andreyf

41 ms·

361.
by andreyf 11y ago
separate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place The convincing argument I've heard against that is that it gives someone leverage to keep their partner in a relationship against their will, onc
362.
by andreyf 11y ago
Assets in a marriage belong to the legal union of two people, so it's not surprising that everyone loses roughly half of what they co-owned. Is there a law somewhere which is preferential for one gender over another in divorce? The sep
363.
by andreyf 11y ago
What do you mean by "not protected in case of a separation"?
364.
by andreyf 11y ago
> they are changing Stripe.js to now serve up the data in an iFrame so you can keep using their product more or less like before but without heightened requirements I imagine they're changing things to be like Google Wallet, where y
365.
by andreyf 11y ago
I think it's potentially more than just soft, as it could also lead to an in-group of people who are seeing the company therapist.
366.
by andreyf 11y ago
I think he meant that it implies that an employer can pick a single therapist for all of their employees, and that there may be perceived pressure to see that therapist over others. In reality it can take quite a bit of visiting different p
367.
by andreyf 12y ago
> If a company approaches me there are probably some reasons for that. Because asking random people to prove how much they want to work for this particular company does not seem to be a very productive approach to me. Why not? Make it a
368.
by andreyf 12y ago
Nah, you want to minimize friction for the people you want to hire and maximize it for people you don't want to hire. Even without the evaluation signal coding exercises give you (one could argue that it's hard to make it represen
369.
by andreyf 12y ago
Absolutely, for a company that I want to work with. For companies that I'm not super excited about, I politely decline-for-now. Seems to me like that saves everyone tons of time. Do you really want to hire someone that doesn't wan
370.
by andreyf 12y ago
For engineers without open source contributions, why not give a coding project? It seems to me like there's no need to eat into the person's working time, spending a few hours solving an interesting problem shouldn't deter pe
371.
by andreyf 12y ago
> On the whole, do you think internet.org is a bad, negative effort? I don't know, but I can conceive of it as a possibility that Internet.org would hinder the propagation of NN "real internet" providers.
372.
by andreyf 12y ago
And how would "compliance and legal" get access to something engineering designed to be end-to-end encrypted?
373.
by andreyf 12y ago
How exactly do you imagine this is possible? End to end encryption means Apple cannot access the message contents.
374.
by andreyf 12y ago
Is there any chance of scaling WebRTC any better than that?
375.
by andreyf 12y ago
Interesting. I hadn't realized that WebRTC supported more than two clients talking to each other. My Google-fu is failing me, do you know where I can read up on how the topology of 4 connected callers is orchestrated without a central
376.
by andreyf 12y ago
> Provides multi-party authentication, registration and signaling, which can orchestrate up to 4-way calling using peer to peer mesh topology, across any combination of supported devices. Calls can be video or voice only. Peer to peer me
377.
by andreyf 12y ago
It would not be a deal killer if I saw this when I Googled your name while researching your background. Depending on the nature of the case, I might even bring it up in an in-person interview as interesting smalltalk, as it definitely sound
378.
by andreyf 12y ago
One should be careful not to live in or spread in paranoia where everything is a plot to deceive. For anyone looking at the source material and judging reasonably, there was no deception. Perhaps some journalists got a little carried away,
379.
by andreyf 12y ago
False and false. The article linked complaints that traditional legal interception means do not work. Those are the ones where they nicely ask the cellular providers for the data. It's not about "stingray like devices", it&#x
380.
by andreyf 12y ago
Did I miss something? Why do you think the DEA can break iMessage encryption?
381.
by andreyf 12y ago
What about without local privilege escalation? Is there no way for a malware payload or RCE to turn your computer into a botnet without root privileges?
382.
by andreyf 12y ago
Yes, hence my using the past tense. I do not see how "CNNIC is [not trustworthy]" is compatible with "Firefox, Google, Apple, and Microsoft trusted their certificates until MCS Holding screwed up some corporate network's
383.
by andreyf 12y ago
> CNNIC is not even trustworthy among Chinese Internet users. Oh? Then why did Firefox, Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. trust their root certificate? I know hating on China is all the rage, but something isn't making sense here... &g
384.
by andreyf 12y ago
Good point. You're still trusting them to implement the rest of the system you are using securely, though.
385.
by andreyf 12y ago
I'm saying that, as far as I know after watching the news, the NSA has done nothing that's comparable to the historic examples of "secret lists of enemies of the state that public sector employers agree to not hire" or &
386.
by andreyf 12y ago
Great points. If I hear of a US intelligence agent intimidating someone in the USA as you describe happening in 90's Norway, I will be shocked and consider my original question to have been answered. Are you aware of anything like this
387.
by andreyf 12y ago
Let me restate a little more succinctly: I'm asking about what the NSA has done that's comparable to "secret lists of enemies of the state that public sector employers agree to not hire" or "attempting to drive a po
388.
by andreyf 12y ago
Yes, I follow the news. Do you have something specific in mind?
389.
by andreyf 12y ago
Are you suggesting someone can break PGP encryption? What evidence is there of this claim?
390.
by andreyf 12y ago
The NSA today certainly has great power, but what evidence do we have that they are abusing it a way comparable to McCarthyism or the CIA in the 60's [1]? 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine&#x2

More ›