RasputinsBro

I second this. You can't let your queries take unusable amounts of time, but below a certain threshold relevancy is infinitely more important.

I'm putting together a product which has a search feature and that uses Django + MySQL and I'm struggling with relevancy. I'd happily accept 500ms queries if that guaranteed me the relevant hit would be on the first page. That's FAR more usable than 50ms queries and then the relevant hit is on page 5.

If you actually believe that, I have two pieces of advice for you:

1) Stop reading Breitbart / Dailymail.

2) Go travel a bit.

Penguins? What are you talking about?

I don't care about low-level encryption details. That's why I use encryption software instead of coding my own.

I thought I had a way around that, but no.

You CAN add a phone number, then ask you use FreeOTP token, then delete the phone number. Great, right?

No. Because if you click that "I forgot my password / don't have access to my 2FA" button, they do let you use your phone number to identify yourself, even though you've deleted your number from your google account.

Fuck these people.

I disagree. It should treat unrecognized devices as any device. In other words, it shouldn't remember devices. Because you know, privacy.

The only thing I ask these services is that they won't let anyone in who doesn't have the right password. I think it's not too much to ask.

Dropbox only syncs the difference of the encrypted files. Truecrypt uses by default AES which encrypts blocks of size 256kb. It's almost as efficient as syncing without encryption.

No. AES encrypts blocks (I think 256kb?). So that's the only thing you have to sync.

Or your politicians are just corrupt. You know, it's a different possibility.

How about you fix your democracy and stop blaming everyone else?

Citation needed.

Is this something you read somewhere, liked how it felt, and are repeating it? Or do you have numbers, and if so show us.

So is yours. This thread is about media and propaganda, and you're talking about intel.

The "American media" did no such thing. One specific outlet made a correction about one specific story.

What about Fox News? Did they apologize?

> have engaged in considerable soul searching.

It is my opinion that absolutely nothing changed. It's still the same people with the same interests.

Thanks for the link, I'll read it.

So the US administration said a lie which was convenient for them, and the media repeated it. The Russian administration said a lie which was convenient for them, and the media repeated it. What's the difference exactly? Is the difference that the Russian gov has more influence in Russian media than the US gov has in US media?

Why is it that you treat one case as "look at their evil propaganda" and the other as "oh gee practices could be better"?

Let me be honest with you. I'm European so I shouldn't really have a stake here. But I look at the world and what I see is that US media is infinitely more influential in Europe than Russian media. Infinitely more influential in Europe than even European media, and that concerns me. So your "oh gee practices could be better but we're the good guys trust me" doesn't fly with me.

What's your view on the Washington Post writing how Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Legitimate opinion piece or fraudulent/faked proaganda?

I get that you're being sarcastic. But what's your actual point?

So the experts you know recommend a closed-source OS? They recommend something that no one has any idea what's inside above ANY OTHER consumer platform? You're joking, right? Can you put me in touch with these experts? I'd like to ask them about it directly.

Yeah, experts also tell you to avoid any mobile OS and you're claiming that Signal is the best secure messenger. What am I missing here?

So why is it that people like Assange and Snowden, whose lives arguably depend on these matters, choose PGP over anything else?

I'm no expert in security, but my intuition is that the likelihood that my signed ubuntu plus gpg leak secrets is significantly lower than my who-knows-what-the-hell-its-doing android with signal, right? You gotta agree with this at least.

Could someone explain to me the lore that email can't be make secure? It seems to me that all the steps described on this article could be automated behind the scenes by a good local email client.

It's not. What you say is true, but there's a crucial difference. 65 million people live in the UK and all of those have to pay their taxes in GBP. Also, all listed companies in the UK are listed in GBP. That guarantees that there will always be significant demand for GBP. Not the case for BTC. Note that I'm not saying that there WONT be other reasons that could generate demand for BTC, I'm just saying that BTC is nothing like GBP.

You pay your bills with BTC? Don't you mean that you pay your bills with USD, which you buy by selling BTC?

Ok, I would own 1/4 of all bitcoin and make only $250m profit tomorrow.

Happy? Do you miss the forest for the trees a lot, or only when you're on HN?

Except people are actually using GBP for something. BTC is just people holding on to it hoping it goes up.

Put differently, are there any circumstances where people would buy GBP expecting it to go down? What about BTC? That right there tells you the difference between the two.

I would rather own all of Bitcoin.

I'd sell it tomorrow and make about $1bn in profit and move on with my life.

EDIT: I'm editing this because people are missing the point. My point wasn't about how when 1 owner has absolute control BTC is worthless like this guy[1] seems to think or about the liquidity of BTC, like this guy[2] seems to think. My point was about the fact that the difference between BTC is that the only use it has is holding and hoping it moves up, whereas owning a company actually brings in earnings.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=code-is-code

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jawilson2

In other words, "a website that has people accounts and they can like other website's accounts".

> That proves the person logged into the account is authorised to log in, not that the owner of the account is a particular person or the same person that owns another account on another service.

Keybase can't know who the person logged into the account is either. But they can tweet, and so keybase will tell everyone that the twitter account which has signed tweets using my private keep is tweeting.

> You put your public (and private if you want) pgp key on there. Then you make public posts on your social media signed with that key. This way, you show everyone that you own these accounts or websites or whatever.

If I don't want to give keybase my private key, which I obviously don't, how can it sign my tweets?

What is even the use case of signing my tweets? Presumably if I can access my account, t's me. There's only two alternative scenarios: someone hacks my account, or twitter is trying to screw me. Is there really a use case for this? Other than a few very high risk individuals, I don't think there's a point in signing tweets.

One of us (or both) is missing something here :D

I'm not the guy you were talking to, but I still don't know what keybase actually is. Let me know if you understand it.

So they've rolled out their own encryption?

No, it's not. It says exactly nothing.

Thanks for that.

Is Keybase Git all hype then? Because the alternatives seem a lot better.

To be honest, I'm not even sure I understand what Keybase _is_.