parent5446

Do you have any data to back that up? If it's so easy to report Uber drivers, where's Uber's statement showing the data it has collected regarding its supposed lower offense rates? Why hasn't the London government taken into account this data? Or is the best evidence available random anecdotes?

Are you saying Uber is the safer option? Did you miss the part where they are violating the safety regulations, and where cab companies are not?

It's not a ban on ride-sharing. It's a ban on a single specific company: Uber. And the ban is because Uber was routinely violating sensible regulations.

I'm not so sure. I didn't know what London black cabs were and I still read it as (black cab) driver. I just assumed black cabs meant something like black car cabs, e.g., Uber SUV.

If you hope to live, you should comply with $random_armed_thug, especially if they are not lawfully authorized. In fact, the less authorized, the more you should comply, unless you're saying you should start fighting an armed mugger in order to protect your wallet.

Oh please that's an absurd argument. Nobody here is saying we should ban every possible dangerous thing. The question becomes what are the recreational benefits of using the drug when weighed against the possible risks and side-effects. If you're willing to present statistics that more people overdose on caffeine than cause violent crime on mushrooms, then maybe you'll have something.

Just curious, is it still possible to get to this beach by boat? Personally I wouldn't want to chance a trespass charge, but sea access might be a way around it.

It stands for Document Requesting All Faults and Technicalities. (Source: I have a PhD in speaking out of my ass.)

Was going to say. He could have at least stole the other counter-articles as well.

These have everything to do with AirBnB. The problems he lists are inherent to the platform, i.e., a website where random people rent out their property to other random people. The competition (the hotel "platform") does not have this problem. AirBnB could attempt to fix things by being stricter with hosts, providing better guarantees to renters, etc. But they don't.

I didn't realize you were one of the HN moderators. Would you mind putting this ban on paywalled articles into the FAQ?

It doesn't matter whether he does or not. He's using your own argument against you. Stepping in here and saying, "don't worry guys I'm the expert, so don't ask any questions", is just pompous and doesn't actually convince anybody. Use logic to support your claims, not your resume.

"America" is a very large place. The taxi experience in NYC is going to be very different than somewhere in North Dakota (or even just another city, like Los Angeles).

I'm just saying I think that's what the parent comment is saying. As for whether Debian actually said that...well that's anybody's guess.

I mean, I think the comment was pretty clear, and that sounds like exactly what they said.

I mean, in this case the hard drive was bad, and they were purposefully scanning the entire drive in hopes of recovering his data. I'd say it's only natural for somebody to come across hidden data when the entire service is to recover said data.

What question are you paraphrasing that somehow translates to shooting people? My question was about shooting down drones.

Also when it comes to self-defense laws, most states require the shooter to genuinely believe he/she is in mortal danger before shooting. Sure some states have stand your ground laws that allow more, but I would not say it's so clear-cut that people can just start shooting other people or property when they believe their rights are being violated.

It's not the people's decision as to whether a drone is violating the law. If you were arguing having the government have that right or responsibility that's a lot different. But even so shooting down aircraft is not something that should be done likely. There's a reason the FAA makes it completely illegal. Shooting a drone for flying over your property could make it go out of control and injure others.

Are you implying it would be a good policy to start shooting down drones in domestic airspace? What problems would that solve? How would you know which drones to shoot down.

The entire comment is written in third-person. The correction is simply following the same pattern as the original text. I really don't think the author was trying to avoid any blame on the mistake. This is maybe reading a little too deeply into it.

So I know it's bash United week, but to be honest this is not even near the worst I've seen from large-company apps.

Obviously their onboarding process is terrible, but putting new users aside, the app works pretty fine for existing customers. It gives you your boarding I passes, flight status, and reservations automatically. You change seats and check your upgrade status. I've even booked fligjts via the mobile app before (I've never seen that "something has gone wrong" dialogue at the end).

Overall I've found it functional, which I cannot say for many other apps made by large companies (I'm looking at you Chase).

And I wouldn't go so far as to say the lack of great user onboarding experience represents some sort of culture problem. Maybe they just don't have a large team? Maybe their engineers don't have UX experience? Maybe they haven't done user onboarding studies and realized these problems? (Personally I think it's lack of staffing, but I don't actually know anybody who works on the app.)

Entirely predicated on the "once people start doing this", which most people won't.

Or just get a credit card through your local bank (or anything with a nearby physical branch). I've had corporate cards replaced and reprinted for me same-day.

Clearly others have. I guess you can consider yourself lucky. It's a matter of mitigating risk.

Surprisingly I have not run into those compile time issues. Maybe it's just my company's own infrastructure, but our TS projects, which can get rather large, all recompile in less than five seconds.

This is why I prefer not to pass session information to the client in the first place. Have the session key be just an opaque, cryptographically random token that is then associated with data on the server (via a keystore of some sort). Then the cookie becomes nothing more than a bearer token.

There are some use cases this does not cover, such as authentication across multiple systems, where one or more may not have access to the authentication source, but even in that case it'd be preferable to have a separate, internal, private microservice that exchanges tokens for session information.

None of this will stop an attacker that has network access, but that's not what the article is considering, and if somebody is inside your network you might have bigger problems than session hijacking.

Huh? All Google native apps use Android's account syncing, which definitely supports using Authenticator for U2F. I'm confident it's also possible to implement it on other apps, although it's a matter of those app developers doing so.

I agree with your first sentence, but I don't think that's what the article was saying. (Or at the very least, it was poorly written enough such that that did not come across.)

This article: what a shitfest.

But seriously, I was expecting some actual discussion about how GPG still isn't easy (or possible for that matter) in modern webmail clients, or even something relating to the usability of common GPG GUIs, but instead just got a guy complaining about how he was pressing enter too fast and missed a dialog box, among other nonsense complaints.

Personally, the GPG CLI acts exactly as I expect it to, being a CLI and all, and I don't expect non-advanced users to use it.

This makes no sense in so many ways. I suggest you read more on exactly how Signal relies on Google. It does not at all compromise the encryption protocol. Also Tox? Good luck with that.

Direct link to Google's post: https://blog.google/products/maps/new-year-new-look-ride-ser...