxes. Without taxes it's hard to have anything that you'd recognize as a government.

The UAE have no income tax. Does not strike me as a country looming into anarchy.

Re: Telegram Isn't for Sale

#165

Post by adrianN »

ekianjo wrote: post #164
adrianN wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does sound like he is against all taxes. Without taxes it's hard to have anything that you'd recognize as a government.

The UAE have no income tax. Does not strike me as a country looming into anarchy.

Wait until the oil runs out.

Re: Telegram Isn't for Sale

#166

Post by mrwong »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #150
mrwong wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example please? By that line of thinking the Soviet Union must have had the best and cheapest service and products. Also Venezuela should be a total Dream right now without empty stores, starving children, no murder rampage.

I did not in any way imply that a strict top-controlled planned economy system like in the USSR was better. I also did not imply that the current state of chaos in Venezuela is preferable (and that happened due to a bone-headed reliance on a single big export product, which completely collapsed when global oil prices crashed). I'll amend my statement to "privatization of a functional public system, ostensibly to prov…

God your socialist are aweful, everytime that fails you guys point it to the random single event that made that whole thing fail and act as if that were some unqie exception. “... single bone headed reliance...”

Re: Telegram Isn't for Sale

#167

Post by mrwong »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #150
mrwong wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example please? By that line of thinking the Soviet Union must have had the best and cheapest service and products. Also Venezuela should be a total Dream right now without empty stores, starving children, no murder rampage.

I did not in any way imply that a strict top-controlled planned economy system like in the USSR was better. I also did not imply that the current state of chaos in Venezuela is preferable (and that happened due to a bone-headed reliance on a single big export product, which completely collapsed when global oil prices crashed). I'll amend my statement to "privatization of a functional public system, ostensibly to prov…

The railroad sucks because its an old outdated businessmodel when it comes to personal transport. Only railroadbusiness that make sense is Heave industries and inner city subways. Everything else ist just romantazied waste full bs. So of course these kind if business can only be sustained by wasteful public spending.

Re: Telegram Isn't for Sale

#168

Post by b3lvedere »

Veratyr wrote: post #159
b3lvedere wrote: post #73

I'm still not sure which one is better: Signal or Telegram.

Neither. Both require tying your identity to a phone number. You're better off with Matrix/Riot or XMPP. Neither requires a phone number, both offer the ability to communicate securely, even with a compromised server. Both also support multiple devices, group chats and federation.

According to Signal's FAQ:

Signal periodically sends truncated cryptographically hashed phone numbers for contact discovery. Names are never transmitted, and the information is not stored on the servers. The server responds with the contacts that are Signal users and then immediately discards this information. Your phone now knows which of your contacts is a Signal user and notifies you if your contact just started using Signal.

However; I don't know if their server is peer-reviewed on a regulary basis, nor do i know if the software (besides the used ciphers) is also peer-reviewed. Can't find anything on it.

Re: Telegram Isn't for Sale

#169

Post by Vinnl »

thriftwy wrote: post #156
Vinnl wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory is that you both a) have relatives/other people that you care about that benefit from this, and b) that you will benefit from it when it's your turn to live even longer. Of course, it's yet to be seen how well b) will play out in practice.

Maybe they do benefit from this. I fail to see how it converts into an obligation for me. I care about X. X would like to recieve money backed by my payments. Does that mean I owe them those payments? How well do Ponzi schemes play out in practice?

There is no inherent obligation. Where I'm from, though, we've voted for governments that make it one.

Re: Telegram Isn't for Sale

#170

Post by Vinnl »

ekianjo wrote: post #163
Vinnl wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory is that you both a) have relatives/other people that you care about that benefit from this, and b) that you will benefit from it when it's your turn to live even longer. Of course, it's yet to be seen how well b) will play out in practice.

We already know that b) is not going to work in practice, because of the population curve. So, there's that. Why should you pay for something you will never get yourself?

Because of a), and because we don't have an alternative for b) yet, but whatever we might come up with might be bootstrapped with these payments.
Post reply on HN