pptr

6 ms·

61.
by pptr 3y ago
Which is orders of magnitude more expensive than deploying the bot to a cloud or botnet. I don't know how much bot spam pays these days. Maybe it's still worth it.
62.
by pptr 3y ago
My understanding is that you can't reuse tokens, because the system uses challenge response.
63.
by pptr 3y ago
How is this feature hostile to Googles users? There is genuine benefit from websites allowing you to do more things via their website (vs their app). Also: fewer/no Captchas, fewer bots on social media The platforms most people use wil
64.
by pptr 3y ago
It does affect bots creating social media content.
65.
by pptr 3y ago
Well there is that and there are users that post GPT SEO trash to Reddit et al, which is what the attestation API could help with.
66.
by pptr 3y ago
I'm curious to hear from someone familiar with web development: How much do websites invest in accessibility and related features that cater to a small audience? Can we draw any conclusions from this to how websites will deal with acce
67.
by pptr 3y ago
Why would Google not monetize unattested traffic? I mean that's like Google blocking it's own ads from being shown. I don't know much about the online ad market. I assume advertisers will pay more for attested impressions tha
68.
by pptr 3y ago
I guess it depends how far the certification goes. If even extensions can be detected, why wouldn't selenium be detected? Granted, I don't know how it works exactly. In addition to the 5$ robot arm you need to add 200$ for the dev
69.
by pptr 3y ago
If you can identify bots more accurately, you get less "GPT SEO trash".
70.
by pptr 3y ago
Good idea, we just throw out all the security mechanisms to avoid "corporate control" and even worse anti virus software "inspecting end users' computers". I'm sure people will be very happy about all the mal-
71.
by pptr 3y ago
The attestation is about the device, not the website. I think just from a security perspective it makes most sense for the device or os manufacturer to handle attestation for that device.
72.
by pptr 3y ago
That's debatable. I read it like this only affects the charging model. Advertisers only get charged for impressions from humans, not bots. This is enough to prevent fraud.
73.
by pptr 3y ago
Out of curiosity: what programming language are you searching for? I never had problems finding SO answers for C++.
74.
by pptr 3y ago
The listed use-cases are not what I typically see complaints about. What I do see a lot: * This will be used to detect and block ad blockers. * Open source users can't do attestation and will get locked out of parts of the web. These a
75.
by pptr 3y ago
That's how I read the proposal too. One key difference to Captchas is that since this new system requires no user input, the "cost" of a website requesting attestation is a lot smaller. So it will probably be used more widel
76.
by pptr 3y ago
How does this compare to simply targeting a certain CPU utilization (say, 70%)? In a sufficiently complex system you will have many different queues and other bottlenecks that affect throughput at scale. Some requests will also require more
77.
by pptr 3y ago
Can someone explain to me what's so fundamentally bad with this proposal? My understanding is that websites can essentially confirm whether the user is likely to be a human because he/she accesses the website from a certified devi
78.
by pptr 3y ago
I think this simply allows the team to move faster. For example, you only need to build a website, no Android/iOS app. Product wise, you have more freedom to build the UX around this new technology without concern for legacy use cases.
79.
by pptr 4y ago
You can measure improvements. You don't have to guess. However, I understand that a lot of work can't easily be evaluated for user impact.
80.
by pptr 4y ago
Googler here. If you work at a big tech company you can improve the products used by millions if not billions of people. I find that very rewarding.
81.
by pptr 4y ago
These all seem like "nothing burgers" to me. * He critizised that Yoel advocated for Kids using dating platforms in his PhD thesis. It's a misrepresentation IMO, but the reasoning behind his criticism is not LGBT specific. *
82.
by pptr 5y ago
Security and privacy are all about imagining the worst. Anything that can be exploited will be exploited eventually.
83.
by pptr 5y ago
I thought Bill Gates' recent book covered all the important problems and how they could be addressed. Here is a good summary: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Lowering-Green-Premiums