Rjevski

84 ms·

871.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Slack is essentially fancy IRC, so we can take any IRC client as a baseline for how much RAM it should really use. Let’s take HexChat ( https://hexchat.github.io/ ) for example - it does most of what Slack does, plus has adva
872.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Related: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/47293/how-can-s...
873.
by Rjevski 8y ago
> It's a common trend across software. Not at this scale though. Office 2013 uses maybe 2x or 3x the amount of RAM compared to Office 2003. A chat client like Slack routinely uses up to 1GB while a native equivalent would use 100MB
874.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Can't clients do their own encryption though?
875.
by Rjevski 8y ago
> haven't used it much I actually used it, and hated it quite a bit (although ES6 solves most of my gripes with it). I understand and appreciate the necessity of JS on the web. JS is also the perfect tool for that job as it’s been d
876.
by Rjevski 8y ago
> Great stuff Like what? A chat client that uses 1+ GB of RAM and melts batteries faster than a flamethrower? No thanks! It almost looks like this Electron/JS trend was started by CPU manufacturers who realised that current CPUs hav
877.
by Rjevski 8y ago
But don’t you believe in using the right tool for the job? JavaScript is barely acceptable on the web, but again it’s a necessary evil as you can’t easily use anything else. But why use an inadequate tool on the desktop? The perceived time
878.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Thankfully they’re starting to support WebRTC in Safari so secure comms on iPhones in China are still possible.
879.
by Rjevski 8y ago
One question: why would you use the awful clusterfuck that is JavaScript on the desktop where you’ve got the freedom to choose from dozens of lovely languages that actually are a pleasure to use? JS is a necessary evil on the web, but why i
880.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Yep. I can confirm.
881.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Why do you care? Looks like this “credit agency” is only used by telecoms scum and not by any reputable companies. I’d personally love to have a marker that tells the nasty telcos that I am “no good” and they shouldn’t bother doing business
882.
by Rjevski 8y ago
I disagree; the issue is Electron. Sure, you can write secure apps in Electron, just like you can do risky stuff in real-life and be fine most of the time. But why take the risk? Had the app been written with a native language and SDK, they
883.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Just maintenance, or are there new features planned?
884.
by Rjevski 8y ago
I see why you think it might be dead, given that it stays quiet in the background and gets out of your way (as opposed to Medium for example), but that's the whole point of Svbtle. Svbtle puts the content first - the content is the e
885.
by Rjevski 8y ago
This exploits a vulnerability in the SS7/MAP protocols that power mobile networks worldwide; the cooperation of the carrier isn't even required (even if carriers were against this; bad actors can and will get this data anyway).
886.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Just curious, what would a proxy do with such a header?
887.
by Rjevski 8y ago
> Data from millions of Facebook users who used a popular personality app Aka idiots knowingly gave their data away. Look, I love some Facebook-bashing article just like everyone else but this isn’t Facebook’s fault, I actually support t
888.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Just another day in Electron land. It used to be that XSS is was only an issue on the web, but thanks to Electron it is now everywhere, including desktop and mobile apps.
889.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Given the spam and abuse situation going on the platform I really doubt it.
890.
by Rjevski 8y ago
I don’t think it’s about liking Apple, its more about not having any choice. My middle finger is high for Apple’s anti-consumer practices, yet I still buy a Mac because it’s the only machine that allows me to be productive, runs all my soft
891.
by Rjevski 8y ago
> The consequences are too severe to do otherwise. Some basic precautions and common sense is all you need to avoid the CFAA.
892.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17046632
893.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Big carriers* often route directly, but even then, it's not guaranteed (they could use a third-party or even a competitor as a fallback in case their own interconnect goes down), and to be fair, big carriers (Twilio, etc) are decent at
894.
by Rjevski 8y ago
This exploits design flaws in the SS7 & MAP protocols that power mobile networks worldwide. Cooperation from the carriers isn’t even required.
895.
by Rjevski 8y ago
> when the same origin hits every number There is no real concept of "origin". Unless you're the direct upstream carrier of the originator of the robocalls, the robocalls will be diluted with legitimate calls in such a way
896.
by Rjevski 8y ago
Even if they wanted the 70$, at the moment there’s nothing they can do about robocalls without cooperation from the entire industry. A robocall doesn’t look any more shady than a normal call from a receiving carrier’s perspective; whatever
897.
by Rjevski 8y ago
It’s not really been bought off by those exact carriers, but by the telco industry as a whole. The industry is honestly shady as fuck. They’re being pushed into irrelevance by the internet and VoIP (where there’s no such thing as paying for
898.
by Rjevski 8y ago
A cryptographic solution is absolutely necessary. Most reputable telcos already restrict spoofing or require tons of paperwork to prove you own the number before allowing you to use it as caller ID (like Twilio for example). The issue is th
899.
by Rjevski 8y ago
There are legitimate reasons for spoofing to work given how fucked up the PSTN is. Mobile roaming is one for example - when you roam on another carrier and place a call, that carrier directly originates the call and “spoofs” your caller ID
900.
by Rjevski 8y ago
I work in telecoms. The billable minutes thing is absolutely true. You might not directly pay for them as a customer, but carriers pay each other for inbound calls, so whatever carrier that is originating the robocalls is paying the next ca

More ›