dkoston

Appreciate the disclaimer.

One of the challenges you are facing is that people consume software illogically based on marketing and popularity rather than code review and fit.

Making sure to market and disclaim that this is a research implementation and should not be used in production is important, especially in cryptography where most people are novices and wouldn’t be qualified to review the code either way.

Not sure if OP is the author but thanks for sharing. Secret management is a challenge for a lot of folks.

For the authors, here are a couple of items that made it hard for me to evaluate the project:

1. This project doesn't build for me and some of the dependencies don't exist or are private repos which prevent me from building the project (https://github.com/CHURPTeam/CHURP/blob/master/src/cmd/bb.go...)

2. It's lacking godoc documentation which means it's hard for me to quickly see how the API works. As such, some of the API methods seem less than useful.

For example, `(Optional) storeSecret(SK)`. What does "optional" mean? What's the return value? What's SK?

(Optional) retrieveSecret() -> SK: What? I can only store a single secret? Without passing params to this, it seems so.

3. Project structure is not conventional (cmd/ inside src/)

This may not seem like a big deal but am I really going to trust my secrets without someone who didn't learn enough about go to use godoc and use a conventional project structure?

4. No tests

Again, doubtful I'm going to trust my secrets to a distributed network that's not tested.

Most likely the API Gateway speaks HTTP so it's no different than communicating with any other HTTP API. The API Gateway has a number of roles: routing requests to the right backend(s), checking the health of one or more backends, providing a single point of contact to the outside world (reduces the number of systems you have to lock down related to access from the public), holding api documentation, and others.

Think of the API gateway mostly as a router that allows you send requests to many different pieces of software behind it.

As far as patterns for HTTP Status Codes, you should take a look at the RFCs that define them: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-10

Same here on only service visit. That glass is huge! When I went to get the car tinted they didn’t even carry a piece of tint that large

This is a manufacturing defect. Contact Tesla service and they'll fix it. I had some areas of the factory tint on the moonroof that has holes in it and they replaced the moonroof without any hassles.

Agree that this seems suspect. Have had free domains with plenty of traffic on them for years.

We’re not even close to having the tech for bulletproof clothing that’s the same weight as jeans. Most level 4 body armor is either ceramic plates or steel plates. For level 2 (9mm), there are vests as light as 5 lbs. Midweight jeans typically weigh around 1 and would likely weigh 10+ lbs with the lightest level 2 available and be much thicker and stiffer.

Along with the invention of new tech, the price point seems at least an order of magnitude off for the foreseeable future.

It took a surprising amount of clicks to find this but the baud rate can be up to 50kbps. See "data rates":

https://lora-alliance.org/about-lorawan

If the gateway used to receive these requests cannot decrypt them and they pass through other connections before decryption, why wouldn’t this be possible? At the point of decryption you’d have the connecting IP of the last hop but if the origin IP isn’t forwarded, and there’s no request correlation ID or other identifying information, the machine processing the request wouldn’t know where the original request came from.

Of course any of the intermediate machines could be tracking this data for correlation purposes but it should be possible to strip it along the way.

If the request data containing the 424242 is encrypted and only the machine without origin info has access to that identifier, how would you know the request is for 424242?

They aren’t using your social graph, they are using location proximity and transmitting the data inside existing packets sent to cell towers for connectivity purposes. There’s already a ton of information passing to cell towers to identify and negotiate connections with phones that could be used to infer your social graph. You’d have to correlate that with a geo location database that knows about what type of locations you visit as there would be tremendous amounts of false signals at public places like restaurants and malls.

Long story short, Apple, cell tower operators, and mobile providers already have all the data they’d need to make these graphs. If this functions as designed, it will contain much less information and wouldn’t be useful for this purpose (I.e. encrypt requests and don’t pass IP info with them to any systems that have the ability to decrypt them. If you make a few hops to the systems which have the ability to decrypt them and don’t share correlation IDs or the origin IP, there’s no way to correlate these requests back to which device sent them or what IP or cell tower it had).

