qqii

I'd argue that false data doesn't achieve this, it just confuses everything. Using an analogy in programming terms, it would be like `job_title <- Maybe "NULL"` whereas they really ment `job_title <- Nothing`.

Exactly, or expulge and refuse to provide job titles? That begs the question, why do they provide this information to third parties anyway?

If it is for secrecy then why not delete the information and inform those who ask they do not hold such information? The issue was the discrepancy when a third party tried to verify, and I'm sure third parties would quickly learn to work around the fact?

Instead making everyone associates is like an error propagating far from it's call site until an exception (this article) is raised.

There is a follow up, where he get another popup: https://nitter.42l.fr/linusgsebastian/status/148185562555858...

> Challenge: How would you go about writing a function that reverses a string while leaving symbols encoded as sequences of code points intact? Can you do it from scratch? Is there a package available in your language that can do it for you? How did that package solve the problem?

So are there any good libraries that can deal with code points that are merged together into a single pictographic and reverse them "as expected"?

From the threat it looks like Linus' threat model for git is simply different from the common use today. Of course a judgement under a different threat model would make it seem like a bad tradeoff!

There's no reason you cannot construct a token that can be frozen and reversed - USDT (other issues as side) being an example. Accounts as we know them don't have to be at the level of public address-private key but rather a smart contract as seen by Loopring.

The difference is what was centralised is now decentralised, what was implicit and required trust is now explicit and requires formal verification.

Thank you.

Also, taking the website name literally leads to a very boring time. If we define translatable as having a surjection between languages then many commenters have shown examples of even the most difficult to translate phrases explained in a blog or article.

Instead the subreddit's description[0] is a far better description, and the discussion on each phrase about possible translations or similar ideas in different languages is a lot of fun!

[0]: Post quirky and niche words/phrases from foreign languages that can't easily be translated.

I find it very strange that this HN thread is full of people taking the website name hyper literally.

The about page mentions that this is a UI for the subreddit of the same name, which is focused on "Post quirky and niche words/phrases from foreign languages that can't easily be translated."

Personally the discussion for possible translations is far more interesting than the slightly misleading subreddit and site name.

Having seen the English translations for my native tongue a lot of these translations are only surface level and quite lossy.

Even if the mapping between languages is surjective, certain ideas and phrases are difficult to translate whilst maintaining the succinctness of dialogue and are practically difficult to translate.

Considering translatability as a spectrum obviously "does not translate" is a hyperbole, and shouldn't be taken literally at face value. Hopefully you'd agree that most words on this list are at least on the difficult end of the spectrum.

Having checked my own language I'd describe the list not as being unable to translated outright, but of susinct ideas that are not normally expressed in English.

A literal or detailed and contextful translation does not express the same "feeling" as in the native tongue, which you could argue as a what is impossible to translate.

I recently found the "New to you" category bubble that's solved this issue for me.

I don't know how they sort the categories but I've only found the "New to you" at the start or end of the list.

It's not very discoverable but the category bubbles includes one called "New to you".

I've only seen it right at the start or end of the list.

> Are there charges or fee associated with coin mining? > Norton Crypto is included as part of Norton 360 subscriptions. However, there are coin mining fees as well as transaction costs to transfer Ethereum. > The coin mining fee is currently 15% of the crypto allocated to the miner.

Using a bloom filter as a distributed hash means you're edging quite close to a blockchain, the only question your schema now has is consensus - how is work examined for trustworthiness? What prevents network spam?

I haven't puzzled it though but intuitively it feels like you wouldn't be able to achieve the "same validity" (aka you'd have a weaker set of guarentees) without the liveness of a blockchain like system. Whether you agree with what threshold of validity is acceptable is a different matter.

> Whether that claim can be meaningfully sold on to someone else is outside the scope of this discussion.

The issue of sidestepping future interactions is that such a schema has no meaning. If I go a step further and stipulate that the transaction doesn't need to be proven to third parties then having any schema bar making the transaction itself is completely meaningless!

It is only when you attempt to prove or sell the claim in future, to third parties does such a schema and blockchains have some utility.

As it stands, yes. For such a difficult problem it is not suprising NFTs don't provide any mechanisms against this.

Unlike previously, if you do find an older copy on a blockchain you're given stronger guarentees that it actually is older.

If digital artworks move towards proof via hash on blockchains for timestamping I'd imagine this problem would become easier to solve in future!

As long as twitter can act as a trusted third party, tweets are a completely valid ledger as shown by Keybase.

Blockchains simply reduce the power and trust required in the third party by offering a different set of tradeoffs.

This is true, except there would at least be a record on some blockchain where the artwork was first proven to exist via a hash. This is at least stronger proof against the artist and for the buyer.

As it stands this isn't very valuable yet but in my mind an important milestone.

Of course! The blockchain is only decentralised compared to a centralised service such as Sotheby's and doesn't remove the third party entirely. The thing is unless you restrict the requirements of the artwork and the transaction not involving a third party actually restricts future guarentees that can be made to third parties.

If the restrictions of never involving third parties (in proofs of ownership or otherwise) is acceptable, then there's no need for any schema bar making the transaction itself.

The issue with removing the third party entirely (as the auther suggests) is the verifiability of the timestamp to any interested third parties. The simplest scenario is proof of existence of the artwork at time T. Without a timestamping mechanism there's nothing stopping the creator lying about when it was created, or when this transaction took place.

A signature is simply that, a signature. It doesn't guarantee uniqueness and doesn't prevent you copying it any number of times.

An identity + timestamping mechanism would guarantee uniqueness of ownership, and a blockchain performs this in a relatively decentralised and trustless manner.

The other major difference is their use of Paxos USD, a stablecoin that's tied to the dollar.

What was the result? I've seen comments on /r/datahorder and the like claiming some honoured the RMA without the enclosure whilst others had success returning it to the enclosure.

My go to for this information is https://diskprices.com/, which supports multiple countries and provides a couple more useful columns.

Wow, that looks amazing! Especially being implemented in pure bash!

At the moment the cost of sending mail doesn't scale with the amount of mail you send. After spinning up a mail server the difference in cost between sending 1,000 and 10,000 emails is trivial.

Yes, this is a very old idea that resurfaced when javascript based crypto miners as an alternative to advertising became infamous.

Doesn't webauthn have the same issue? If you think your logging in, but you're actually on a phishing site you'll have given the attacker a response they can forward onto the real webserver?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't WebAuthn with hardware tokens still be vulnerable to MITM phishing attacks? Ones where the attacker sets up a convincingly fake website and forwards the signature to the actual server?