Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Spivak's commentslogin

I like only getting *.domain for this reason. No expectation of hiding the domain but if they want to figure out where other things are hosted they'll have to guess.

So how do you get this ?

Let's Encrypt can issue wildcard certs too

That’s really not a great fix. If those hostnames leak, they leak forever. I’d be surprised if AV solutions and/or windows aren’t logging these things.

For your actual production systems you might consider systemd-creds along with the LoadCredential= and LoadCredentialEncrypted= directives which do the* right thing. Nothing is exposed and credentials are placed in non-swappable memory. You can even have your credentials encrypted at rest with your system's TPM.

* Well, one of the correct ways of doing this.


I mean it's not like people get advanced notice of search warrants of that police ask pretty please. I agree that the way people use the term it's a fine usage but the person using is trying to paint a picture of a SWAT team busting down the door by calling it that.

All of that last one really says is that broadly speaking the average person has no idea what free speech actually is and the kinds of things that it covers. I put it in the same bucket as like the young kids uploading to YouTube with the comment no copyright infringement intended thinking it's like plagiarism.

Can you elaborate on your view about "no copyright infringement intended" being related please?

Hollywood sure, publishers sure, but tech? Where? The pro piracy pro game cracking open source p2p distribution people?

The people adding DRM to operating systems, display connector standards and even the web.

I doubt they are all for locking people out of copyrighted works, but more for keeping their jobs. But maybe they are, who knows.

Am I missing something because what you describe as the pack of stuff sounds like S tier documentation. I get full working examples and a pre-populated database it works on?

I mean that's "Park and Ride" which already exists but the problem is that people, kinda rightfully, hate it. All the downsides of a car with all the downsides of a bus.

The solution, which has done in my city to genuinely smashing success is to nationalize the parking garages meaning government builds them, maintains them, and they're free forever. Dot them around a dense mixed use area and quite literally watch the money pour in. Everything is within grandpa walking distance of at least one garage, they're specced to over capacity so each one is never full, and it provides parking to the workers and apartments.


That sounds like a recipe for getting a ton of cars into your city. Think of parking garages as "traffic generators". If you cater to cars you shouldn't be surprised if what you get is more cars. It's literally sending the signal to people that it's fine (and encouraged) to drive cars everywhere. After all, your tax dollars are paying for all that infrastructure

Maybe some people are fully car-pilled, but many people want to live in an area that isn't so car-dependent, it tends to make everything more spread out, noisy, polluted, and congested. It also imposes very large personal costs.


I mean yeah… getting cars into your city is like the whole point. Cars are filled with people and people work and spend money. Specifically outside money. This is a city that has no subway or rail, vehicles are the only means of moving people. If you rip out the parking you won't get a vibrant walkable downtown, people won't start taking the bus, demand rail or move downtown because "the downtown area" just isn't that valuable of a destination. You will get a dead downtown. In a sad twist of fate when your "business district" doesn't have the capacity to absorb workers commuting or people going out on nights and weekends you'll see commercial buildings spread out even more to areas that can. Little pockets of nightlife and office space crop up next to newly built 5 over 1 apartments with plenty of parking built adjacent to major suburbs.

> Cars are filled with people and people work and spend money.

You're conflating people with cars. You want people and you're assuming that all those people must be attached to a car. There are other ways to get people to be populate an area which brings me to my second point...

> If you rip out the parking you won't get a vibrant walkable downtown

You will if you build a lot more housing in that area. If thousands more people are able to live right there then of course it'll become more vibrant. That parking garage could be home to hundreds of people. Instead it's temporary storage for cars. The problem is that suburbanites are going to fight tooth-and-nail to bring their cars. So what you get is cars.

If that's what you want, so be it. That doesn't sound like a vibrant place if everybody has to drive a car to get there, though. It's traffic by design.


> because "the downtown area" just isn't that valuable of a destination

This is another point people miss - 50 maybe 75 years ago the downtown area was a valuable destination because stores were smaller and what you needed could only be found at one or two places in a city; often downtown.

Cities are much bigger, but so are stores - you can go for months shopping nowhere but a SuperTarget or Walmart; and half the remainder can be delivered.

You make downtown desirable and then begin fixing the traffic problems. It takes 20+ years, but it can be done.


> that's "Park and Ride" which already exists but the problem is that people, kinda rightfully, hate it

... do people hate park and rides? Where I'm from (suburbs outside a US city) it's completely standard to park outside the city (in a garage or big lot at a train station) and take the train in. I find it quite comfortable personally.

It sounds like yours is specifically for buses, but I think it's that people generally don't like buses, they're slow and uncomfortable. The park and ride is fine when you can walk from it to a subway/train.


