>I'm also not sure what electronic payments you're referring to (transfers to others?)

I transfer money to and from my bank accounts using ACH transfers. It typically takes a few days for those to clear.

>you aren't able to give him a physical key beforehand because he's also traveling out of state?

I actually had this issue once. I solved it very easily, I put the key in an envelop and mailed it.

I've never had a problem getting an actual, real, free checking account. I actually have several. (4 at the moment... don't ask) And 3 of them have free paper checks as well.

Congratulations for you.

I don't see your point? I didn't say it was hard to get a free checking account, I said they make you jump through hoops and open a bunch of related products so they'll waive the $10-15/month fee.

>I said they make you jump through hoops and open a bunch of related products so they'll waive the $10-15/month fee.

That hasn't been my personal experience. I've never had to jump through hoops or have a minimum balance.

I'm just sharing my experience which is apparently different from yours.

Oh wait... I had to pay a one time $5 fee to join one of my local credit unions.

that agrees with my experience. Simple.com for example. Super easy and a great service. No paper checks, but there are others with paper checks. No jumping through hoops.

They don't have brick and mortar offices, but I don't miss it.

A while back I even found someone offering business accounts for free.

> I did have a vague idea that many still use cheques over there

Almost nobody uses checks anymore. I do, but I'm old and cranky. ;)

Actually, the only time I use a check is to pay rent because check or money order is the only way my landlord accepts payment. Apparently there is something called "e-checks" or something but writing out a check once a month isn't a pain point for me.

And it was required to write out a check (or money order) to get my US passport.

My bank prints a check once a month and snail mails it to my landlord. As far as I'm concerned it's an e-check, and I think with certain vendors my bank will actually send it electronically rather than by snail mail.

Yep, that's what people were telling me an e-check was. But I haven't looked into it myself, I just haven't because I mail a check without even thinking about it. Its just been engrained in me as a habit.

Businesses do.

At least, several of them keep sending us cheques as payment for our products, even though we keep asking them to use wire transfers :/

How does the sleep phase sensor work? I'm assuming it can't read brainwaves...

We use ballistocardiography (aka a big less sensitive microphone) to pick up movements, breathing and heart rate through the bed sheets.

Interesting. Has this been compared to EEG for accuracy? I can't imagine it to be very accurate. I'm really curious because as far as I understand anything that isn't EEG is pretty much useless.

Are the sound waves sent to the cloud for processing?

Nope, it's all filtered and processed locally.

>Deadbolts are false security

False security? In what way? False as in they don't do anything? Or false in that they give you a false sense of security?

Deadbolts prevent the most casual of crime and crime of opportunity. Which I would argue is probably the most prevalent type of crime.

And a system where A) you give everyone the same 2 character password B) you don't give anyone a username and C) anyone can give anyone else admin credentials with no authentication?

works just fine there.

No offense but what's the evidentiary basis for these statements? Are you in the insurance business, or in the lock business?

I work for a company that makes many types of locks and currently is developing NFC and BLE solutions.

The fact is, any kind of lock is vulnerable to a determined and skillful attacker. There are BLE locks that "phone home" to check a password before they'll open; there are NFC locks that are actuated by RF-powered NFC chips that are almost un-crackable except by the Chinese Army or similar organizations.

Then there are conventional badges, key cards and physical keys in universal use, that are rather easily cracked or copied.

Vulnerabilities are already factored into insurance rates. The advantage of a connected BLE or NFC entry system is that it can require a remote login before the door will open. For example, enter the BLE region, the app pops up and prompts you for a PIN, then actuates the unlocking mechanism using an encrypted protocol. No technology is perfectly secure, but these technologies do present great possibilities for improving on current approaches to access control.

>No offense but what's the evidentiary basis for these statements? Are you in the insurance business, or in the lock business?

No. It was a hypothetical situation to CONSIDER. Everyone's situation is different. You should consider what insurance ramifications would be and make sure you are reporting accurately to your insurance company, because inaccuracies can potentially have bad consequences. Unknowingly. Unlikely, but worth looking into first. Check the wording on your policy, it may list things that are disallowed. It may have a different category for electronic locks (and you may even get a discount!) Not saying this is insecure or a physical lock is better, but its use may be excluded in your policy for whatever stupid or non stupid reason. Check it. Thats all I'm saying.

You read my post wrong.

The issue he (and I) have, is that this is worst-first thinking. Sure, your insurance company could deny you coverage, but it's very unlikely. In the absence of evidence that insurance companies do this (and insurance regulators allow it), we should act under the more likely outcome rather than an hypothetical worst-case scenario.

