Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 209 posts

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#121

Post by pbhjpbhj »

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #16

I have/had a Facebook account with a phone number. The account was left unused for a few years. Recently, I used my E-mail to reset its password, unfortunately, since the account was abandoned for a long time, the system flagged my activity as "suspicious" automatically, and asks me for confirmation using my phone number. But I no longer own that number. And from the customer Q&A forum, I realized I was not the only…

If the number has been reassigned you could ring the person, explain the situation and get them to forward you the code. (Also a way to crack other people's accounts!).

I wonder if phone companies couldn't [partially] solve this; probably any system would be too open to abuse?

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#122

Post by pbhjpbhj »

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #62
jfaat wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you know the number, have you considered reaching out to its current owner to coordinate passing off the code?

Good idea! I'll try. Thanks! The number may or may not be recycled, in case it's not recycled, it would simply be a NULL number. Wish me luck...

If its not recycled, perhaps you can find the company that has it ... "my lucky number is 441 743, any chance i can get a number that ends like that?". I guess it depends how much time/money you want to spend.

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#123

Post by [deleted] »

AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #22
wongarsu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you don't try to validate the email address I entered. The list of gotchas for email address parsing is impressive too. (e.g. "Cool Address"@example.store is a valid email)

These might be valid but nobody uses them and nobody will complain if you do not support them.

[deleted]

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#124

Post by wongarsu »

duskwuff wrote: post #31
AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These might be valid but nobody uses them and nobody will complain if you do not support them.

Not sure why this is getting downvoted. It's a valid point. There is a gap between "technically valid email addresses" and "email addresses that reasonable people use".

The extreme cases are very rare, but even resonable addresses are rejected regularly.

I have had various email addresses of me rejected because

- of an unusual tld (whatever@somewhere.tech)

- it was an email of a subdomain (whatever@some.where.com)

- it had a two letter username (me@somewhere.com)

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#126

Post by pbhjpbhj »

0xADEADBEE wrote: post #58
newscracker wrote: post #37

> An individual has a phone number > Some people do not own phones, or do not wish to provide you with their telephone number when asked. Do not require a user to provide a phone number unless it is essential, and whenever possible try and provide a fallback to accommodate these users. Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram are spectacular design failures on this point because they assume that every person has a phone number…

I agree fully. I've no clue why phone numbers a prerequisite for most email account providers or anything else I have to sign up for. There is no quicker way to make me bail on a signup flow that to demand something that has nothing to do with what I'm using. I barely use my phone as it is, so I'm excited to see what the world will look like for me when I finally eschew it!

Phone number is probably endured without thought by most people, it then makes their database hugely more valuable; matching phone numbers and email addresses must be a key link for profile matching for advertisers/law enforcement/government.

Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)

#128

Post by pbhjpbhj »

sneak wrote: post #111

The biggest widely believed programmer falsehood I run into in practice: that they are ten digits and always start with +1. It’s right up there with “all users have a US ZIP code”.

Well I'm in the UK so my zip is 90210. :0p
Post reply on HN