Parking at a train station or even a subway entrance sounds like heaven compared to ours which is a surface lot with a bus stop. But I'm not sure if "just have a subway or train network" is going to work for cities like Syracuse that don't already have them.

That's fair, yeah.

I do think parking garages are a pretty good solution, though obviously expensive (but cheaper than building out trains, like you said)


I don't think it's the admissions office's fault. This is one of the lessons I will have to impose on my future kids once they get to high school age. Being, like, really really good at school is cool and all but if what you have is a 4.25 GPA, fifteen AP classes all with 5's, a 35 on your ACT, a school sport and chess club or whatever I'm very smart extra curricular then you're competing with the other thousand identical applications. You're likely to stand out and be interesting with literally anything else, even if it makes you look less good at school.

The world you occupy at that age makes it seem like being good at school is the formula to looking impressive meanwhile once you leave the bubble and enter adult world you realize that making an angsty punk band with your friends and playing at shitty dives sounds way more impressive than got an A in chemistry.


Doesn't it help you sleep at night that your 401k might be managed by analysts #yoloing their financial modeling tools with an LLM?

having worked in large financial institutions, this would be a step improvement

the largest independent derivatives broker in australia collapsed after it was discovered the board were using astrology and magicians to gamble with all the clients money

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-16/stockbroker-used-psyc...


Well that would do it. Astrology and magic stop working once they are scrutinized. That is their only weakness.

It sounds like a step sideways, not a step up. LLMs are akin to a Ouija board.

I have seen Excel used in places that manage millions of euros of other people's money.

I have seen Excel used for financial planning

I have seen Excel used for managing people's health data.

I have BUILT a test suite for a government offical use communication device - inside Excel. The original was a mish-mash of Excel formulas and VBA. I improved the VBA part of it by adding a web cam to the mix.

I don't sleep well at night knowing how many very very essential things are running on top of Excel sheets passed down like stories around a campfire.


I mean we kinda did when we decided that emergency services calls would be special and give first responders the ability to find you. Wireless carriers are required to provide GPS quality (actually better than GPS) location data to EMS and this is how they built it.

The only way to actually do this was develop a way to ask the phone because the tower isn't accurate enough. In the US it could have been more privacy preserving by being push but I imagine carriers don't want to maintain and update a list of current emergency numbers. "Sorry person in a car crash, we can't find you because cellular modem firmware is out of date and your emergency number isn't on list" is a PR disaster waiting to happen. Easier to coordinate with police and fire and let them do the asking.


911 is the only actual emergency number with regulations around it in the US. police and fire have _non_ emergency numbers that differ, my local hospitals will tell you to call 911; and gas, water, power, and other immediate risks to life safety are all 911 anyway (at least as the first call).

Sometimes it seems dumb, but as long as its an honest report I've never heard of anything more than an annoyed patrol officer. Felt stupid calling in an interstate sized sign hanging by a literal bolt-thread but the patrol shut down that lane.


In general the emergency services would rather come out for something that sounds on the face of it stupid ("This sign is hanging down above the road and flapping in the breeze, can you come out to it?") and deal with it with plenty of time.

Far better than getting the call "This sign has come down and chopped a bus in half, and then four cars have run into the back of the wreckage".

Build the fence at the top of the cliff, not the hospital at the bottom.


yea, that's exactly why I called. 99% of people wouldn't notice, and of those that do 99% won't call.

The other one you get is "remove object from person", which is usually not as rude as it sounds. Mostly, it's cutting a ring that's too tight off someone.

What, you want me to call 999? To get a ring that's too tight off? I mean it's hurting my finger but is it really an emergency?

Yes, dumbass, it's an emergency. Get the ring off your finger right now before the blood supply gets compromised and you end up with a big slug of stale dead blood washing round you when you finally do get it off. You could lose your hand if you piss about with it too long.

I know it seems like overkill to have a 18-tonne Scania rock up with five guys in it just to cut through that little ring, but they have the right tools to do it quickly and easily, and no-one wants to have to cut your hand off.

Ring 999 while you still have two working hands.

Smoke alarm going off? No apparent reason? At least ring them up for advice. There might be something you haven't seen. Just phone them.

It's far easier dealing with you not being on fire in the first place, than dealing with you being on fire later. Not being on fire is good.


It's perfectly reasonable to have the expectation that the cell phone network can provide location to emergency services but not the the telecom provider's marketing team or whoever they sell the data to.

In fact the apple feature the article talks about says [1]

> The limit precise location setting doesn't impact the precision of the location data that is shared with emergency responders during an emergency call.

So it actually now implements what it should have been all along. (except that it should be the default)

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/126101


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: