midev

> Most Americans have absolutely no idea what it is like to endure that sort of hardship

Which is great! Despite the flaws of capitalism, it's literally the point! As supply chains were impacted, new businesses and solutions filled the void. Given the vast amount of competition in things like toilet paper, automotive, etc, "shortages" just meant not getting your favorite brand for a few weeks.

> I know adults who act like they're going to starve because their peas were touching their potatoes.

I would take this over the horror shows of communism any day.

It's never a knock to say "your country is so good you've never had the massive hardships we have had!"

> that's just plain old developer incompetence

People who make flippant comments like this have most certainly never worked at high scale sites.

If you had, you'd appreciate the challenges when you're one of the biggest sites on the Internet.

That still doesn't change how discovery or the courts work.

Appealing to the slippery slope is itself a fallacy.

"While this image may be insightful for understanding the character of the fallacy, it represents a misunderstanding of the nature of the causal relations between events. Every causal claim requires a separate argument. Hence, any "slipping" to be found is only in the clumsy thinking of the arguer, who has failed to provide sufficient evidence that one causally explained event can serve as an explanation for another event or for a series of events"

You need to argue things that are actually happening. Appealing to hypotheticals, especially when technically incorrect, serves no one.

What's the bad faith? What's single thing have I said that is incorrect? It's not breaking E2E encryption. No one is locking people up for political photos. It's not using facial recongition.

I don't like FUD driving discussions. I think we need to have serious discussions about this technology. I think people that don't understand it shouldn't participate....

> would be evidence that you broke that hypothetical law

Hypothetical situations are not an argument to real world discussions. Sure, if that happened, it'd be terrible. But, that's not happening....

Not at all! Courts are a joke.

You still need to know the process, though. Images of police officers are not being used to convict CP charges.

I'm happy to have that discussion, I think it's critical and we need to update laws to protect privacy.

You still don't get to be technically incorrect, though. You still need to know how courts work, if you want to participate in that discussion.

> This client side scanning of local files can be easily extended to scan the whole device

Correct, Apple can access unencrypted files stored on your device.

> That's why the eff was calling it a backdoor

Accessing unencrypted files on a device is not a backdoor

> actively reporting any suspicious looking files to the authority all the time on its own

Yep, that's a problem. Not a backdoor, though.

Yeah, which is irrelevant to the discussion. This thread is about photos of law enforcement and politicians used to convict people on CP charges.

Let's stick to the topic of discovery and how courts work.

Do you know how discovery works in court? I'm guessing not.

Once a hash matches, law enforcement would need a subpoena to access the raw image. If a person were to be arrested, that evidence would be turned over to the defense.

It would be very obvious that a picture of a police officer was not child pornography.

Are you under the impression people are jailed for hash collisions? Because that's not the case at all....

> people misunderstand how it works

You can literally read any thread on HN or Reddit to see this is the case. Thousands of comments about facial recognition and AI, completely misunderstanding how it works. The EFF article itself was FUD.

The EFF article starts right off claiming a backdoor, which is completely incorrect. Taking hashes of client-side content is not a backdoor, and the EFF should be embarrassed for not understanding that.

What algorithm are they using?

> If the person is important to the meeting, them being a no show will be pretty evident. If they are so irrelevant to the meeting that they could just dip out and no one would be the wiser, why are they even wasting their time in the zoom meeting to begin with?

Nothing you said precludes tracking the information. Yeah, I've missed meetings and it's been evident. But it's ok, because we have flexibility and the company knows it's rare.

If I miss every meeting, that's a concern.

> It also wouldn't be hard to write a little script that automatically connects you to zoom meetings that are coming up

You'd be the employee we're trying to get rid of. If you're lying about participation in things, saying you attended meetings when you didn't, I'd fire you.

You are literally proving why such a need exists.

Second reply

> Political representation becomes obsolete with blockchains that can facilitate a referendum on every issue without the need for centralised trust

The choice of representative democracy was not because of the difficulty of counting votes. The founding fathers very clearly rejected what you're proposing. It's because most people are grossly ignorant about most things, and their opinion shouldn't be counted. If you can't pass a high school math class, I honestly don't care about your opinion on climate change.

The blockchain solves none of that.

Math is not magical and the blockchain doesn't solve any of these problems. Let's look at the risks and see how the blockchain does nothing:

1. Vote machines change votes - Great, the blockchain would allow people to verify their vote! Well, the software that sums up all blockchain votes could still miscount them, regardless of what the blockchain contains. Ok! So we can audit the results! Great, we can already do that with paper ballots.

2. Dead people voting - Again, same as the audit before. We see a John Smith voted on the blockchain. We can look up John Smith based on a paper ballot, just as we can with the blockchain.

