HN user
"Price on Application (also available after subscribed to the Trial for self-service customers)"
Please dont do this... I even clicked on the follow through link, then you want me to sso... still no price. Save us all some time, it is in short supply.
For those interested, these videos are worthwhile to listen to: https://www.youtube.com/user/wholesystems
Maybe starting with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab463aw0AWM
Bots are going to be the way we interact with the web (and really all systems) heading forward, this 'real people' at just 'browsers' is quite a misunderstanding of what a 'user-agent' really means in this day and age.
If I launch a new tab in the background and tell it go establish some set of factors for me, or locate price points and details for me, or buy something for me (and right now as me)... or just have it let me browser and interactively direct it but have it block ads as I go.
I know the law, and lawmakers, are looking at this from a fraudulent content perspective, but they are going to be hard pressed to do anything in long run to quell this.
Is it though? As long the person running the browser understands the tradeoffs? I mean, the browser is supposed to be your user-agent after all.
To render and provide interactions as you deem fit...
https://coingeek.com/us-attorney-wants-ross-ulbrichts-murder...
"hand-waive" seems inaccurate here, a lot of Ross's supporters flat out disagree with these charges in particular.
Deletion (or confirmed re-deletion) of the data is irrelevant at this point, it is the models created from that data, and their use, which will now persist in usefulness to Analytica. Armed with these models, and future refined/iterated versions, they likely will capture the data more directly from users in the future. Once the genie is out, it doesn't readily go back in.
I haven't seen this reasonably addressed in any of the discussions, or org-based-presentations thus far. GDPR compliance itself basically ensures you cannot collect enough information to even defend against this type of attack vector.
See the details in my comment. The same way you would require authentication and/or signing on any request, on any modern platform. Not doing this is poor form.
If you are utilizing json-rpc anywhere in your stack, you should be authenticating every request via your transport(s), or the payload itself with JWT (or the like). To not do this, is to trust the world.
This is true over http and browsers, as well as internal servers, sockets, and cross frame communication. There are no such things as trusted internal services, just services that have not yet been breached (looking at you hardware vendors).
How well does this fair over several frames?
Haven't we well established that water was used? ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dup19cX6yXo
Except the network actually forked, and both half's still exist (ETH and ETC) and both are still used. Really, it should not viewed 'a way'. The fun part will be when half the world forks bitcoin, but forcefully takes over the network. The incentives at play do not cover this well, but it is also unlikely... but only because there is too much money is false signaling and playing both (many) sides of the battle.
To clarify, the network would basically be agreeing to honor the possibly already spent coins... and that isn't really going to happen at this point.
Every morning at breakfast. Maybe other places during the day.
Must be fun to do testing for api failure modes with this...
I suspect they have some fixing to do yet... common prices listed on indexes are ~$3,539.82 USD at the moment. Coinbase UI has the UI pegged at $8,499.03 .. with console errors, and ssl to be distrusted errors.
Warn? Isn't this expected....
Bitcoins value does have an upper limit, to the extent it is cheaper/advantageous to move to a nearly identical clone, because the mainline is over-valued enough that the idea entices critical mass (of new people) to shift. This normalizes over time/culture, today we fork for technical reasons, but in the future there will be other reasons.
So very much this. Particularly if you dont have enough context to be personalized, pre-compiled popular segments are a reasonable approach.
These pieces are starting to get pretty funny.
`If it keeps growing, it'll be so expensive, it can't possibly work.` Also assumes bitcoin as we know it today is fully immutable, but that isn't the case, and neither is energy production, or technology used to run the whole thing.
But you know what gets tricky, rewriting history in bitcoin's blockchain. `You'd almost have to spin up an alternate time line, and those alternate time lines are expensive, and use a lot of energy, it cant possibly work.`
The value in the future of bitcoin may be that it has a long and very public chain... and that alone is probably enough to hold reasonable utility in the future. Just like silver/gold and other scares things provided utility for quite a while. Only now of course, if it gets too expensive, another slightly different public fork will persist (or several of them).
The good news, it more popular now than before... sigh. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Auto%20Complete%20with%20Redis...
My comment still stands. Likely? they could have fixed their infringing acts.
Trademark infringement is not what took down this service (or so motivated these people to take down the service). I have yet to read an "IP" compliance request that was accurate, truthful, or aligned with achieving a correct legal understanding between parties. This is not an accident. The use of that term creates an artificial whole, which is then used to imply greater authority over the sum of the parts.
My comment is on the prior comment, which is about the concept... not this specific instance, even though it is still applicable.
We should start by not calling it intellectual property (IP). Clearly this is not servicemark, trademark, etc. Is copyright actually preventing this?
The objections in the comments around this are somewhat funny. There is more than a small city's worth of electricity in whole system waste alone. It is like complaining that you didn't eat all of your bell pepper, when behind you is a whole dumpster full of individually wrapped bell pepper sandwiches being thrown away because a pending sell-by-date or a marketing material change.
The point you are missing about these loopholes, is that broader strategies are mostly indistinguishable from "legitimate" usage of the same strategy. Wealth allows people to take more risk, and will/can do so... even at the risk of not having the money go to taxes. That is what you have to "solve"...
User machine, not blockchain, security will continue to be the biggest risk in all these systems.
With gold for example, stealing the physical assets takes effort, resources, time, equipment, etc.
With digital assets, that is not the case... and our current level of system security is not adequate in the slightest. It is a challenge we are still largely ignoring today, but crypto currencies will require it be fixed, or better-risk-managed at any rate.
(not advocating gold over digital, but people continue to hand wave the actual risks)
Something that struck me, is the wording is surprisingly unwordy for a cloud provider...
- "based on the instance rental fee" - "Tell us what you think about this page and win $10 credit! " - "Instance Fee, Storage fee and Public Traffic fee"
Time to build out those mesh networks, make sure you are in the loop when your town wants to grant favor to one or the other of the carriers. Consider this the step... that wont ratchet back anytime soon.
... could you say that again in a nicer tone. I went to away to my quiet space and couldn't hear you. <slips into quiet space again>
I'm seeing 404 for the images, wonder if it auto-reports that.
Yes. You just described modern computing.