It would seem logical that this is more of “our brains can get overloaded and must shed the extra chaos” than we operate near a specific tipping point all the time. In a system that expends energy to do its job, a well designed system would try to regulate energy usage by optimizing on-the-fly and discarding activities using too much energy or energy in an inefficient way.

I find that browser automation impresses both adults and children. It would help to find something content relevant to them like for example, some multi page website where they would have to fill forms or click on things. Skip headless and launch it visible and show them how the computer can automate away repetitive tasks. Ideally, pick something concise and give them a peek at how you can do this in say 100 lines of code and they should see the power behind tools like this.

One of my interns did something like this for himself as the school’s dashboard for grades worked inconsistently (high school) so he built a tool that logged in once per hour and checked his grades for any changes and notified him when there were.

Build muscle and make sure you have enough protein intake to burn the fat while you do it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26817506/

You should also note that type of calories is more important than overall calorie count. Make sure that lean meats and vegetables are a large portion of your diet. Minimize processed food intake. Use carbs as side dishes, not main courses.

Curious about this. Are you expecting something different than going to the safari settings and enabling a third party content blocker? What are you looking for that isn’t offered by that feature?

Interesting. I may be biased in the other direction after reading "The Epigenetics Revolution" and "Junk DNA" by Nessa Carey.

ENCODE is such an amazing project! Also, thanks for your research on non coding DNA.

Whole genome sequencing on humans has only existed for 16 years (1). In 2003, the cost was prohibitive until NGS (next generation sequencing) techniques became commercialized. We can definitely disagree here as 15 years of research which in my worldview is focused mostly on coding DNA and karyotyping doesn’t seem like much to draw this conclusion. There’s plenty of decades old science that has shifted or been rewritten due to the rise of new techniques related to faster computing power.

It’s quite possible that I’m biased based on the labs I’m familiar with and papers I’ve been reading. I just haven’t seen the focus that you are talking about.

1 https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/timeline-history-of-genomic...

I have to disagree. Whole genome sequencing has only been prevalent in the past few years. I can agree that much of this has to do with the cost and complexity involved and the rise of new techniques and more computing power has opened up whole genome sequencing which has only been around since 2003 (1) and has been highly expensive and not used frequently until recently (2).

The majority of research I’ve come across in the past decade has been still focusing on DNA microarrays and qPCR which are focused on coding DNA. Perhaps I’m not seeing all the papers published for the studies you are familiar with and as such have a bias to believe that only a small portion of research is using NGS and is focused on non coding DNA.

1 https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/timeline-history-of-genomic... 2 https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/25/R2/R157/2198171

Agreed, maybe I misspoke but I wasn’t aware of any place I said it did.

“Junk DNA” is a well accepted term by the scientific community and public.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-junk-dna-...

Humorous take on my point: https://www.amazon.com/Junk-DNA-Journey-Through-Matter/dp/02...

I think my main point was missed which is: “labeling something as non useful and leaving it out of the majority of DNA sequencing as a result has made large swathes of the scientific community unaware of how non coding DNA works within the DNA ecosystem”. I think it’s unfortunate that the community doesn’t label this as “exciting area of unknown science” which would encourage investigation.

Maybe my wording wasn’t clear. I never implied that everyone is ignoring non coding DNA. My point was that it seems naive or arrogant to label something as “not useful” rather than “use unknown”. It makes it less likely that a larger amount of people will investigate it.

I think you should also use some data to back up your point because it’s my understanding that the majority of DNA sequencing ignores non coding DNA and the article makes the same point. You also have no idea what field I work in so I’d suggest perhaps asking before coming to the conclusion without any data.

I’m assuming more than 2% efficiency would be achieved. I could be wrong but why would I assume that when most other systems in the body are massively more efficient that DNA would be the outlier?

