3jckd

Source: I work in the field.

This is a current limitation, and an artifact of the data+method but not something that should be relied upon.

If we do some adversary modelling, we can find two ways to work around this:

1) actively generate and search for such data; perhaps expensive for small actors but not well equipped malicious ones.

2) wait for deep learning to catch up, e.g. by extending NERFs (neural radiance fields) to faces; matter of time.

Now, if your company/government is on the bleeding edge of ML-based deception, they can have such policy, and they will update it 12-18-24 months (or whenever (1) or (2) materialises). However, I don't know one organisation that doesn't have some outdated security guideline that they cling to, e.g. old school password rules and rotations.

Will "turning sideways to spot a deepfake" be a valid test in 5 years? Prolly no, so don't base your secops around this.

Show HN is about showing your own work, not just sth you think is interesting. Doesn't matter if you missed it, still shouldn't have posted it.

Nothing that you said is wrong but it doesn't make the situation better.

1) As many people pointed out, this doesn't prevent OCR, it just prevents copying strings (e.g. with crawlers). 2) Majority of OCR doesn't deal with PDFs produced from a text source but either from a) jpg-scans of documents b) pdfs produced from those jpg-scans. 3) The first thing I tried, was OCR with my iPhone and it obviously worked. As someone else said, there're solutions that let you batch process many documents.

Don't get me wrong, your stuff works for what you designed it to. However, it provides <false sense of security> by <falsely> claiming that it prevents OCR; which in turn, can lead to more harm[1].

[1] - e.g., it may convince people to share stuff that they wouldn't otherwise.

It's interesting what/when/if will unsettle Python. And what the adoption would be like.

Julia has been <designed> to unsettle Python in the data space but to no avail.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Didn't read bc of the paywall so maybe someone can enlighten me.

My educated guess is that <at best> UN is using homomorphic encryption for basic analysis...

or they have achieved a breakthrough and have FHE /s.

How is it different from Notion and Evernote like solutions? What’s better and what’s worse about Dino?

Likewise, how’s it different from backlink-based apps like Obsidian, Roam and Craft?

Is OSS the only selling feature?

I agree that using booleans like this can be confusing. But, imo, it's more confusing to have a bunch of wrapper functions that create abstraction madness.

I mostly write computation/math-related code and I find using named arguments to be a good practice. This is also quite similar to OP's enum approach, e.g. sth like `calc_formula(a, b, is_gain=True)`.

To be fair, the older I get, the more I like explicit arguments for everything like in Swift (and smalltalk iirc).

What about the part where people used expired credentials to 3rd-party services to create admin accounts?

Scraping may not be a crime but unintended privilege escalation is a whole different story.

In other news, gen-1 device is good but not perfect yet.

I fully subscribe to this point. It comes up, then it either gets voted out or doesn't even come that far. What baffles me though is that such blatant power-grabs are being introduced, and that anyone thinks that anything would be better off afterwards. Surveillance is going to get more difficult, not easier unless you want to spy on middle-aged people talking about fishing or sour dough recipes.

While the assumption that you can make changes to swift’s stl is not that far-fetched, doing so to cpp’s is completely mental.

I’ve got a feeling that swift is becoming a very polluted mashup of features that come from parties with conflicting interests. AFAIK, internally at Apple, teams pull in different directions (e.g. to get SwiftUI), at the same time there’s this half-baked differentiable programming / swift4tf manifesto, then there’s the backend swift initiative with vapour.

This reminds of a hotch-potch that Scala’s framework and feature landscape is. The overhead of getting into it is quite substantial and for some, definitely not worth the investment if not just downright scary.

The link is dead atm.

This is the key point here. Google (Chrome), Apple (Safari) and MIcrosoft (Edge) funnel money from other ventures to their browser dev teams. For Apple and Microsoft it’s just a staple tool that each operating system needs but for Google it’s a platform that guides users towards their other services and ties them in, YouTube, Gmail, Drive, to name but a few.

In the current business model, there’s absolutely no competing with them long term. You’d have to either break them up or create some weird funding schemes driven by govs and users that don’t care (public good or some other utilitarian argument).

No, if you work in a software house; or I'd say, you have extremely low chance there and anyone who made it, was an outlier.

Yes, if you work in a company that does some RnD and you have actual domain knowledge and expertise as opposed to being a generic, even if experienced, but nevertheless generic developer. I have many colleagues well into their 50s and some even 60s that work at Intel, NVIDIA, Ericsson etc.. They are not a rare sight over there.