evah

The site is open source: https://github.com/molly/tech-influence-watch

This was the day 25 problem: given a graph of ~1600 nodes and ~3500 edges, find the 3 edges that if deleted divide the graph into 2 components. I looked over some of the solutions and it surprised me how few used the simplest method: for each edge with endpoints u, v in the graph, delete it and then find another path P1 between u and v. Then, for each edge e1 in P1, delete it and then find another path P2 between u and v. Then, for each edge e2 in P2, delete it and then try to find another path between u and v. If there is no path, (u, v), e1, e2 is your cut-set. Otherwise, add e2 back and try the next edge in P2. When you've exhausted P2, add e1 back and try the next edge in P1. When you've exhausted P1, add (u, v) back and try the next edge in the graph. It's 3-6 loops deep depending on how you count, but it works. My python implementation completes in under 2 minutes, but it varies because it appears the standard python data structures have some nondeterminism, and I may have had a lucky draw with my puzzle input.

Tilde.club nearly meets your definition.[1] It's at least 1 decade and 15 days old, but it appears it's open to join for anyone.[2]

[1] https://tilde.club/ [2] https://medium.com/message/tilde-club-i-had-a-couple-drinks-...

If Apple delivers a defective device to the customer, I see no reason why they shouldn't be fixing it using the money the customer originally paid. A security vulnerability may eventually leave a device completely unusable.

Robert Miller, global director of books for the internet archive, stated in a documentary in 2013 that there had been an estimated 100 million books published in the world, that the archive had an initial target of 10 million, and that their book warehouse had space for 3 million. Based on those figures, 500k is a rather large number. Maybe some of those 500k are duplicate scans?

[1] https://archive.org/details/archive_documentary_internet_arc...

It's very distinctive on an elevation map.

https://mrgris.com/projects/oilslick/

I remember thinking there's no way that's not a crater.

One part of the proposal describes web servers getting information from attestors on the amount of activity coming from the user. And I imagine in the future web servers will contribute information back to the attestor indicating how likely they think the user is a bot based on their activity. I think, for sure, attestation accomplishes what it intends to. It's the end of the cat and mouse game. Tom catches and eats Jerry and there won't be a sequel.

I hope HN has a different blog post with its own take on WEI on the first page every day until the proposal is closed and Google publishes an apology and promises never to try this again. Maybe we can get Apple's web attestation removed too.

The author should have asked "Can we just implement it then?" because in some cases you literally can't implement the proposed API. That's the core issue with it. Unlike other contentious browser features, even if you wanted to implement attestation, it may be impossible to do so. More precisely, attestation may be impossible to implement on some platforms to the de facto standard that would develop over time. The de facto standard I refer to is the list of attestors web servers will accept. If your platform can't be attested by an approved attestor, you're screwed. That's why it's not that simple this time. The proposed attestation API is literally unimplementable in general. You can't implement it and you can't not implement it.

The proposed function is impossible to implement in general. More precisely, it's impossible to implement without specific hardware and operating system (you have one of a handful of choices) to the de facto standard that would develop over time if web servers came to depend on the behavior of the function. It would make the web decidedly not open.