startling

Why should it? Mailing cash is totally fine.

There are a couple of other red flags though.

What else would you validate? A number? Whatsapp can just show you the wrong number.

This is like, textbook survivorship bias.

I think people are downvoting you because they're assuming you're not serious. :(

How is this what "coin-operated" means?

I'm all for validating software. But it's difficult and we're exceedingly bad at it, and imo this problem is orthogonal to validating other users on social networks.

If your argument is "let's not trust Whatsapp", then it helps not to confuse it with discussion about QR codes.

> If WhatsApp is trustworthy and secure, then the QR code might be a hash of the public key, but to be completely frank, it could be anything.

The problem being solved here is validating that another Whatsapp user's key belongs to a flesh-and-blood person you know. We're taking it on faith at this point that Whatsapp's application is trustworthy. If it's not, validating keys is useless -- the app could upload all your chat transcripts in the background for all we know.

+1 to this. GDB and valgrind are the best things about writing C.

I think what grandparent and others are saying is that you also revoke the secrets contained in the ciphertext, e.g. if it's an AWS key you would revoke that AWS key on AWS's side as well as encrypting new secrets with a different encryption key.

Obviously this is a huge hassle and isn't easily done with all kinds of secrets (which is what I think you're getting at?). But it's also often necessary.

Using hardware you didn't design to self-host? Come on.

Presumably, fewer cars means less road repair necessary.

Executable stacks can be used for JIT compilation-and-execution.

One explanation: * People who buy video games on amazon and don't have prime aren't likely to get prime. * They're losing money on the free shipping offer (given video games tend to be >$35, may have thinner margins than other products).

I'm not saying this is their reasoning, I'm just saying it could make sense.

OK, I'll try to be more explicit.

> Saying "you can code even if you're a woman" is incredibly patronizing. It was never in question.

This isn't true. Tons of people question this!

So, your argument is "no one has ever said men are better at writing programs than women"?

The Nuremberg Trials[1] / "Nuremberg Defence"[2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

Well, where can't you go? :)

Context.

Correlate your visits across unrelated websites.

> My fascination for the subway takes autistic proportions [...]

What a weird way to phrase that.

Or maybe the 9-year-old is good.

> You can also completely disable them so you're never asked for permission

I think you misunderstood -- I parsed it as "And using a VPN would negate any anonymity offered (by using Tor)".

This title is much worse. There's no clue what it's even about.

"Requires a 0-day" is still a huge barrier. It's not 100% secure, sure, but it's an improvement.

Name clash with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_(goddess)

From the article: “I don’t mind a bit being labelled a suicide.”

fish is not even a sh, much less a bash.

(Replying to vmorgulis):

> Yes. I remenber a recent post claiming it's near impossible to manage it's own mail server anymore because gmail and others mark all new senders as spam. It takes years to be recognized as a legitimate server.

That's just wrong. It's a hassle for sure, but it doesn't take years.

The surface.