hiq

63 ms·

721.
by hiq 6y ago
I also have doubts but that's what the marketing hype has been claiming for some time now, so I'm really curious about real-world experiences and where the hype breaks down. The debate is often "I need way more RAM!" vs
722.
by hiq 6y ago
> Can't benchmark out of that. You still have to try it out and see. I'd welcome an article detailing a dev setup where the M1 isn't suitable because of performance reasons. So far we've seen mostly praise.
723.
by hiq 6y ago
> memory intensive and heavily multi-threaded workloads Such as?
724.
by hiq 6y ago
Did you have the chance to try your setup on an M1? If it worked for your sister, although you seem to have way higher requirements, is there anything to say it wouldn't work for you? I'm asking because I read a lot of comments wh
725.
by hiq 6y ago
In any case there cannot be a good reason to share the online status / last seen date before any interaction has happened between two contacts, and approved by the receiver. If you have had no interaction with someone, you should first
726.
Signal Desktop is unable to send messages(github.com)
3 points by hiq 6y ago|2 comments
727.
by hiq 6y ago
> The only way to avoid that is by not sending personal data to semi-/untrusted parties at all (Matrix). With Matrix you still end up trusting the server sysadmin (both in terms of ethics and technical abilities), it's not like
728.
by hiq 6y ago
> dumbed-down desktop client That used to be true, but now the desktop client has almost all the feature of the mobile clients. Which feature do you miss there? > Signal clearly has more users (while being worse on privacy) I assume y
729.
by hiq 6y ago
> I think the information who is a contact of whom should not reside with the provider, but be distributed among the peers. Signal partially solves this with SGX. Partially because SGX will probably never be fully secure.
730.
by hiq 6y ago
From the paper: > Signal acknowledged the issue of enumeration attacks as not fully preventable, So rate-limiting is fine as long as you don't hurt user experience, e.g. you can still message your contacts within 1min if you ha
731.
by hiq 6y ago
> I’m surprised it doesn’t come up more in these discussions and people just “settle” for Signal Not needing a phone number is nice, but last I checked Wire does little when it comes to metadata, while Signal is more or less the state of
732.
by hiq 6y ago
> The practical consequence of this is that your phone number + name is public information. From the paper: > With its focus on privacy, Signal excels in exposing almost no information about registered users, apart from their phone nu
733.
by hiq 6y ago
You can set a pin which I think would reset your account eventually if you want to register the same number but fail to provide the correct pin, and the previous owner of the phone number does not use WhatsApp in some time.
734.
by hiq 6y ago
> Just as insecure as Whatsapp From the paper: > With its focus on privacy, Signal excels in exposing almost no information about registered users, apart from their phone number. In contrast, WhatsApp exposes profile pictures an
735.
by hiq 6y ago
That's my take as well, and I think that's already known by most users. So nothing new for Signal users. For WhatsApp it would be nice to change the defaults so that no information (other than the fact that the number is registere
736.
by hiq 6y ago
There's already a backup transfer feature in the last version.
737.
by hiq 6y ago
Open a thread on the Signal forum.
738.
Signal: Only Allow Emojis as Reactions(github.com)
2 points by hiq 6y ago|0 comments
739.
by hiq 6y ago
> Might be a while before we see video over BT, though. In which case would that be useful? There seems to be a range of broadcasting features, but if I'm not mistaken they mostly use WiFi.
740.
by hiq 6y ago
I've been wondering about that a lot. The last big crisis was 2007 / 2008[0]. Bitcoin had an initial release in 2009 according to Wikipedia, and has performed well in a bull market. I'm almost morbidly curious to see what wil
741.
by hiq 6y ago
> Why do you think more transparency would lead to noise and speculation? Because of the current situation: people argue about whether Moxie lost it, if Signal is still the right solution, etc. If the feature had been implemented in the
742.
by hiq 6y ago
That's what I heard indeed, but that's still too many words if I don't want to receive messages from businesses anyway. They could have prompted users before the first interaction with a business for instance. Then users woul
743.
by hiq 6y ago
I invite you to read the thread I linked, because this whole discussion has been rehashed several times over on HN already.
744.
by hiq 6y ago
> I'm sorry, but that's not how computer software works. Anyone who knows what a basic block is can straightforwardly verify the claims WhatsApp is making. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11432096
745.
by hiq 6y ago
Last I checked it was a lot of words for no change at all. If the change is so small, they could have allowed EU users to opt out (and maybe miss out on some features), they would have avoided the outcry.
746.
by hiq 6y ago
> I've had a terrible time with group chats. When was this? There was a migration from groupv1 to groupv2 which could explain it. I've always found it stable personally (including during migration). At any rate, it should be be
747.
by hiq 6y ago
You don't think the sealed sender feature is an improvement at all? Nobody relies on it. But if we can make an attack 10 times more expensive (because we can't prevent it completely), why not do it? Secure remote computation is be
748.
by hiq 6y ago
> Mobilecoin's price changed by 1000% over the course of a couple weeks last month. It's not even really used right now, it's hard to tell how much it reflects what will happen later. With a centralized cryptocurrency ther
749.
by hiq 6y ago
I sympathize with this. On the other hand, you have to consider the big picture: - the open-source argument was mostly meant for everyone to look at the sources and draw their conclusions regarding privacy and security - these guarantees ar
750.
by hiq 6y ago
They have a CLA, the legal side of things is clear. They can use their code however they want, the licenses are only relevant for others. When you contribute, you basically license your code under a permissive license to Signal (because of

More ›