That account is actually a few days old.

My guess is that GP does the same as me. Create a throwaway account, use for a few weeks, then abandon it to create a new one.

This account I'm posting from is close to EOL, for example.

Why do that, though?

Edited to add, it's also against the HN guidelines:

"Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I was unaware of the guidelines. For a long time I was only a lurker here.

I won't contribute any other way however. Perhaps I don't feel comfortable having an "identity others can relate to".

That said, off I go back to read-only mode. Arrivederci.

I do the same. Anonymity is important to some here and not others and I think that's fine, despite the guidelines.

I didn’t and don’t do that. This account is 9 months old and my only account.

I was responding to grog_tremor.

My account is 9 months old and definitely not a throwaway.

This account isn’t a throwaway. It has 9 times the karma of your account.

> throwaway5959

Yes, that is my name. Doesn’t make this a throwaway account, just like your username doesn’t make you a microprocessor.

Uh, if only there existed a neutral, owned-by-no-one, decentralized monetary network with instant low-cost transfers and finality.

Too bad this sort of stuff is out of science fiction.

EDIT: aaaand I'm being downvoted :) At least leave a comment.

this is very interesting, thanks for sharing!

why do you think that? Presumably Google Voice uses a phone company downstream, which means if that company is hacked they can reassign your number to someone else and thus you have the classic SIM jacking attack.

Which phone company does the hacker call to trick into believing they are Google?

they pay-off / trick a T-Mobile employee into re-assigning your Google Voice number to them. It's happened before with Google Fi, but I haven't seen any public information about this happening with Google Voice (yet)

> they pay-off / trick a T-Mobile employee into re-assigning your Google Voice number to them.

Are you saying the Google Voice phone number lock is useless and that any carrier can just steal Google Voice numbers regardless of the lock status?

here is a link to a report of that happening to a Google Fi customer:

https://old.reddit.com/r/GoogleFi/comments/10pjtie/google_fi...

I don't work at Google and don't know if this is possible with Google Voice. However, Google Fi is their paid service, so I would assume that's the one they'd want to protect the most.

Google Fi has actual SIM cards and behaves like a regular carrier, Voice does not.

There arent any SIM cards to be hijacked with Voice because it don't provide cell service.

Do we know if Google Voice also uses T-Mobile? If not, might be worthwhile to switch SMS 2FA to the Voice number if a service allows voip numbers.

Google Voice isn't a wireless carrier. VoIP only.

This is part of my question. How does Google provision VoIP numbers? When someone calls / texts a VoIP number from a normal number, that call / SMS travels over normal wireless infrastructure. So VoIP numbers are still connected to the same infra, right?

As I understand it, yes, but not through a wireless carrier. They'd tie into the infrastructure somewhere else. They'd be more of a peer with Tmobile then a customer.

an executive or two in jail and we'll sure enough see security magically happen.

Should we throw the President in jail if the government gets breached?

no, of course not. (nice straw-man attempt, btw)

Just the way boards of companies have fiduciary duty, there should be some of sort customer information protection duty that companies are responsible / liable for. basic security practices are being neglected at far too many companies.

Really not trying to strawman. You literally said an executive or two should be thrown in jail if their organization was breached. So which government executive would you "throw in jail" if their organization was breached?

If he incited the breach, sure.

this is cool

I'm not batting for either team here, but you just linked one of the PayPals of crypto - ie a company that holds onto your funds on your behalf. So it's not really a rebuttal to their comment.

I did so intentionally. The fact that crypto has still 'PayPals' is exactly my point. Whatever mechanism of value exchange you come up with, there will be intermediaries who pop up to move it around in different ways. Crypto does not 'solve' this.

I know that you know exactly what they meant by “crypto solves this”, but you’re just be snarky here and that’s okay

Doesn't work in Safari!

I am developing a media-heavy web app, and I was surprised at volume of features that work in every other browser but not Safari. Or features that behave just differently enough in Safari to require code re-writes. In this regard, targeting Safari feels a lot like targeting IE 6 back in the early 2000's.

some of us have been waiting for 29 years.

The big limousine disappears...