Olscore

Right, but you would still bypass the rate limiting of the server whether that be login attempts, http requests per second, firewall rules, latency or whatever when checking.

Ah derp. Totally forgot about rate limiting. Thank you.

Question: From my understanding bcrypt is designed for security even when the hashed data is leaked. Each piece of data is uniquely salted and hashed to perhaps varying degrees of difficulty. So for a thought experiment, let's say a site made the password column of their user database public. Given an entirely public password column, even with associated usernames, would this have any use or decrease the security of those user accounts at all, aside from the obvious that their username is known?

Just glancing at the design I can see that the whitespace is all messed up. The previous design was more compact, one could easily view most or all of the necessary information in a smaller space. But that is just glancing at it. The newer design seems to be following the newer web motif of flat design, generous space, etc.

Back in the 2007-2010 era of websites, somebody mentioned that "ugly" websites work. Not that fancy or flat design is bad. But the sheer simplicity of ugly websites forces people to focus on the content, context and functionality. The ugly websites pointed out were MySpace and Craigslist mainly, but you could probably add a few others like Drudge Report and Plenty of Fish. Even Hacker News is pretty "ugly" but it obviously works great.

If you like Dwarf Fortress, you might like a game called: Factorio

jQuery sizes by version and compression: https://mathiasbynens.be/demo/jquery-size

Solid list. Operating several sites today, modern search engines do not require keywords or description tags for content to be effective. So if you operate a blog, or custom site don't put much effort or time into it. If you are looking to cut down on dev time in real world sites, the most important thing are [1] title, [2] http-equiv, [3] charset, [4] canonical, and [5] viewport. Those first 3 will be sufficient for most purposes, i.e., MVP websites.

This may not be a good idea. Code is one of those things that by itself sucks until you have a reason or purpose to use it. I started learning coding around age ~9 in 1996 or so. But what got me hooked was websites, because I could use the code to build fan sites or accomplish real, purposeful tasks. I feel like just shoving code at kids isn't going to do much unless they are also incentivized to use it somehow.

That domain name is terribly ambiguous. One of those brand names that doesn't translate well to a domain. Keep reading the domain as gears. Hah. PSA to anyone building a brand or picking a name.

Discovered a quote from Sid Meier's the other day; he says "A game is a series of interesting choices."

From that perspective, the definition of a game and what constitutes gaming changes dramatically. It undercuts the question here. Preventing a game from being randomly boring is an odd question. A better question might be, how can we keep the player's decision-making interesting, regardless of what is generated? The article says it directly, but misses the golden quote which I think is essential. That quote offers up some really unique ways to define a game too. Very cool.

When I first saw this ad I really enjoyed the concept of it (work in video production.) Not something you see often. Maybe that will change. To me, it's interesting because [1] the consumer has to be familiar enough with the product so much that even its price is memorized, and [2] just seeing a company apologize for a price increase is rare in American culture.

Was just saying the other day how it sucks seeing the web change. It's like when musicians complain about the music industry being over produced and too commercialized. I remember back in the 90's how excited I was just by making links underline or change color (before CSS.) Thought it was the coolest thing ever. The web used to be a place to find people who shared the same interests and I feel that is no longer the case. Everything is hyper focused on metrics; likes, re-blogs, shares, comments, etc. It's pointless.

> You said that fat people should be shamed because being fat makes you sick

Haha, is this a joke? Is anyone else seeing this insanity?

> Really? Worse then actual suffering and societal costs is the treatment of obesity as a disease and not a character flaw? Not only should people suffer, but they should be shamed for it.

What an overly sensitive response. How ridiculous is Hacker News? Where did I say anything about [1] the suffering, [2] societal costs, or [3] treatment of obesity as a disease?

Mentioned it's political and has a media component to it, get attacked. There factually are people, like the parent comment, who will not fairly discuss the issue on neutral terms. Derailed into personal attacks, insensitivity, or straw man arguments like the above comment. How can HN parade itself as intellectual discussion when it can't even handle benign comments.

The 641M number provides context for the media narratives regarding fat acceptance and body shaming. Perhaps worse than the epidemic of people being overweight, is growing sympathy to accept and not to do anything about it. If you have been following social justice issues you will understand what I am referring to. This issue is beyond health, since it has been made political. Addressing it likely requires fighting back against rhetoric from the fat acceptance movement. (Not looking for an argument, just saying.)

I don't want driverless cars because half the time I don't even know where I am going. I routinely drive aimlessly around to discover new locations, listen to music and explore. Could driverless cars be programmed for a "scenic mode" and take me on curated tours by other people? Sure, yeah that might be cool. Though nothing will replace the spontaneity of deciding street by street, if I should go left, right or straight at an intersection; where I should stop to enjoy food or drink in an unfamiliar place; or accidentally discovering a part of town I never knew existed. Driverless cars, to me, feels like a small death in the spirit of human exploration.

Sets a bad precedent. Next they'll be analyzing receipts and purchases an hour or two before to determine if you were at a bar, working too late (tired), or whatever. Submit your health data as well, maybe your decision making was impaired by poor diet and lack of exercise.

> In statistical terms, these dismissals are little more than a call for overfitting - if I can arbitrarily add more dimensions to a theory, I can make it fit any data set.

Sure. However, this leads me to believe it is statistics that are the problem, and not nuance. You are in my opinion admitting that nuance invalidates most statistics, or at least allows for heavy manipulation of the statistics to fit any narrative. This is precisely why public policy should not be made using statistics. Society should not be likened to a turing machine. People, history and so many topics of discussion are full of nuance, detail and perspective; and disregarding nuance (or perspectives) is insulting to the truth.

Cashless societies are advanced as a solution to problems of moral decay. E.g., doing business under the table, not reporting taxes due to governments, or performing an illicit transaction. In many ways, advocacy of a cashless society is admittance that people are dishonest, and therefore all transactions should be made electronic. Instead of strengthening individual morality, workaround solutions are proposed -- like those trying to fix a morally bankrupt society via algorithmic systems that require no morality whatsoever.

So whether it be a government sponsored currency, perhaps a world currency, to stop bad behavior and bad actors; or a public blockchain (Anarcho-capitalism). We as a society are now faced with a moral decision centered around privacy and how much of it should be entrusted to governments. Notice how the thesis of cryptocurrencies is trust-less systems, because people / governments are assumed to be nefarious by default. That is a big nuance being ignored. Ultimately (IMO) this is an issue of morality. One which benefits from reading history, analogy, literary examples or anything for that matter. We are seeing a tug of war between citizenry and governments in the financial and cryptographic realms. This is relevant.

The financial system and notions of a cashless society foster a growing anti-government sentiment. It is obvious in this and other threads; a strong pushback against government, which all relate back to the Books mentioned. It is difficult to ignore the religious or moral contexts of this topic.

Especially peculiar when Bitcoin has already established a cult following, complete with a pseudo-church which evangelizes. Not to mention it was created by a supposedly anti-government (Satoshi) person "yet to be revealed". Is playful conjecture not fair discussion? You can clearly see companies are racing to research cryptocurrencies, artificial intelligence, and what same may argue as anti-government measures.

So, I think a real world subject -- is subject -- to everything of the real world. Like the written Words of The Bible and anything else that exists for good interpretation. When 2+ Billion people identify as Christian, and they (potentially) push back against cashless societies, it will become exceptionally relevant.

Friends who are replying, my intent is not to stir up debate between Christians or about religion. The Books mentioned are relevant to this topic. They are good reading for anyone interested. Based on the down votes it seems HN would rather not include them while discussing this topic; which is all the more reason to go read them for yourself. They remain significant in our modern culture, e.g., music, books, movies and the lives of billions of people (worldwide.) While 1984 and many other dystopian novels are good for thought experiments...

These Books are relevant both historically and today.

A good conversation of "why we should fear a cashless world" should at least mention the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel in The Bible. It would be negligent to omit them from discussion like this.

You are conflating the message with the example given. The point is simply this; some are too eager to solve resource contention issues via population reduction, which is not at all stimulating nor is it innovative. It is the lazy way out, and should really be a last resort or option. I do appreciate your point, but I would like people to be less eager to buy into population control. Encouraging alternative solutions instead; innovations of efficiency, waste reduction, or inventions which are more preferable than population control.

There is a growing group of people who believe the world is over populated. I want to push back against that mentality a little bit, because we should not resign ourselves to hopeless thinking. There are plenty of things we can do to improve our situation before resorting to dramatic actions. I want to avoid "there is no other solution" like thinking. Once we stop looking for other solutions, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is what I mean by lazy and morally hazardous.

Another user has already (unapologetically) advanced population reduction arguments. I want to preempt that discussion by condemning it as lazy, selfish thinking. Controlling population as a solution to economic, environmental or similar issues of resource contention is a morally hazardous slippery slope; it should not be welcome in the realm of innovation and ingenuity specifically because it is not innovative or constructive at all. Design solutions around population growth or exit the conversation.

Each of us can look towards the sky and see the sprawling space and resources available. We have companies today organized under the premise to go out and mine asteroids, explore other planetary bodies and much more. Yet, some continue talking as if the Earth were more valuable than the only thing (humans) that can ascribe it value. Gaia worship and similar propaganda should be exposed for the anti-human agenda it is. I sincerely despise this line of thinking.

Whether we like it or not, humanity is the steward of this Earth. Being good stewards of our resources SHOULD NOT first appeal to last-ditch efforts like controlling the population. We all have imaginations; along with the ability to create solutions to problems. Stop perpetuating the idea that future generations are evil, bad, doomed or unwanted; they are very welcome and wanted. Now, and always. Our parents did not put our generation to slaughter for selfish reasons, so we have no justification for it either.

Instead of proposing anti-humanist goals of little thought or substance, set your mind to work and stop being intellectually lazy. We already have hints from various nations who have tried to control populations, with evidence of detrimental and unintended side-effects. I am by no means saying there are simple fixes. But immediately jumping to population control is pure lazy thinking.

My intrigue is more-so the possibilities (extrapolating the idea) of doing this in other countries. Being able to EASILY incorporate a business in another country, regardless of the owner's country of residency, could have profound effects on economies and business models. Yes, conglomerates are already able to do this. However, making incorporation in another country easier for low-budget, small businesses, or new entrepreneurs would be an interesting new capability which is not currently feasible. In other words, lowering the barriers to entry for accomplishing that task.

If a single entrepreneur could configure a multi-national business that would be interesting. For what purposes or benefit, that is up for imagination and debate. But this whole idea is interesting from a globalization standpoint. I do understand where you are coming from regarding crypto-currencies; I was merely referring to them as a transfer of value mechanism.

Without descending into a long topic, there are still issues with issuing colored coins or stocks using crypto-tokens. For example, where do you litigate issues or handle shareholder complaints? Crypto-stocks are still premature and lacking proper frameworks; real world case studies and success stories are needed. Crypto-companies still rely on geography bound jurisdictions to handle hosting, accounting, laws, etc. Perhaps in the future many issues will be resolved with crypto-autonomous contracts (in theory.) Or with other agreements and digital court systems, etc. In the meantime, if you issue a crypto-stock, the reality is shareholders need legal systems to work within, otherwise crypto-stocks are literally dust without any enforceability.

While I don't have much to add, this is very interesting and almost feels patriotic (as an American.) Stripe is, in a way, hacking the global economy and luring entrepreneurs to the do business in the United States. While this iteration may fall short of perfection, or open questions, it also opens up some imagination and interesting ideas or possibilities.

Could this be the beginning of startups offering citizens of one country, the ability to (easily) incorporate / operate a business from any nation? Perhaps this is more interesting when considering crypto-currencies which are already eroding national boundaries in some sense. While I cannot say this is a good or bad thing, it is interesting to think about the consequences and evolution of this concept plus crypto.

To me, the idea of operating a business (pseudo-person or entity) in any nation, is intriguing. Especially mixing in the possibilities of Ethereum, Blockchains. Forex. Hm... Imagination running wild right now.

> I cannot imagine how it can possibly get any worse.

Your imagination is severely lacking then.