g-b-r

17 ms·

421.
by g-b-r 10mo ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20251223051058/https://news.ycom... https://archive.is/74u8M#up_46362214 https://web.archive.org/web/20251223055137/https:/&#x2
422.
by g-b-r 10mo ago
Aaand it's off the front page (despite not having been flagged - 129 points)
423.
by g-b-r 10mo ago
Something I hadn't heard yet about CECOT: https://www.lemkininstitute.com/single-post/mass-grave-compl...
424.
by g-b-r 10mo ago
The story is exactly that you can watch it on archive.org, most people already heard that it was pulled
425.
by g-b-r 10mo ago
And those are the people who love AI.
426.
by g-b-r 10mo ago
New things are not always progress. And even if LLMs turn out to really be a net positive and a requirement for the job, they're antithetical to what most software developers appreciate and enjoy (precision, control, predictability, ef
427.
by g-b-r 10mo ago
That doesn't seem bullying to me
428.
Are There Fourth Amendment Rights in Google Search Terms?(reason.com)
1 points by g-b-r 11mo ago|0 comments
429.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
Nice article about it at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46298492
430.
'Twitter never left:' X sues Operation Bluebird for trademark infringement(theverge.com)
8 points by g-b-r 11mo ago|0 comments
431.
"Everyone is so..": Entry-level tech workers describe the AI-fueled jobpocalypse(restofworld.org)
11 points by g-b-r 11mo ago|1 comments
432.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
(original title «“Everyone is so panicked”: Entry-level tech workers describe the AI-fueled jobpocalypse»)
433.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
> Not to mention that a container ship’s deck is typically completely covered with, well, containers. I guess in theory that could be solved either with huge removable panels around the containers (to be "put aside" somewhere d
434.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
> For the reference implementation that will not actually be deployed as an official solution so far, yes ...or the IT-Wallet which is currently deployed, and who's developers stubbornly refuse to remove the requirement. > In fac
435.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
So anonymity should be impossible?
436.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
> privacy-safe age verification is rolling out across the EU in the coming years Privacy-safe requiring a Google account and a phone logged into it...
437.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
To be clear, SSL/TLS and other transport protocols can absolutely be considered end-to-end encryption, if they're established between the two real interlocutors. Otherwise, you have two instances of encryption with decryption in
438.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
> I'll take the hit on the loose phrasing regarding the SSL paper "outlining plans". That was a poor description of mine of an analysis paper and wasn't a good example of the point I was trying to make I don't un
439.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
> "Some homemade encryption" is not what I was suggesting at all. E.g. encrypted-at-the-source (client side) AWS files are still sent over TLS as an encrypted blob within an encrypted blob but remain encrypted past the TLS boun
440.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
The 1994 paper (freely available at https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1341727/m2/... ) is actually about proper E2EE. I addressed the other two at https://news.ycombinator.com&#x
441.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
> prior to WhatsApp's E2EE implementation in like 2014, TLS was very often called "End to End Encryption" That's pretty wild The reason that a different term had to be invented was that some centralized messaging syst
442.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
With three citations I was about to give in, and accept that my experience might have been limited, but then I checked those citations and... are you trolling? Or were those given you by an llm? 1. "End-To-End Arguments in System Desig
443.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
I wasn't a network engineer, but to my recollection "end-to-end encryption" was only used occasionally, probably by people not too knowledgeable in cryptography
444.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
#itsmyanus
445.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
> It was only a decade or so ago that "End-To-End Encryption" began to mean something other than "encrypted in transit". No, before that it was simply not a term, except in some obscure radio protocol (and even there
446.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
> > For normal people E2EE means privacy > > It's misunderstood. Not in my experience, except by very few > But later some marketers try to use it as a "transport channel" for client-server interactions. Some,
447.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
It's not incredibly common, there's sure a lot of companies that try to misuse it, but the average person (even non technical) still interprets it in the correct way
448.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
They probably do match it, with data collected from other sources
449.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
No, they're just trying to mislead their clients
450.
by g-b-r 11mo ago
> But in all seriousness, of course they can access the data. Otherwise who else would process it to give any health results back? It's "of course" for very knowledgeable people, normal people just assume that it means gua

More ›