Sure, I even made this point when I pointed out that the appendix has gotten carried along for the ride in another comment.

Do you really believe that 75-98.8% of our DNA serves no purpose and is being carried along for the ride? That doesn't seem like a small inefficiency.

I can absolutely appreciate that we are a series of mutations.

To say that there is no benefit or detriment to having an arched nose or not also seems naive. It’s likely that the shape of your nose can affect how much air passes to your lungs, how likely it is to be sun burnt or not, and many other things. Just because the values or benefits might be minuscule compared to other things doesn’t mean they do not exist. Tiny optimizations are common in all systems and they should not be overlooked.

To say that massive portions of our DNA “have no benefit” without having proof of such, seems naive to me. It’s ok for others to disagree; clearly the majority of the scientific community does. It’s just unfortunate that we have been ignoring the possibility that this large portion of our DNA could have effects on our system. In the article above, it’s not benefits that matter but risks. We shouldn’t only care about parts of our body that may bring benefit but also those which may harm us.

As far as baldness goes, this is a trait that could be seen as a benefit. Some females may desire a mate with high levels of DHT and baldness is a good indicator that a being has high levels. There are many visual traits (see birds) that allow the narrowing of selection for potential mates.

Here’s the Wikipedia quote:

> When there is much non-coding DNA, a large proportion appears to have no biological function, as predicted in the 1960s. Since that time, this non-functional portion has controversially been called "junk DNA".[1]

It’s not all non-coding DNA that is “junk”, just the stuff that “has no purpose”.

I’m arguing that it is much more likely that we don’t understand its purpose and should treat it as such rather than dismissing it as “junk”.

I don’t believe it exists without benefit. Nature can certainly phase parts of our system out over time (appendix) but to say it is without benefit is a bold statement. I’d argue that we simply don’t know the purpose and dismissing it as non-beneficial is arrogant or naive. Science should be based around evidence rather than lack of.

As it seems to imply that this area of our DNA has no significant value. It seems highly unlikely to me that there is a large mass of DNA in our body that doesn’t affect our overall system. I relate this to people believing for long periods of time that animals cannot tell time or remember things for long periods of time and then later realizing that they can do both.

If we were given an explanation of "this type of DNA used to do X but since Y happens, it is no longer used", I'd be more apt to believe in "junk DNA". Without explanation for what it is for or what it was for, saying it is junk seems naive.

How naive or arrogant do scientists have to be to think that we have “junk” DNA that doesn’t affect how we develop? Wouldn’t it be much more useful to classify things we don’t understand as “unknown purpose X” so that more people are inclined to study them?

/end venting

It's really hard to give you proper advice without understanding what these side projects are or how many people use them.

It's all about managing risk and reward so it totally depends on how much you are charging, what the product or service is, and how many (and what type of) people are using it.

Forming an LLC that holds all of your side projects isn't a massive expense and it can actually make things a lot easier for you. If your LLC has a bank account and you fund it for expenses and take all revenue through it, accounting will be much easier than interlaced debits and credits in your personal bank account.

Skimping out on legal is a big turn off to investors as well so it depends on whether or not you are trying to grow any of these projects into businesses. LLCs are super flexible structures that can be easily modified later should you need to spin out a project into it's own company, change to C/S corp, or use a series LLC (not all 50 states recognize) to separate assets or liabilities.

Another thing to consider is your personal assets and risk. If you own a home, make good money, or have a sizable amount of assets, spending a few hundred or few thousand to protect them seems logical.

None of this is legal advice, I'm not an attorney.

Lol, proxy all my file uploads through your servers, no thanks!

Likely that OP used the browser on their mobile phone alongside other apps

I think we are talking about the same issue in different ways.

What’s clear is that this is either about internal efficiency at JPMC or marketing hype. This has no benefits for retail banking customers, unless JPMC provides new benefits (cheaper transfers). It certainly is not transformative to retail clients.