3 ms·

I've nothing to do with the leak itself, so can't help you there. But did check - both archives are identical, and contain a Node project that seems to match wh

I've nothing to do with the leak itself, so can't help you there. But did check - both archives are identical, and contain a Node project that seems to match what is claimed. (Run it at your own risk.) $ md5sum lam.zip 3a78b14e1379ac5c059dbbe5660fca8a lam.zip

godelski 2y ago
Thanks! I don't actually assume that the person is being nefarious, but I think it is also important to make sure that they understand these things. Especially if we're talking about scams. Scams take advantage of what is normalized, it is how they fly under the radar and bypass people's bullshit detectors. It's why a safety vest, hardhat, and a clipboard is the most covert disguise around. So one of the best ways to prevent scams is to normalize behavior that is harder to take advantage of! (same reason people fall for fake voice scams, because we're so used to distortion in calls anyways. A glitch poor voice can be difficult to distinguish from poor cell reception) As for the filesizes, I assume it is just the websites reporting incorrectly. Pixeldrain reports 188 MB compressed and 510 MB uncompressed. Mega reports 179.r MB. Pixeldrain at least shows all the files, which look to not have been cleaned up since they have things like .DS_Store. But at least the files are individually downloadable.
- fwip 2y ago
  179 MB if a megabyte is 1024^2 bytes, 188MB if it's 1000^2. Zip files aren't evil, just unzip them and look inside.
  - godelski 2y ago
    I think you're missing the point of my comment. The point of the comment and request is about not requiring technical knowledge and minimizing amount of necessary thinking. The point is about helping stop scammers in the first place! > 179 MB if a megabyte is 1024^2 bytes, 188MB if it's 1000^2. This is not entirely correct though because MB != MiB. Us on HN will probably know this but proper labeling helps prevent mistakes. The improper labeling requires us to think more when considering security, which is bad security (not that you shouldn't think, but I'm saying "don't set off alarms when you don't need to set off alarms")
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      > This is not entirely correct though because MB != MiB. The point the parent was making is that the file is 188026773 bytes long. One site represents that as 179 MB (base 1024) and the other one as 188 MB (base 1000). Your complaint is therefore with one of the websites and not with the uploader.
      - godelski 2y ago
        > Your complaint is therefore with one of the websites and not with the uploader. That particular issue, yes. But that wasn't the main issue. I guess you're right, I could have clarified that I'm aware that the uploader is not in charge of the label and it was naive of me to presume that this was obvious. I should have explicitly stated such rather than let it be implicitly said.

godelski 2y ago

Thanks! I don't actually assume that the person is being nefarious, but I think it is also important to make sure that they understand these things. Especially if we're talking about scams. Scams take advantage of what is normalized, it is how they fly under the radar and bypass people's bullshit detectors. It's why a safety vest, hardhat, and a clipboard is the most covert disguise around. So one of the best ways to prevent scams is to normalize behavior that is harder to take advantage of! (same reason people fall for fake voice scams, because we're so used to distortion in calls anyways. A glitch poor voice can be difficult to distinguish from poor cell reception) As for the filesizes, I assume it is just the websites reporting incorrectly. Pixeldrain reports 188 MB compressed and 510 MB uncompressed. Mega reports 179.r MB. Pixeldrain at least shows all the files, which look to not have been cleaned up since they have things like .DS_Store. But at least the files are individually downloadable.

fwip 2y ago
179 MB if a megabyte is 1024^2 bytes, 188MB if it's 1000^2. Zip files aren't evil, just unzip them and look inside.
- godelski 2y ago
  I think you're missing the point of my comment. The point of the comment and request is about not requiring technical knowledge and minimizing amount of necessary thinking. The point is about helping stop scammers in the first place! > 179 MB if a megabyte is 1024^2 bytes, 188MB if it's 1000^2. This is not entirely correct though because MB != MiB. Us on HN will probably know this but proper labeling helps prevent mistakes. The improper labeling requires us to think more when considering security, which is bad security (not that you shouldn't think, but I'm saying "don't set off alarms when you don't need to set off alarms")
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    > This is not entirely correct though because MB != MiB. The point the parent was making is that the file is 188026773 bytes long. One site represents that as 179 MB (base 1024) and the other one as 188 MB (base 1000). Your complaint is therefore with one of the websites and not with the uploader.
    - godelski 2y ago
      > Your complaint is therefore with one of the websites and not with the uploader. That particular issue, yes. But that wasn't the main issue. I guess you're right, I could have clarified that I'm aware that the uploader is not in charge of the label and it was naive of me to presume that this was obvious. I should have explicitly stated such rather than let it be implicitly said.