81–90 of 120 posts
https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-...
The NYTimes should be the last company anyone should be telling secrets to. We have social media. People should post it anonymously to social media than an establishment organization like the NYTimes.
Hell post it on HN. I trust HN and the mods here more than I trust the editors at the NYTimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
myth_buster, lisper, & newscracker make interesting points. In researching WhatsApp a while ago, I came across this in a Quora post "But one more point I want to stress here is that, though whatsapp is allowing end to end communication , it does not necessarily mean they can not analyse the encrypted data. in cryptography we call it Searchable Encryption." ( https://www.quora.com/Now-that-WhatsApp-can-no-longer-read-…
Whether or not it's open source is irrelevant to the trust issue. You would still have to look at the binary to check whether its behavior matches that of the putative source code. Either way, you end up examining the behavior of the compiled code.
A newspaper that quashed the weinstein story 13 years ago wants us to tell it secrets? https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-... The NYTimes should be the last company anyone should be telling secrets to. We have social media. People should post it anonymously to social media than an establishment organization like the NYTimes. Hell post it on HN. I trust HN and the mods here more than I trust t…
WhatsApp, with more than 1.2 billion active users, is one of the easiest ways to send secure information. “With WhatsApp, it’s as simple as sending a text message — but it’s encrypted,” Mr. Dance explained. I'm not a security expert but I think this is not exactly the best practice. This may have been true pre-fb acquisition but there has been changes to how WhatsApp behaves, especially server side storage. Also the…
> This may have been true pre-fb acquisition but there has been changes to how WhatsApp behaves, especially server side storage. WhatsApp messages are encrypted end-to-end between each person using it. The whole point of end-to-end encryption is not having to trust the server-side storage . Furthermore, WhatsApp uses the Signal Protocol-- the state-of-the-art for secure messaging protocols. The worst that WhatsApp ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous sources that are quoted directly are known to the journalists ; their identity is only concealed from readers. This is about anonymously passing information for further investigation.
So you're saying that no journalist would accept a tip from someone who will not identify themselves?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN could fix this trivially. It's been requested numerous times. They refuse. For years. Sigh.
How would you suggest they fix it?
pre { whitespace: pre-wrap; }
That's what I've included in my own HN Stylus stylesheet for years. Works on Desktop or Firefox/Android, but other mobile browsers don't support it, for lack of extension support.
Updating the HN markup to offer true blockquote support would be a more complete, though less trivial, solution.
I've suggested the first myself repeatedly.
pg asked how to fix this, and was given the solution, on HN, nine years ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=592603
The suggestion's been made numerous times:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=whitespace%20pre-wrap&sort=byP...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN could fix this trivially. It's been requested numerous times. They refuse. For years. Sigh.
True, it would probably be a small change, and it'd be nice to have code blocks readable on mobile. However, the generally accepted quote syntax on HN does not use code blocks in the first place. > *Quote goes here*
Some users don't, there is no one unambiguously correct method, and the 2nd- most common variant I see has several obvious detriments.
The fact that the "show us your code" feature seems to be predominantly used for blockquotes, on a generally technological site, strongly suggests a failure to correctly match user expectations and needs.
Though as metacommentary in infotech, SV, and YC, the message couldn't be clearer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sometimes we see a lot of news articles and news regarding X, Y, Z topic from anonymous sources, being passed as legit news and reliable, but when you examine the news in more details, nothing that backs up such claims can be found. Your implication is that because a story contains no named sources, the information is not legitimate, or not reliable. I would submit to you that this is exceedingly rare at a reputabl…
> followed by a correction. This is not useful most of the time. I've never seen a viral correction. Damage is done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, that can be a problem. However, it's completely irrelevant to the problem of server-side storage, as the comment I replied to was citing. (Server-side storage is a non-issue, due to the encryption protocols in use. It doesn't matter if you distrust Facebook, they aren't going to be able to read your messages. End of.)
I avoid WhatsApp but this is correct AFAIK (given that they don't push a malicious client at some point.) The main problems with WhatsApp are as I can see: - they scoop up metadata - they upload the data more or less plaintext to Google for backup. (I personally dislike but trust Google but not everyone trusts them.) - they paid way to much for it to not try to monetize it in all kinds of crazy ways
How do we know this hasn't happened already?
How do we know it won't happen tomorrow?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> followed by a correction. This is not useful most of the time. I've never seen a viral correction. Damage is done.
Not OP, just curious why this is being downvoted? Seems like a legitimate argument, would rather like to see the counterargument of the downvoters.
Second, the point is not that reputable newspapers perfectly correct their readership's understanding. The point is that reputable newspapers correct themselves. Newspapers reputations are built on that honesty, and astute readers will have an understanding of a paper's track-record of accuracy and corrections. Less astute readers will rely on those that do track such things.