>Came to ask the same question
It IS an interesting question. But you should simply upvote it, if you have nothing at all to add.
2,452 karma · joined April 11, 2013
It IS an interesting question. But you should simply upvote it, if you have nothing at all to add.
Yes, Google indexed many gu.com site hits, so then I believe there must have been a link to those pages somewhere and sometime which the Google crawler found. But searching for those short gu.com URLs now shows no external page hits on Google. (try searching for "gu.com/p/3menc" or "gu.com/p/cqekc" for instance)
they purchased it late 2000
But are they? I don't know how to search for pages that link to gu.com because the Google link: prefix doesn't work anymore, but up until a few days ago the gu.com domain appears to have been used to immediately redirect to the main theguardian.com site. Perhaps it was rare for users to post a gu.com link because they would copy whatever was in their browser address bar, which would not be a gu.com address after the instant redirect?
With browsers all now doing 'smart' URL searches from the address bar, and autocompleting domain names, maybe this shows that a short domain is not as valuable as it used to be? Particularly for a company like The Guardian which is already well known at its normal longer domain name
That could mean the domain is much more valuable to another company than it was to the Guardian, so it might be smart for them to sell it? Maybe they just couldn't find a way to monetize it that was worth more than $2.5 mil for them? As time goes by, maybe the domain was in fact getting less valuable?
It would be interesting to know how much The Guardian originally paid for gu.com
Very interesting anyway, thanks for posting this!
I thought OP's comment was interesting, but that it would be unfortunately ignored, because one must read most of the comment to begin to understand what OP is trying to say, and then read it again, with that knowledge, to really understand.
And in fact, I think I was right, because the comment has not received the attention it probably deserves
Because without that context, it's very hard to process the rest of it, and I guess many people won't bother.
Tesla would be another example, and also most so-called 'luxury' brands like Ferrari of course
I'm not saying it's right, or it's wrong, but this phenomenon exists
Glad to say that both Craford and Holonyak are still with us
Historically, AMD beats Intel into the dust on this issue
edit - even this article reminds us that this product appears to replace Intel's 'Compute Card', which itself apparently superseded Intel's 'Compute Stick'. Betting on this product for more than a year or two ahead looks about as hopeful as betting on Google's latest API
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32189946
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/hongkong-cybersecurit...
Two Hidden Instructions Discovered in Intel CPUs Enable Microcode Modification
Just use traditional finance and traditional banks. Because then at least you will have more hope of getting transactions reversed if you get scammed by any of the elaborate and unlikely device subversion or middlemanning methods that Bitcoin transactions are also susceptible to (those methods that you've alluded to already here)
What if they're not the only one who compromised the insecure wallets? If they could do it, then probably someone else also could, and that other hacker could empty all the wallets first.
Meanwhile, users like you will be occasionally moving their Bitcoins around, sometimes to wallets that the attacker cannot access.
If an attacker just wants to make money, they're unlikely to wait for years to exploit an old vulnerability.
In the real world, most security vulnerabilities get exploited quickly, because they are very likely to lose value as time passes. You can find numerous real examples of this attitude, such as weak brain wallet keys which are exploited in seconds, instead of waiting and hoping that more money will accumulate in the address before someone else steals it
And, like I suggested already, a practical best case solution for the paranoid is diversifying your assets and security methods, so you can identify vulnerability sources early and be unlikely to lose everything
Edit : Bottom line though is that you cannot use Bitcoin in totally trustless way, I think. Nothing in security or in real life is totally trustless. So do your best to employ reasonable precautions and mitigations and then get on with your life
Or, for example, what if all your communications and actions are being monitored continuously by state-level actors with cameras and hidden bugs, recording every keystroke? Or what if we are living in a simulation, and the malicious operators can extract data from your brain, or just alter reality at will?
But I think you can provide a "practical" level of trustless. That means that, if your adversary was powerful enough to steal your Bitcoins, then they'd be so powerful that they could destroy you in many other ways. So it's a moot point.
A practical solution to your question could be to take all the precautions you've said above, and then simply gradually increase the amounts you are transacting, using a variety of methods, and see if anything gets stolen.
Call it a bribe or a bug bounty or a tax. It's quite effective, because organizations are comprised of individuals, who are subject to human temptations. At least two federal agents independently stole funds from the Silk Road marketplace while investigating it, and they were imprisoned later
Further independent verification, from Wall Street Journal and MIT Technology Review reporter, Karen Hao 郝珂灵, that this real data about real people, at https://twitter.com/_KarenHao/status/1543949945614393344
Some previous HN submissions and sources:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31982591
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31968327
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31962526
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31977355
https://mastodon.social/@SexyCyborg/108588110265985290 (Naomi Wu)"
"There are multiple reports of this, including two earlier HN submissions in the past two days: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31968327
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31962526
Twitter thread:
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/kendraschaefer/status/15438559893...
Mastodon:
https://mastodon.social/@SexyCyborg/108588110265985290 (Naomi Wu)"
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31977355
Edit : More independent verification, from Wall Street Journal and MIT Technology Review reporter, Karen Hao 郝珂灵, that this real data about real people, at https://twitter.com/_KarenHao/status/1543949945614393344
Edit: I haven't read it. I'm just interested to see what this community has to say, even though I guess it will tend quite hostile
It must have been too good ...
But I am much more likely to upvote a non-substantive (but positive) reply to my own comment, such as "Thanks". I wouldn't do this if it was a reply to anyone else's comment. That is a quick way of acknowledging the response, as you mentioned.
edit: I would be less likely to downvote direct replies, out of respect for the person engaging, but that option isn't available anyway
[But, like the original bike safety article says, also try not to be so close to stopped vehicles that a door collision can happen]
If you have time to react to a car door suddenly opening in front of you, is it best to go around the door?
Or should you brake and stop in a straight line, even if you might crash into the door and the person stepping out of the car?
The same site contains a list of cyclist fatalities[0]. In over 95% of the car door collisions, the bicyclist was killed because they swerved or bounced in front of a following vehicle. They were not directly killed by crashing into the door.
But, naturally, that list doesn't include all the times that a cyclist successfully swerved around the door and nothing happened.
That's true, and it's a good goal.
But, my point is that if we try to reduce entitled input by simply asking people not to behave entitled, then the result may be that we increase entitled input (as a proportion of all input), because many 'entitled' users will ignore the request, because they feel entitled.
In the common scenario where developers are already overwhelmed with suggestions and demands, then they will have even less time to separate out the good suggestions from the bad.
But, if we follow this advice? If some more thoughtful and considerate users kindly reduce their input into support conversations to avoid overwhelming developers, doesn't this mean that support conversations will become dominated by users who are not thoughtful and considerate?