Happy Thanksgiving @dang, @tomhow, and the HN community! Almost 17 years here, and it's hard to overstate how much I learned from y'all.
Through tech cycles, heated debates, and some inevitable fads, the limitless curiosity of this community remains inspiring. Thank you mods and YC for staying true to the original hacker ethos.
Ha, I just did the same with my hometown (Guaiba, RS), a city that is 1/6th of Londrina, and its wikipedia page in English hasn't been updated in years, and still has the wrong mayor (!).
Gemini 3 nailed on the first try, included political affiliation, and added some context on who they competed with and won over in each of the last 3 elections. And I just did a fun application with AI Studio, and it worked on first shot. Pretty impressive.
(disclaimer: Googler, but no affiliation with Gemini team)
Emails are also instructions to a computer-based service (SMTP) that you presumably signed your rights away to when you accepted the T&Cs.
Yet no one would think it's acceptable for the NYT and a dozen other news organizations to request an "anonymized" archive of all your emails from provider X, just because said provider is in a lawsuit with them, and you have nothing to do with any of it.
This is shameful, and would create a dangerous precedent. Really hope the order gets struck down.
Well yes, that sort of evidence is routinely used to gather evidence and build criminal cases. Emails, like letters, are correspondence between individuals.
ChatGPT isn't (despite it's name) equivalent - the nearest analogy is Google. We know the modus operandi of the world based on these services (incl social media) and privacy is the aspect that's been given up.
Yes, you're very right. They could simply have killed a codec that no one uses anymore. Or put it behind a compile flag, so if you really want, you can still enable it
But no. Intentionally or not, there was a whole drama created around it [1], with folks being criticized [2] for saying exactly what you said above, because their past (!) employers.
Instead of using the situation to highlight the need for more corporate funding for opensource projects in general, it became a public s**storm, with developers questioning their future contributions to projects. Shameful.
Yeah, but serving that doesn't cost that much and dropping the advertisement platform would drop it further (and let engineers fix search instead of shaving milliseconds from ad bidding)
> who would you rather hire: someone who wow'd in an interview or someone with LinkedIn flair?
Who would you rather interview: someone who has a great resume, and a strong LinkedIn profile, and connections to a strong peer community who can endorse them, or a faceless rando that shows up in your inbox with a PDF, amongst thousands of others, with zero referrals?
I'm not endorsing LI grind -- I too hate it, but ignore at your own peril. OP seems to be in a rather precarious situation, so maybe it would help being a bit less dogmatic.
Indeed. This should be a standard set by every board: depending on the size of the data breach, the cut on executive salaries goes from 10 all the way to to 50% -- including bonus and stock comp.
I bet you we'd drastically reduce the number of companies get hacked overnight.
> I bet you we'd drastically reduce the number of companies get hacked overnight.
The problem is that execs and companies in general don’t know how to achieve that. A great deal of security work at companies is cargo cult stuff designed to meet vague and largely irrelevant standards, without any real engagement with what’s happening in the company’s actual systems.
This is not the kind of problem that can be solved simply by motivating the kind of execs that have been allowed to succeed at today’s companies.
The flip side is true, however: the problem can not be solved without motivating the execs.
At the end of the day, if the pile of cash they take home at the end of the day isn't inversely proportional to the number of people they fucked over, the best case is they don't care and the worst case is they'll notice that there's money to be saved (and therefore transfered to their pile) by fucking people over and do it even more.
Note that I didn't just say "number of people whose data was leaked" - the same thing applies to other ways of fucking over your users or even employees. Aligning execs' inventives usually isn't the whole solution, but it usually is a necessary part of the solution.
You can also just click the thumbnails and it shows the full sized image in a modal. I assume everyone here blocks javascript by default and would never know that.
And now the thread will be entirely dominated by pedantic complaints about the site's implementation, per HN tradition.
It's not doing that for me on mobile, either, both Firefox and Chrome are giving me miniscule images when I tap on them. Switching to landscape didn't help either, where is usually might.
Sites just shouldn't disable zooming, it's one meta tag. The browsers shouldn't offer this option at all. There are no legitimate reasons to disable zooming.
I am sure there are legitimate reasons to disable zooming. I do not like it either, of course, but off the top of my head:
- Websites relying on pixel-perfect layouts that do not gracefully adapt when zoomed
- Input Errors on touch devices
- Branding and aesthetics
- Embedded devices where a site is running in a controlled environment where zooming serves no practical purposes and disabling zooming prevents tampering, misuse, accidental UI scaling that disrupts normal operations
- Fixed-scale graphics or games where zooming distorts aspect ratios, crop controls, or even break gameplay mechanics
reply