That's why he asked if you were in the lock or insurance industry. Someone with experience in these matters would be qualified to speculate on the importance of taking this into consideration. Without that expertise, rhetoric like this feels like advice to always wear a helmet in case of flying debris. Well-meaning, but unrealistic.

I work in an industry that is highly regulated and law and policy must be followed to a T. Our policies are extremely specific.

It isn't "worst-first" thinking, it is "ok, I'm replacing a critical component, does this replacement meet all the the required specifications of the thing I am replacing it with? What are the potential consequences?" Which takes almost no time, its just a question that needs to be answered in my field.

Perhaps my work in such a regulated environment has taught me to think that way.

I have family in the insurance business, and they've talked about having to deny claims for various (kinda silly in a way) reasons. And getting death threats because of it...

> I'm not sure how much those Proxcards that every business in the world uses costs, but they sure are time tested and convenient. Probably expensive though.

I installed a proximity card system a few jobs ago, and each IP enabled reader from HID (http://www.hidglobal.com/products/readers/iclass/rw400) was about $550 for both the external RFID interface and then the internal in-wall control unit (that used POE Ethernet to connect to the network). The cost per card is fairly trivial.

> Don't put this on your rental property either until you consult your local laws regarding requirements for doors and locks for rentals to see if this meets the requirements.

There are no code issues with this as long as if power fails, internal occupants can still exit the building (fire code).

>There are no code issues with this

How do you know? Landlord tenant laws are incredibly local (you can't possibly know all of them for all locales in the world) and can be very specific and probably haven't gotten caught up to new technology. My town (just the town!) has a 30+ page document on what a landlord has to provide a tenant written in very VERY specific terms. Thats not even considering state laws. And federal.

Because a proximity card is no different than a physical key, and any door that uses a proximity card is going to use an electric strike plate which is already in use to allow tenants to buzz guests in remotely.

I admit there may be some batshit insane locale that prohibits RFID access control, but its not a concern for almost everyone else.

Disclaimer: I have been a landlord previously, in several Illinois cities.

Holy crap, yes, I agree, proxcards are the same as physical keys and are no more or less secure or insecure. Everything its benefits and weakness. However, its worth taking 5 minutes to consult your laws to see if what you're doing is legal even if it "should" be. Laws can be (and are all the time) written by people who don't understand the issues at hand. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and all that. You don't want to (potentially) have issues down the line that are very very easily preventable.

I deal with extremely detailed regulations and policy on a regular basis (I work in a very regulated field) and we MUST do things that are very specific all the time. We need to follow the letter of the law (not just the intention). Looking up "hey, can I do this?" is part of my job, so I'm ALWAYS thinking that way. Policy is usually one step back from new technology. You may have laws and regulation that details specific technologies that may be used in different applications.

Proximity cards themselves are secure, but usually the thing that opens the door isn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bttr7fEfxiE

most RFID proximity cards have some fairly large security issues - http://cq.cx/proxmark3.pl

Thanks for the interesting read. :)

Insurance is designed to cover loss in case of accidents, natural disaster, etc.

You can't say your homeowners insurance won't cover you because your house burned down because you were cooking and you aren't a world-class chef.

Huh?

My insurance covers me in the case of theft. When I applied for my policy the adjuster asked me questions about my physical security. Do I have a deadbolt? Security system? Things like that. These variables (along with others, crime rate of my neighborhood, for example) were plugged in and I was given a policy with a premium tailored to my risk. If I lie about my risk to get a lower premium, then if I make a claim, then I won't be covered.

Consider a 100% purely hypothetical situation where I told my insurance company I have a deadbolt on my door. They issue me a policy based on that information. This policy has language in it that defines what a deadbolt is. I then replace my deadbolt with something that doesn't fit the language of my policy. I make a claim, and an insurance adjuster comes to my house. They notice that I was using a tool to secure my door that didn't fit with my policy language. Now I won't be covered because I didn't follow the policy.

Of course that's entirely hypothetical. Maybe (probably?) not even likely. But since it takes all of 5 minutes to verify if the new lock you are installing is compatible with your insurance policy, it would be braindead to not check.

Just something to consider...

The argument isn't whether or not you have a deadbolt, but rather that the technology used in the deadbolt will sway an insurance company not to pay the claim.

Using a bluetooth deadbolt can be compared to using a lock with medeco biaxial pins. The insurance company finds out that medeco biaxial pins are easier to break into with specialized tools and they deny your claim.

