mkeyhani
Joined 10 years ago
Karma
116
Submissions
24
Member since
Nov 29
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/mkeyhani; my proof: https://keybase.io/mkeyhani/sigs/MUn0OxCTOIAehOgSjpuStuMfZZxR-4DG-NSo_Q9h1uo ]
View on Hacker NewsRecent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
I am not sure if I understand your argument.
If whoever develops and hosts the service gets to limit what is allowed, then why Google shouldn’t censor its search results?
Comment · 8 years ago
Because Facebook, unlike say a subreddit, is not a a community formed around a certain topic. There is no 'we' in particular.
Comment · 8 years ago
They don’t quite know:
> We made Google+ with privacy in mind and therefore keep this API’s log data for only two weeks. That means we cannot confirm which users were impacted by this bug. However, we ran a detailed analysis over the two weeks prior to patching the bug, and from that analysis, the Profiles of up to 500,000 Google+ accounts were potentially affected. Our analysis showed that up to 438 applications may have used this API. We found no evidence that any developer was aware of this bug, or abusing the API, and we found no evidence that any Profile data was misused.
https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/project-s...
Comment · 8 years ago
I really like the idea behind Brave.
However, I think a fundamental issue arises if you are going to pay people to see ads: What if someone forks Brave, and creates a browser which blocks all Brave ads, while pretending to click on them?
Neither of the two solutions I can think of are pleasant ones: you either need to somehow verify that that ads are viewed by a human (i.e. CAPTCHAs), or use DRM-like mechanisms to hide a token in Brave’s brinary, so that only “honest” browsers can get paid.
Comment · 8 years ago
Eliminating all bots is not desirable. Many of them are useful and interesting.
Eliminating the bad ones with few false positives is hard.
Comment · 8 years ago
May I suggest that problematic speech is often simply what people don't like to hear?
Of course, I think it's their right to choose what they want to hear. But that does not mean I defend censorship.
How to filter the content they consume should be every individual's choice.
Now, platforms definitely should choose sensible defaults, but one should be able to easily opt out of them.
Comment · 8 years ago
The backwards induction argument assumes the time of execution is a discrete variable.
However, at least as far as we know, time seems to be continuous.
Comment · 8 years ago
Thanks. You are right. I stand corrected.
Comment · 8 years ago
> It added it had received the microphone data only as code rather than audio, and that it could match that code with audio data from a match.
That sounds funnily absurd to me. By that line of argument, even sound is not really audio. After all, it's being encoded as air pressure waves :-)
EDIT: Pardon my ignorance. Based on Google Translate's translation of their statement [1], it seems that they are using some kind of perceptual hashing which is quite interesting.