3. Illegals voting - The same process used for identifying voters and giving out private keys can be used for verifying voters

But what about risks you have introduced?

1. By making everything electronic, you've shifted the risk from local elections, to state actors.

Signing keys are not magic. If a country found a solution to the factorization problem, or solving discrete logarithms, the scheme would collapse and they could forge massive amounts of votes.

2. Getting 300m people to manage cryptographic keys is impossible. Keys will be stolen, just as bitcoin wallets are. Now you need to deal with revocation of votes, and other controls that nobody has yet invented.

tldr: blockchains are dumb

Expressing preferences is great! Why do you equate that to whining, though?

Like I said, it's ok to have a preference. People that whine about it are toxic.

I've found the WFH debate to be a great proxy for finding people I definitely don't want to work with.

Everyone has a preference. But in my experience, the people that whine the most about having to go to an office are generally the people everyone wishes would stay home anyway.

> I'll mention that everyone (absolutely everyone) thinks nobody older than 14 should use that word.

Now you get it! It's kinda awesome I got to teach you a rhetorical device and you picked up on it so quickly.

> It's that you're universalizing your personal preference as a way to try to dominate people

My comment was dominating to you? Damn, I'm sorry.

> It might work on others, but you won't find an old software developer who minds being called "weird". We were all thought weird.

What does you being socially awkward have to do with this? You still need to spell company names correctly, regardless of whatever behavioral issues you have.

What a cringe reply. I'd love to introduce you to a new word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole

> which is about not letting corporate marketing departments decide how the written language should work

Why do you keep repeating this? You say you were raised among linguists, but you're getting the most basic tenant of linguistics wrong. There is no such thing as "correct" language.

But more to the point, language allows you to write proper names as though they are registered or defined. It is not incorrect to spell it DigitalOcean, because that's the registered name.

If my name was JoeBob, you don't get to split up my name just because you think English requires it.

> Corporate branding guidelines constrain only their employees and people who want to curry favor with them. Everybody else can do as they please

What a weird take on why you should spell a company name correctly.

Correct, nobody is going to put you in jail for misspelling Digital Ocean. You can do as you please. But everyone else is going to think you don't know what you're talking about if you can't even get their name correct.

> There is another point if view, and that is that corporate marketing should not take precedence over correct use of language.

There is no such thing as correct use of language. That being said, you should spell proper names as they are registered. It's iPhone, not Iphone.

> It can definitely be argued fairly that the writer does not have to break language conventions just because a company says they have to.

Language convention is to spell the name as the company as it is registered. You wouldn't change someone's last name because it didn't follow some other, slightly related convention...

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38827/how-to-wri...

You misunderstood the entire article. This is about formatting the data from Postgres. It doesn't change anything about your testing. If you're mocking data, you mock the JSON instead of raw rows. If you were doing integration tests, nothing changes anyway.

> Also PG returns some JSON but if the object is not exactly what you want to send back you create another object and merge the two

Sure. Literally nothing changes. Just as if you had to assemble a JSON blob from two Postgres queries and merge them.

> Just don't do it, it's a terrible design. It "works" for simple API but for anything serious this is wrong

I think you completely misunderstood the article. Returning a JSON object from a database query is not "wrong", and I've used this pattern with great success. It's so much easier to call a json_agg to turn a subquery into an array, than to try and manually parse out rows yourself in the middle layer.

> It is a really, really bad idea to put business logic in your database and there are people in this thread downvoting everyone who points it out

Your database is your business logic. From constraints to the queries you write, it's all business logic.

Regardless, you misunderstood the article. This is about moving formatting into the db layer. Letting Postgres return JSON, as opposed to middleware code to translate rows to JSON.

Which is like the opposite of business logic code.

> did I write those lines or you

Neither. Someone else did, and published it. Copilot copied the dialog and suggested it.

> If you change names in those lines of dialogue to fit your story, do you now gain credit for writing those lines?

It depends. Talking generalities isn't productive or interesting. Can you give an example and we can discuss specifics?

> Suggesting code is generating code

This isn't even superficially true

> makes it seem like these incidents don’t matter

They don't really matter, to be honest.

If anything, they give insight into the growth of companies, showing how many key players use them. Fastly goes down and you're like damn, all these people using Fastly... I had no idea.

> You disabled that redundancy to prevent accidents

Damn, this sounds like a huge risk. Kinda like the risk I mentioned in my first comment.

> They are not designed against adversarial attacks

> Now, this does leave a somewhat fragile system

Thank you for reiterating my point. If such a system is not designed to stop adversarial attacks, and is a fragile system, something needs to change.

I appreciate you trying to explain why it's fragile, but it doesn't negate the risk.