This is a moot point, so I would suggest an easier way to break in to your home that doesn't require advanced tech skills: use a rock to break a window ;)

You could literally never lock your doors and your insurance company will still pay up. Your post is painfully misinformed.

My insurance excludes coverage for neglect.

Neglect is defined as "neglect of an insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve property at and after the time of loss."

My insurance adjuster also asked me specifically about deadbolts.

Totally agree.

Looks like you have to login and your private medical data is stored "in the cloud." I have no idea why anyone would think this would be a good idea. Storing it locally would be the only remotely sane solution.

I mean, I don't mind telling someone I have an anxiety disorder (and I do have one). But the content of some of those intrusive thoughts is something I don't want anyone to know. Especially not some startup who may sell their company to, say, Facebook one day. Some of my intrusive thoughts are things that I did wrong (10 years ago...). So logging them would mean a third party would have an entire database of almost every mistake I made in my life, out of context. The potential for that to go wrong is... extreme. I'd rather have nudes be leaked.

And the stupid embedded video in a jQuery modal. Stop it, you're making your videos unusable. Let me pause. Oh wait, I can't. I need to pause the video because it runs at lighting speed, so fast it is impossible to gain any information at all from it unless you pause it.

Ok, while I'm crapping all over your app (sorry...you were looking for feedback, right?)

The website rendered so badly on my phone I went to go check out how it looked on the desktop. Well, the video pause issue is fixed... (I still think putting a video in a jQuery modal is incredibly annoying...just embed the video)

You need to fire your "usability consultant." Your color scheme is absolutely horrible for anyone who is older or with less than perfect vision. It is very difficult to read for me.

Any time your as yourself "should I display my -main content-* in white text" the answer should be no. Doublely so if you your background is light pastel green.

Light grey on white is another combo that is extremely hard to read. So is white on very light picture of a beach.

Animated backgrounds(?) (The background is not animated in my mobile browser) are not only are incredibly distracting, but also actually, ironically, cause anxiety for me. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I know different people have different preferences, but at LEAST give your color scheme some halfway sane contrast. And fix the rendering errors on mobile. Both issues, besides affecting usability, make you look amateurish. In my opinion.

*not saying you should never use white text, ever. Just not in paragraph form.

Most of what you mentioned is design-related don't you think? Don't you mean "fire the designer", not the usability consultant?

Yeah, its all design, but they list a usability consultant on their staff page. Usability is a part of the design and if a usability constant can't pick up such glaring problems with how the design affects usability, I'm not sure what they are supposed to do.

Oh boy, we don't need any more Excel abuse then there already is...

You wouldn't believe the kind of behemoth Excel monstrosities there are out there. Because when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

We want people to learn computational thinking, and then complain when their amateur creations aren't up to our standard? Let it be a gateway.

Except that their amateur creations end up as being used for really important stuff. With hugely disastrous results. Excel misuse seems to be rampant in the business world, from what I've seen from my customers.

Perhaps "teaching them Excel" will lead to a deep understanding. Perhaps "teaching them Excel" will just be like how I "learned" Excel back in high school- a teacher standings in front of the class just saying "press this button, now press this button."

Excel abuse was cited as a part of the reason JPMorgan lost 6 billion dollars.

I don't know...

I don't understand your argument. Let's say someone learns a proper programming language like Python, creates some spaghetti code (as any beginner will do), and that gets used by the business. How is that any different than a spreadsheet that does the same?

Excel's strength is that people are actually productive enough to start using and make something useful. Whether people make substandard houses with a hammer isn't really the tool's problem. Being too difficult to pick up is.

You might argue there is some quality bar that should be met before a creation is put into production, which is fine, but that's independent of the tool used to make it.

>It's the arrogance that you inherently think somehow know better than the people that want to consume the service

Hrm, well, yes, to an extent. However, People do do research on the psychology of human happiness and a bunch of other human charistics and we can answer some questions on what will be "best" in the longrun with quite a bit of certainty.

We also know that oftentimes people are just downright wrong about what will make them happy.

Example- we know spending your money on experiences rather than objects will make you happier in the long run.

If you want to read more about the topic I recommend the book "Stumbling on Happiness."

Sometimes we DO know that your choice is wrong for your goals.

Thats just in general, not particularly about this service.

Well, we really don't know any of that though. We know that spending money on experiences create lasting happiness for a statistically significant portion of the population which is a larger number of people than those that derive more lasting joy from spending on purchases. And even that is self reported.