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

Ooh! Are we talking about infrastructure projects in Washington State? This is a nerd-snipe headshot.

Washington State has four of the top five floating bridges in the world!

I-90 is actually two bridges, the second and fifth longest in the world.

SR-520 is the longest.

Hood Canal is third.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pontoon_bridges


Then why comment at all? This is the danger of speaking in riddles.

But if both services keep logs de-anonymization is a join.

(Carl from Obscura here)

Very true, but if even 1 of (Obscura, Mullvad) is honest, there's no de-anonymization.

For traditional Single-Party VPNs, you just need to compromise 1 party, with Two-Party Relays, you need to compromise both.


> Very true, but if even 1 of (Obscura, Mullvad) is honest

Just Obscura's compromise is enough, as pointed out previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43016574

Unless something has changed in Obscura's architecture, the interface with Mullvad is under Obscura's control, and thus it can compromise client's credentials. This is unlike iCloud Private Relay where the guarantees are cryptographic in nature and not merely based on promises.


They don't even need to. If you observe enough of them you can correlate traffic patterns between them and find out which one is used by which endpoint

> there is a certain popular "pro-privacy" product beloved by many here

Please don’t speak in riddles. Just say what you mean.


They’re almost certainly referencing Signal.

Signal is worse, with phone numbers, no?

Oh good point. I should have read.

for what purpose? there is nothing to be gained from pointing fingers, and takes the discussion in an even more unrelated direction.

although i guess people's curiosity is also dragging my comment in an unrelated direction anyways. lose-lose situation.

my main point is that the account number method is really nice, and a great selling point for such privacy-conscious products. not offering it in a privacy-conscious product is enough signal that it has made me choose not to purchase the product. that's the important bit, and where i was hoping to drive the conversation.


Incorrect. Pointing out bad products is a warning to other people to not waste time on it. We should be doing it more, not less.

I also have no idea what company/service you're talking about


There is even less to be gained by issuing vague unactionable warnings and/or accusations...

it's not a warning or accusation...

this isn't some hidden feature you get caught with your pants down over. if you try to sign up to something and it doesn't offer an account number, you know that it doesn't offer an account number instantly.

no time wasted for you. it's not some nefarious plot by the company.

it's just a business decision. i was hoping to talk about the business decision of that particular sign up flow.


Because it creates confusion as proven by the responses mistakenly assuming that you were referring to proton.

and if i mention the company, the responses are all about the company instead of the feature.

next time i will just keep my thoughts to myself and we'll all be happy.


You could have just ended your comment at:

> side note: i really wish more companies did the no email + randomized account number flow.

Everything you said after that added confusion and this tangent instead of the conversation you wanted to have.


[deleted]


If you made that comment face to face I would assume you want me to ask what the company is. You could just not do that and talk about the signup flow instead. If you don’t want to talk about something don’t bring it up.

No. Sometimes you just want to make a reference without derailing the conversation. And all of you derailed happily.

Am I out of touch?

No, it is the children^W commenters who are wrong.


Yeap :/

> AI gives the military a way to cover or deflect war crimes

Huh? Who is accepting “it was AI” as cover for war crimes?

> Does a horrific war crime like My Lai[0] get scrutinized and investigated in 2026 or do people just say "eh maybe AI gave them bad intel" and ignore it?

Of course it does. The girl’s school bombing and strikes on fishermen are scrutinized. Why wouldn’t any atrocity?

We do not suffer from a lack of scrutiny. We suffer from a lack of accountability. AI is only tangential.


The People (as in the electorate) are doing a lot. If you mean our elected representatives then say that instead. Otherwise you’re just perpetuating the toxic helplessness that got us into this mess.

I honestly don’t get the snark. The status page has:

Seemingly meaningful IDs

Search

Region filter

Email update signup

Predictable URLs for instance status so they can be deep linked in runbooks

What appears to be the actual live instance status.

What appears to be the actual live service status in each instance.

An update log with frequent detailed updates.


I despise Salesforce, but when I landed on this page I was like, huh. wow. honesty. Looks at GitHub

So yeah you're exactly right, the snark is not deserved if you ask me, and I'm 82% snark.


Could be. With a big conference going on and the updates mentioning resource exhaustion it could be a bunch of people doing demos, AI driven or not. Basically slashdotting themselves.

It’s 12gb and two ARM instances now. If you can get one. They’re frequently out of capacity. They even suspended the over-provisioned legacy instances.

In paygo mode I still get 4. Their cost calculator also calculates with 4 free ones.

There's a 0.0% chance I trust my credit card number to Oracle. The Free Tier page says up to 2 VMs with 12GB of RAM.

   Compute
   Arm Compute Instance

   Arm-based Ampere A1 cores and 12 GB of memory usable as 1 VM or 2 VMs

   Always Free
   1,500 OCPU hours and 9,000 GB hours per month
https://www.oracle.com/cloud/free/

As opposed to google AI/gemini key catastrophes and aws billing adventures?

You claimed Oracle is offering something they aren't. I corrected you. Nobody said anything about AWS or Google.

Jody Allen is the executor and trustee of Paul Allens estate. She is simply complying with his wishes.

If his wishes were to shut down the LCM+L, fire all its staff, and auction off its collection, why didn't he do that while he was still alive? To me it seems like the actions of a vindictive family member who wanted to destroy the best things her brother had created in his life.

This conversation is tiresome. It comes up every time the LCM is mentioned. Jody Allen is simply respecting her brother’s wishes.

Paul Allen had many projects. Only a handful were ever intended to outlast him. LCM was not one of them. He wanted his fortune liquidated and donated. That’s exactly what his sister is doing.


This is unfortunately true. He had plenty of time to set up a separate foundation and he certainly had the means to donate plenty of money to it. But he chose not to. I wish he had.

Thank you for saying this.

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

Search: