2,311 karma · joined March 8, 2013
Using VNC here is super clever. This means that the "automation" part of the phishing attack is actually a browser just like the user is using, so you can't fingerprint it. In fact, the victim is really typing in their password into a real Google login page, but the attacker is logging everything through VNC. It's going to be very hard for Google (or anyone else) to detect this.
The solution to this (like all phishing attacks), is still WebAuthn. However, many of us in security were hoping we could get by with bandaids like fingerprinting until WebAuthn was more widespread.
The reason I made this was an old Amazon interview question. The question was basically, "Find the median of a huge data set without sorting it," and the "correct" answer was to have a fixed size sorted buffer and randomly evict items from it and then use the median of the buffer. However, a candidate I was interviewing had a really brilliant insight: if we estimate the median and move it a small amount for each new data point, it would be pretty close. I ended up doing some research on this and found P^2, which is a more sophisticated version of that insight.
It's pretty good!
This sounds like a great anti-account takeover program. I imagine with all of the various compliance programs they have to deal with and the legal risk, these are prudent measures.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20180416171148/http://squid314.l...
However if you followed all of Sam's advice to the letter you could remain relatively unsuccessful despite all that advice. That's what survivorship bias is about: there's a significant luck component to success.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost...
If you define free will as future choices cannot be predicted based on history, then it turns out that if humans have free will, so do elementary particles. To me, this doesn't mean we don't have free will, but instead the linear, deterministic model that's often used to discount free will is just not how the universe works.
Note that this result does not depend on statistical randomness like some of quantum mechanics, but just three simple axioms. I highly recommend reading the full paper, especially the end, "Free Will Versus Determinism".
You should consider security as a second career if you ever get bored with marketing.
What tools do you use keep all of your virtualenvs up to date?
However, home prices (including condos) have risen drastically because of the limited supply. There's no new space for single family homes, and because of a Washington law which increases liability for developers, few new condominium buildings are built.
The alternative (using Telegram's homegrown and dubious cryptography and lack of actually encrypted group messages) is significantly worse. Here's a nice summary of the issues: https://security.stackexchange.com/a/49802/43733
My main point is that it is not a surprise that he attracts alt-right types when he is tweeting dog whistles[2] while claiming not to be a member of that group.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/7hkbzo/is_j... [2]: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/85146415170895052...
> KEK boys. Seek your 4chan. Don't stay in the underworld. Author your future. Code PEPE. Free 4 U 4 1 wk.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/85146415170895052...
Here's a discussion on the alt-right following of Peterson on his subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/7gb5af/is_j...
What of all of the other areas of psychology? If IQ was found to be completely spurious, we'd still have other psychological research. IQ is not foundational like he claims.
It's like Peterson has never read the criticisms[1] of the Bell Curve and believes it in its entirely. His lectures and interviews on the subject are really just a rehashing of the same, mostly discredited arguments. Even Charles Murray has stepped back from a single number determinant of a single kind of intelligence[2].
[1]: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.htm...
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20050205010706/http://www.skepti...