This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.
| Official | https:// |
| Support this service | https://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup |
gzread
- 0 Followers
- 0 Following
- 22 Posts
This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.
> 768GB of RAM is insane.
Before this price spike, it used to be you could get a second-hand rack server with 1TB of DDR4 for about $1000-2000. People were massively underestimating the performance of reasonably priced server hardware.
You can still get that, of course, but it costs a lot more. The recycling company I know is now taking the RAM out of every server and selling it separately.
Apple hardware is incredibly overpriced.
In the sense that calling it E2EE gives people a warm fuzzy feeling and makes people send more sensitive information over the platform.
Has anyone actually audited it?
That's why Signal requires a phone number. You can't talk to people you don't know because complete strangers don't give you their phone number. And if you do spam random numbers, they'll report you to the police and you can be tracked down based on your identifier, which still doesn't leak the chats between you and people you actually know.
Meta has a way to read your E2EE messages. I don't know what it is, but if they didn't then they wouldn't do it.
There's a difference between E2EE between friends who want to remain secure, and E2EE between strangers in an attempt for the platform to avoid legal liability for spam.
Is it illegal or is it just illegal on general purpose platforms whose focus isn't extreme security?
We all know Meta can still read E2EE chats (otherwise they wouldn't do it) and they're using E2EE as an excuse to avoid liability for the things their platform encourages. Contrast this with something like Signal where the entire point is to be secure.
It does feel like a betrayal. We live in a world where money is the main thing that matters and it's increasingly hard to come by and you need increasingly more of it (these are all designed policies, not emergent behavior). It makes sense that people don't want to do things for free unless they already have enough money.
Engineers who remained apolitical are now surprised the politics is bad.
People see that CRDTs have no conflicts and proclaim them as the solution to all problems, not seeing that some problems inherently have conflicts and either can't be represented by CRDTs at all, or that the use of CRDTs resolves conflicts in a way that's worse than if you actually thought about conflict resolution. E.g. that multiplayer text editor that interleaved characters from simultaneous edits.
What if their goal is more to raise awareness about HN moderation practices than to fix the problem quickly?
It's certainly worked. Lots of people have seen this and now have a slightly worse opinion of HN moderation.
Maybe. If their boss told them to do it and their boss is the CEO, probably not. It's on the prosecutor to prove the individual employee committed a crime worthy of piercing the corporate veil.
These days, nobody cares about legal liability, which is the likelihood of losing a lawsuit if there's a lawsuit, either. They only care about actual lawsuits against their company. They have noticed they're pretty rare and if the company's going to go under it's going to go under anyway, so might as well take the extra profits from not worrying about it