drivebyacct2

This is why I suspect they've drug their feet on Google Voice integration. They want to make that seamless. You want to call [Person] and you shouldn't have to even think about whether it's over Hangouts or PTSN.

That's what Google Voice will give them. You call them from the Hangouts app and they pass it through Google Voice if they're not signed into any Hangout machines. It roughly works this way already for existing GV users.

No idea, I'm taking the GP at their word, their phrasing made me think that they work in the browser space and know that as a fact.

I can't say I've inspected Chrome specifically in Wireshark, nor looked at the code, so I will refrain from making any claims; I simply don't know.

What are we supposed to take away from those links? The latter isn't even written from the perspective of Microsoft, it's just another generic {Open/Web}GL rant (if anything, you've granted MS legitimacy here by acknowledging other legitimate complaints about the spec).

Yes, I was annoyed when they boldly claimed they wouldn't be supporting it at all. I'm also gracious enough to say "Thanks" when handed a gift. The IE team is clearly making an effort.

Is that even true now that IE11 keeps itself auto-updated to the latest major version?

Usually I groan when people complain about the Malware features in Chrome in relation to privacy but this is definitely one I'd not heard of. The hash of the whole file is bad enough, but even if it were unique, the full URL could easily contain sensitive information or information about the file contents.

The "freakout" in the "media" outside of the HN/reddit/internet bubble is mostly obsessed with "Where in the World is Carmen, I mean Edward, Snowden?" and not so much in the whole PRISM, constant universal wiretapping scandal.

/me nods

http://html5labs.interoperabilitybridges.com/cu-rtc-web/cu-r...

Wow. IE11 looks like it has some really great stuff in it, particularly the dev tools, even over the WebGL. Props to the IE team!

This is a terribly written, horribly sourced, mash up of information that has been known for some time.

>Access to Windows source code is supposed to be highly compartmentalized, actually making such actions easier because many of the people working on the software wouldn’t see the access.

Uhm, okay.

Why would someone make that their goal?

Not a single drop (that I've seen, and I'm a sucker for clicking on all the Skype-fud-bait links)

"Crackpots"? Is this a serious, honest comment? Or is a crackpot anyone who doesn't choose and create philosophically and technically inferior products for the sake of "Just one more social network that will surely be worth millions if I can make it centralized and proprietary and non-inter-operable and get just enough users." SOUNDS GREAT.

"P2P is harder to build" is an equally loaded statement, though you've caught my intrigue. I wrote a WebRTC signaling server in a weekend that is capable of letting peers establish N:N connections with each other for video conferencing.

Outside of cases where TURN would have been necessary, the clients were all connected, P2P with encrypted connections. (And even with TURN, I believe end-to-end encryption could be ensured, but the traffic would go through a third party)

wrong on top of wrong on top of wrong.

Like I said, people still don't get it.

Supernodes are a directory service. "Traffic" as in text and video traffic rarely, if ever, is transmitted through Supernodes.

I just explained that.

You and I have a secure P2P connection (aka Skype). But my client and your client check hashes of URLs against a third party service before transmitting the message to the other person.

There, you can blacklist URLs and it doesn't send any message contents to anyone (only hashes of ONLY urls) and then sends the actual full message, encrypted on the wire.

It's not hard to conceive how this system would work.

Seriously? I give up.

If used properly they should have an identical result.

I can think of ways, but I don't know how Skype does it. The client could have a local blacklist, they could only send hashes of URLs to a server, etc.

In what way is imgur not a gift "to" reddit? It might not have been "exclusively for reddit", but I'm willing to be a huge sum of money that most top subreddits, including the first 4 pages of the frontpage are dominated by imgur links.

imgur was the first image host (before minus) that didn't suck, wasn't anti-user, freely allowed hotlinking and had a minimal page when they didn't hotlink.

It's almost never down and the links don't magically fail or expire after they get lots of traffic like many other hosts.

Yeah, I just Inspect Element and look for the real <img> tag.

I've been saying this for, probably close to a year now. Moving supernodes from being personal consumers to running in a cloud is a good thing and has minimal impact on privacy.

Even comments here indicate people clearly didn't read this email or fail to understand it at all.

I don't know, I guess I have a very pessimistic view of interviews asking these sorts of questions almost vindictively.

I'd prefer questions and problems and challenges that I'm likely to face and address as an engineer.

If Google hires engineers to answer "brain teasers" that either require a dozen exceptions/qualifications or some vague random nonsensense answer, then more power to them.

(But I doubt they do, they wouldn't be where they were if their hiring practices didn't work to some degree.)

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but why would I be worried about Google?

I search through Bing. My email is through Hotmail/Outlook. My online cloud sync is through Skydrive. Why am I cowering from Google any more than MS or anyone else that I give huge amounts of my data too?

And my point is that there's about a zero percent chance that the person making that decision, or even giving significant feedback about it, is going to be within 20 feet of the people in question who will be implementing it.

Or more practically that they would do a roll-out release (as they did) and increase capacity as they go. All questions for devops, the product manager or some type of an "Architect" working with analytics to estimate demand and volume.

To imply that a single engineer in a room with no information about Gmail's infrastructure is supposed to know that without (any information about: technologies, storage, indexing, user volume, mail volume, etc) seems absolutely fucking stupid. If they want to hear me think aloud about these things and know that I can be cognisant of them... well... there are better ways of doing that than asking me stupid questions that it's stupid for me to even try and answer.

As someone else said, simply changing the question from "How many gas stations are there in NY" to "How would you estimate the number of gas stations in NY" makes it entirely different, IMO.

What a truly, truly, truly absurd statement. I run my own webserver and have Roundcube exposed. It's only accessible via my VPN and even then, it's HTTPS. So tell me, how are you planning to compromise that?

> basically the authorities will have access to your e-mails anyway

How is this not the wide assumption being made right now? How is there ANY question remaining of whether or not they have such access?

> the most dangerous aggregation of personal information

Speak for yourself.

That's a complicated question with a complicated, nuanced, business-driven answer.

Ask for code. TALK about algorithms at a high level. I have an aptitude for reading people, but my day two impressions of coding with a new person tend to lead to valid assumptions about them months later.

Same here, amazingly happy with LastPass and it even makes logging in on mobile a breeze :)

Yes, precisely. Local running malware = owned, period.