merlinsbrain

Another interesting quote:

“ Following this approach, in our model we consider the message encryption scheme used in MTProto 2.0 as a robust authenticated-encryption scheme, abstracting from its actual implementation.”

So yeah, they’re abstracting away the AE part of it, which may not be an accurate reflection of what telegram uses.

That being said, they’re aware this is a strong assumption:

“ Namely, the only assumption we make is that the latter is an authenticated encryption scheme, guaranteeing both integrity of ciphertext (INT-CTXT) and indistinguishability of chosen plaintext (IND-CPA). These properties are difficult to prove in a symbolic model like ProVerif’s, but can be proved in a computational model, e.g. using tools like CryptoVerif or EasyCrypt [5, 2]. This assumption may appear strong, especially considering that Telegram has been widely criticized for its design choices (such as ad hoc cryptographic primitives and an unusual encryption mode), and vulnerabilities have been found in MTProto v1.0 (but actually, none of these attacks have been replicated on the new MTProto 2.0). Still, proving the logical correctness of the protocol under a fairly general threat model is very important because, if a weakness in the protocol exists, it must be looked for in the “lower-level” part of the protocol, among the chosen cryptographic functions and other implementation choices.”

I’m not very vested in a solution at the moment, but if I had a set of users < 500, the flat pricing of Magic Link kind of makes more sense to me, I don’t want to be worrying about how many times they sign in.

That being said, I can imagine there are people who would prefer a per sign in model, it’s just a level of granularity I don’t care for.

Good luck!

What would your pricing be? Starter pack at $35/month for 500 users sounds like $35/month and I outsource auth to a company that is also on the hook for “enterprise” security :)

I think it’s awesome you’re building an alternative with a different feature set, I’m really curious to hear your take on pricing.

Theoretically, ReScript will support ReasonML syntax, and theoretically ReasonML can still be used for native development.

The messaging isn't clear on ReasonML's future at ALL though. Is it essentially deprecated until the full switch to ReScript happens? The Rescript FAQ mentions changes will be additive in supporting ReasonML, and they will track new features to OCaml, but will they track new features to Reason? Will anyone actively develop Reason anymore?

At that point it’s just a license to use.

MIT isn’t going to fly anymore if the intention is to make money off of that.

Hard disagree. I’d encourage you to reflect on your startup’s culture and figure out what distinguishes a good engineer from a good engineer who can convince you about their passion.

Usually, it’s when startups want employees to work longer hours than the value the they’re calculating on receiving from the equity+pay that’s being offered.

Whiteboarding algorithm puzzles with code really does not define the greatness of an engineer. If people are practicing questions to be able to think along those lines and that is proven to work, maybe it really isn’t a test of greatness anyway.

This is the exact attitude that makes people have terrible interview experience.

Also, I can really see the appeal of electron now (from a development standpoint).

It really is Qt vs Electron if you want to ship a product that makes money - something I am paying for is expected to have a lot of these "features".

Yeah, I guess the key is the last part of your last sentence, heh

> the most well financed..

I have been playing with Dear Imgui lately, and while its super easy to get up and running, I realized it doesn't have support for zoom (cmd +) and accessibility (unless I missed something).

It seems like those features are out of scope for the library - which is fair, one has to draw the line somewhere, and there are enough success stories with the project that it may not matter to a lot of the people. The author has mentioned in various places it's mostly for internal tools or game dev, which makes sense.

I am glad more toolkits are coming up (both for C/++ and Go, the languages I am interested in writing desktop apps with), but I am a bit surprised Qt seems by _far_ most mature compared to a lot of newer tools, not counting wxWidgets or glade/gtk3.

Looks cool! I wonder how this compares to Dear Imgui in terms of features. (I understand this may not be an immediate mode toolkit, so not really discussing that side of things)

Would the usual competitor to this be JUCE?

This isn’t too compelling a story on its own, I’m assuming this is someone who wrote a collection for themselves and made it public on their blog.

Glad they wrote their collection, but not something I’m excited about.

In general I’d love to hear “this was better in Rust because of X, Y and Z and the tradeoffs I had to make were A, B and C”.

But again, this isn’t on the author to do, I’m pretty sure I can find other articles on the internet that talk to that.

Edit: most of the READMEs of the projects look pretty good about that on a quick skim.