HN user

philtar

475 karma
Posts7
Comments395
View on HN

I don't think the world Self-Important means what you think it means. While I'm not religious, these are thinkers whose works are probably the longest surviving works of thought. This is just being facetious.

It's definitely going to get thrown out eventually. 100%. It can't hold a candle to Apple Pay and some exec is gonna convince the higher ups that they need to rebuild it from scratch.

I wouldn't put anything past the company that risked everything on Google+ and then basically abandoned it a few months later when they didn't see the mass exodus they were so delusional in expecting.

Disappointing that cancel culture has actually stopped you from educating us on a topic I would be interested about. I knew this was bound to affect me personally some day but I didn't know how to tackle it.

literally unpolished aesthetic

They are seemingly, or apparently unpolished. Not literally. You can bet that they spent a huge amount of time making sure it looks unpolished but still good.

Grafana 8.0 5 years ago

Changelog is for developers. Terms and Conditions is for lawyers.

'97 or '98 for me.

Went online because I heard Nasa put up pictures of Mars so the first website I went to was nasa.gov

I typed out the entire url like nasa.gov/pathfinder/images or whatever it was after seeing it on TV and writing it down. It took a while to load and then was super underwhelming. I think I searched for Sonic The Hedgehog next.

This reads like a Google shill wrote it, but if not:

1) the fear of Google owning data is that they will be able to target us more and more. As if our internet behavior data wasn't enough, now they have our biological data.

2) the fact that they don't sell it misses the point because in fact they are the party we don't want the data to get to (along with Facebook et all). And you can bet your ass they'll sell it when they strapped for cash.

3) I would definitely not rather my data he with a tech giant who can map it with all my other data that they currently have.

I emailed whatsapp about this a while back and they said it was a non-issue.

How this happens:

1. Hacker adds phone number to their own whatsapp. They do this to thousands/tens of thousands of phone numbers.

2. All of those phone numbers receive an SMS with the OTP to activate whatsapp. In that OTP, there's also a link that will activate whatsapp if you click it. "Enter code XXXXXX or click this link to activate whatsapp on your new phone"

3. Someone, somewhere eventually clicks that link.

4. Hackers take whatsapp account. Add two-factor authentication to it so that you can't take it back by reauthenticating normally.

5. Extortion.

People usually get it back by contacting whatsapp.

I'm talking about what we have in front of us. You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it. I can't argue against magical articles that haven't been published yet.

Also, if you think the NYT doesn't 'lie', then how about you read up on their reporting of the Duke lacrosse team case, or their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity.

Coinbase isn't perfect. But NYT lies. A lot.

But EVEN if the NYT doesn't lie, you haven't read the article yet.