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

Gab Has Been Breached

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: Gab Has Been Breached

#171

Post by fastball »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #159
fastball wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also worth pointing out that the diagnoses are just things we made up.

You’re getting downvoted but I think this actually is worth considering. It doesn’t devalue diagnoses. These categories and labels are to some degree arbitrary, and the underlying conditions are often very elastic and amorphous. The categories and labels are very helpful in some ways, but it’s unhelpful to rely on them exclusively to inform yourself if someone is having mental issues or not. I’m not sure if this is w…

That's what I was going for, was definitely not trying to say people don't have issues. It's helpful to try to treat conditions based on what has helped other people with similar symptoms in the past, but it's still just pattern matching, there is no hard scientific line we can point to and say "this person is bipolar".

Re: Gab Has Been Breached

#172

Post by smaryjerry »

raverbashing wrote: post #107
camjohnson26 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought bcrypt had built in salts, how was he able to reverse those hashes for simple passwords? Any better algorithm to use or recommendation on salting?

Everybody can guess your password if it's 12345678

It’s funny, if a site requires a special character ,number, and capital requirement, those people will now have Password1! instead. Much more secure.

Re: Gab Has Been Breached

#173

Post by smaryjerry »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #60
gkoberger wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, he's the worst. I knew him in YC, and actually liked him. But I watched him spiral as he wasn't able to raise money for his startup, including starting to go to Trump rallies "out of curiosity". His FB posts began to include worse and worse rhetoric. It was crazy to watch him get radicalized in realtime. It ended in him harassing some (minority) YC founders who said they were scared by saying we should "Build t…

He really drunk the kool-aid becoming part of the cult. It is not everyday you see the CEO of a company saying "Gab Does Not Negotiate With Criminal Demons".

It is a strange use of language so it would be interesting to see what he defines a demon as. If he has said “Gab does not negotiate with evil people” no one would have cared but saying demon criminals brings forth images of horned beings we all see in fantasy movies, perhaps that’s the imagery he was going for.

Re: Gab Has Been Breached

#174

Post by smaryjerry »

Others wrote: post #93
totalZero wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He got expelled from YC for saying we should build a border wall? Really?

I understand this comment was made before the edit. However, is it really that surprising that “build a wall” narratives and racism to hand in hand? (It’s not as if the border wall makes any logical sense, since the southern border is too long to wall off, and the majority of illegal immigration is visa overstays anyway ( https://apnews.com/article/48d0ad46f143478d9384410f5ae3d38b ))

It actually does make sense if your goal is not to stop immigration but criminal immigration and drug trafficking. People that could never received a visa in the first place due to a criminal background are who it really keeps out.

Re: Gab Has Been Breached

#175

Post by eyelidlessness »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #157
eyelidlessness wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech and compassion for the hate mongers, “you’re just like them” for the people who don’t accept their hate or expose their lies. Got it.

It’s dangerous to believe you’re that much different from anyone you disagree with, no matter how far down your nose you’re looking at them

I don’t just disagree with them. They’re dangerous to me and most of the people I care about. It’s not about judgment, it’s about protecting myself and the other people they hate.

Re: Gab Has Been Breached

#176

Post by sershe »

hmry wrote: post #166
yazfield wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not from usa, but genuinely curious. why is "not talking to X journals" disgusting? many people do that because they don't want to be on a journal with an editorial line they don't like. am I missing something about the guy or the story?

Not talking to a journalist because of their political ideology is understandable to me, although this person probably has a very broad definition of what a communist is. Not talking to someone based on their religion on the other hand is really quite rude, shallow and discriminatory.

How is that so? Race, sexual orientation, gender, age, sure. Religion on the other hand is no different from ideology (or rather, in my view many left/right-wing ideologies are not very different from religions) - they can be chosen and abandoned freely, and they are prescriptive.

