mayanksinghal

Here are some of my Chrome autocompletes: n (news.ycombinator.com), mu (music.google.com), ma (mail.google.com), a (amazon.com), gi (github.com), q (quora.com), l (localhost), i (images.google.com), c (coursera.com). I don't think I even give it a second thought after pressing these characters. I just do 'n' and Return.

Your experience might be worse, probably because you haven't used chrome enough.

Well, it is seems like caching of the actual map data, but the application itself is not capable of performing the searches or figuring out routes. Since the device I am talking about was really not that powerful enough to perform that kind of computation, it could be intentional.

Offline maps has been available since at least 2 years. I think you had to long tap a point, choose Save offline from the menu, choose the dimensions of the square that pops up and the square becomes available offline.

As opposed to looking professional even when the attire is uncomfortable or at least not the most preferred.

For one, people who wear sneakers often do it because they are comfortable. To equate them to high school teenagers if they are not personal trainers is quite unfair. You are free to advocate a more professional look, but if you get disrespectful on the way, people are going to hate your stance for it.

If I recall correctly, most humans freeze, not shoot. The natural reaction is to either flee or freeze. I think policemen are specifically trained to take the gun out of the holster and press the trigger in such situations.

> even bury the whole issue from getting any traction.

Wasn't your site explicitly whitelisted?

I have owned a dog in past, and I was able to calm him down when he used to get angry. And I believe that would have been the case with the dead dog and the person who was in cuffs for no reason.

What! How is this not related to HN? A lot of people here are from CA and would want to be aware of these incidents. HN guidelines clearly state that if it interests people then it is alright. And since it is clearly on top of the page, it interests a lot of people.

I was NOT trolling. I was pointing out that (A) Exaggeration is not a great debating tactic, in your case it was a clear slippery slope argument (B) It will not help in convincing the other stakeholders into being empathetic with your situation because you equated them to mindless psychopaths.

> So, if you insist on interesting and orthogonal "analogies".. please carry on. If it was not clear, I was trying to describe a possible issue with you "lets apply this everywhere" argument.

The two arguments you just put forward, are nowhere close to what you said in the comment I replied to. Yes, there are issues with the current implementation of it, which is very similar to how spam detection/prevention systems work at the moment. Yes, there can be improvements to it. There can be improvements to everything. Yes there is high chance of false negatives in the current system, but this is a problem where false positives can be just as disastrous. If we cannot agree with that, then do not think it is worth continuing this discussion.

Now if you check the top comment on the thread, I believe the communication channels have already been set. They did not work for you as promptly as you would want them to, that's a different issue. But there definitely exists an official contact to clear up the problem - your colleague seems to be aware of it. The lack of clarity of the reasons has been marked as intentional and has been discussed elsewhere on the thread.

It was poor of me to use snark instead of clearly stating my stance, but the stupidity of analogy that you are blaming me for, is not much different from what I was trying to mock.

Was he not driving well? Was it the Glass device that is the cause of poor driving, if it was in fact poor driving?

Or let everything go through until and unless we are 100% certain that it shouldn't. Like, if someone is pointing a gun at you, do not duck because there is a chance he/she will miss. Because you know, exaggeration is truly a great tactic to convince other stakeholders.

IITs have been increasing seats at a rate that is often unsustainable. During my stay at IITB from 2007-2012, I saw the number of undergraduate freshmen increase from about 500 to about 900. I think the largest issue has been scaling infrastructure and faculty.

And no, IITs don't have any nobel laureate to boast about, largely because of the lack of core sciences and graduate/post-graduate programs when compared to MIT/Stanford etc.

Most of the questions and answers are quite narrow in their perspective probably because the community they are targeting to comprises largely of other IITians and people who are closely related to them. If you are looking at it from an outsiders view, I would rather suggest that you talk to an IITian personally. Nearly all of them are quite open to discussion about it.

So was the case with Apple, if my sibling is correct. I am just trying to say is that there is plenty, like a lot lot, of innovation in Google Maps - from devices that make it's own mapping data to using WebGL to render it in 3D in browser. To claim otherwise, with incredibly weak argument as in the original comments, is either lazy or dishonest.

MapBox announcement seems to be not more than a couple of months old. If you think that someone can take inspiration, get data, process, QA test and launch such a feature in such a short duration, you should be impressed anyway.

Google Earth had 3D for a long time. Vector maps is again a huge undertaking and takes time to get right. Some companies didn't take their time, some did.

Yes, just like they can draw maple leafs without thinking about Canada. Did red and blue on the American flag ruin the colors for children in the rest of the world?

That doesn't really explain anything.

I am not questioning that sending entire URLs is undesirable, I am asking if the hash solution works (at all).

> only sends in a small part of the URL's hash for matching ...

Isn't it incredibly easy to bypass that check by using a randomly generated url segment?

[Edit: Formatting + isn't]

> You are not breaking laws, nor breaking the spirit of the law

I wasn't suggesting that either. Sidestepping is avoidance not evasion.

> The laws have not been updated in light of these new privacy implications. ... the deliberately slow wheels of government to turn?

So change the law. And speed up your justice system. Don't elect individuals who slow down progress deliberately.

> you can both circumvent unjust laws and work to take those laws off the books.

And fight the laws and its usage, which is what Google does. It was also the entity that disclosed the original order in this particular case, so that the person in question can also take some action if possible. It also publishes transparency reports and it was the first one to do that, which gives you an idea about how frequent usage of the unjust laws are so that you, as a community, has more information about what your government is doing. If I am not wrong, there have been 2 elections since the FISA was passed and the voting population of US was aware of the broad surveillance since the first election (Obama based some of his campaign on it). If he hadn't acted on it, then it should have become a point of debate in the reelection. But it was celebrated on Hacker News as much as anywhere else, without a single mention of his inability of reducing the scope of such laws. So guess what? Overboard surveillance didn't seem to be a priority for most of the people here and Google has been more transparent and more vigilant about it since longer than the PRISM episode. The gist is that it is easy to transfer blame in this case, but the root cause it solely the astoundingly broad laws and the undoubted trust that voters put in the current government that used them instead of removing them as it had promised.

> a Trash folder as a first stop for deleted messages, and All Mail as a second stop

I was just trying this, I moved something to trash and then did a 'Delete Forever'. Nothing appeared in trash or all mail again.

I don't follow this stream of logic. If you have to build technical systems, the sole purpose of which is to sidestep laws, in order to be good then aren't the laws at fault here? I find the acceptance that governments will do whatever this wants, we will just use end to end encryption , TOR and Bitcoin defeats the purpose we have regulated currencies, governments and democracies. If there is an action item on the list, it should be to change unjust laws not to circumvent them. The latter is both defeatist and useless. Because if you are not keeping a check on the government they will keep bringing in more laws that hinder your sense of justice and your technical system keep moving its architecture like a fugitive.

The legitimacy of an act (violence in this case) is highly subjective. The legality is a lot more objective. In this particular scenario, I think I would rather say that the government has a legal monopoly on violence. The legitimacy argument breaks down for oppressive governments where some revolting citizens take up violence because they see it as their last and only option. Some might argue that their act is legitimate, but it is still illegal. Now, one could always say that if the violence by government is not legitimate, it is no longer a government. But that is largely a philosophical/literary point. Here, when people are saying that Government has a monopoly on violence, they mean that the voters have granted them a legal right to do use force (which is at least pseudo-aggressive if not violent in all cases). The legitimacy can be contested in courts and debated upon in the next election - but till then, they reserve the monopoly.

And they can be/are prosecuted/jailed/shot/hanged/poisoned/electrocuted for that by the government.

And I agree with it. I was addressing a different view altogether. There seems to be a very widespread paranoia that the worst possible event is the one that is occurring and that all entities but the user are collaborating willingly to make it happen. What is surprising is that most of the people here are US citizens who at least have some of their rights intact, enough for the companies to fight back as they have publicly acknowledged that they do to as much extent as possible. I am more worried about the legal requests from US government for data about non US citizens. Does there even exist a legal system to prevent mass unmonitored snooping on them?

Then we should definitely consider DDG, a much smaller company in the same country, sharing its keys with NSA. They too might be under some gag order that not only stops them from saying that they are compromised but also gagged to say that their users are anonymous so that all the terrorists, law breakers and cheating husbands use this service because of a false sense of security. It is not beyond the realm of possibility.

But everything that is plausible is not probable.

Exactly. Someone really needs to have very tilted perception to not see the perpetrators at this moment.

You are confusing security and privacy. The people in question are not speaking for lower security, they are speaking for lower privacy.

Yup, because instead of expecting politicians who made the laws and judges who approved the FISA orders, let's call out the CEOs.

I don't even understand the outrage that most US citizens are showing at the moment for the said firms even after realizing that any access that may have been provided was through the channels that the governments had 'legally' set up. And that at least some of the companies had resisted. It seems very unfair to me, largely as an outsider and yet a stakeholder, that the only people who are being held accountable in the piece are the CEOs who had little to do with the fiasco.