Re: Gab Has Been Breached

#177

Post by tsimionescu »

lultimouomo wrote: post #114
tsimionescu wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The salts are typically stored together with the data, as is the case here. So, if you want to see if the first password is 'password', you salt it with the first salt and hash it with bcrypt. If the result matches, you know with a huge degree of confidence[0] that indeed the first password was 'password'. You can easily do this for the entire dataset, and for a few more common passwords. [0] of course, there is a ch…

> [0] of course, there is a chance that you just discovered a hash collision, but that is exceedingly unlikely. It also means that Gab would have accepted 'password' as the password for that user anyway, even if the string they typed in was 'warblerer' (which it would also accept). I don't think password policy enforcement can be reasonably done after the hashing. You cannot apply password rules as information about…

I don't understand how your comment relates to what you are quoting.

Password policy enforcement is done on the plain text password, during initial account creation or during a password change workflow. Then, the password and salt are hashed and the result and the salt are stored.

When the user tries to login they then provide the plaintext password; the salt is retrieved, it is added to the password, the result is hashed, and the hash is compared to the stored hash.

Since the space of all passwords is larger than the space of all hashes, there is a theoretical possibility that the user can provide a different password than the original plaintext, and this new plaintext + the salt happens to have the same hash, so the login system (which has no idea what the original plaintext was) will accept it.

With any halfway decent cryptographic hashing function this is less likely than winning every lottery in the world at once with the same ticket.

Re: Gab Has Been Breached

#178

Post by crocodiletears »

weeblewobble wrote: post #170
minimaxir wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN thread from 2016 on Torba getting booted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934388 Includes comments from Sam Altman and Torba, posting as rvcamo

This thread is really eye-opening about how stagnant the discourse around free speech/wokeness/political correctness has been. Four years later and the conversation would be exactly the same today.

It's cultural trench warfare. We're in a very profitable (for media companies that harvest clicks off of outrage) stalemate.

We need to develop new rhetorical and ideological tools too push the conversation in any meaningful direction. We also need to be able to disseminate them.

Re: Gab Has Been Breached

#179

Post by jb775 »

kristopolous wrote: post #101
spamizbad wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but it’s also free speech and as such should be permitted on a social network oriented around free speech. Unless trolling doesn’t count as free speech?

They have their own definitions of lots of things. Free speech, as far as I can tell, to them, means they can make any claim they want, >, and not have to be consistent or responsible for any consequences. To them, oppression is someone challenging their claims, at all, ever. They believe it's a form of control and a violation of their core liberties. You violated that. I'm a member of DSA and volunteer for leftist a…

Dude you are disconnected from reality. First off, you're taking the worst of a group (which exist in every group), and extrapolating their beliefs & actions as the norm across the entire group. You obviously believe this is the norm from your words.

> To them, oppression is someone challenging their claims, at all, ever.

This is entirely backwards. The right is extremely open to debate, but are banned from platforms owned by the left. Hence new popular platforms popping up to cater to them. The left is literally using every ounce of power they have to silence debate (Twitter bans, un-reported news stories from mostly left-owned media, etc). They don't even believe the peasants should be able to dictate the topics of conversation, which is why they jam narratives down peoples throat and use cancel culture to punish anyone speaking against them.

Also, what's the "faulty" logic aspect you mention in regards to a marketplace of ideas? It more-so sounds like your cognitive dissonance is kicking in once some common-sense logic is used to knock down your beliefs.

Re: Gab Has Been Breached

#180

Post by crocodiletears »

quantified wrote: post #162
leereeves wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Popper is often misunderstood. He was a passionate advocate of free speech and rational argument; when he said "intolerance" he was referring to people who would use violence to suppress free speech: > for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is de…

Just mentioning his name got me downvotes. HN has an interesting ecosystem.

Popper has a point, but that particular quote has become an albatross around the neck of any discussion concerning censorship and cancel culture, to the point that it could very well be its own internet 'law'.

GP's point of mentioning it was a preemption of the inevitable citation that someone might trot out as a cudgel against further dialogue.

Post reply on HN