No. I am having more fun coding than ever before. I am learning new things, building things I never had time to even consider exploring and building throw away prototypes just because. I still think learning to code is crucial and necessary to get production grade systems as of now.
Cool project. I am working on something similar but was having a hard time with macOS permissions. I am not a Mac developer and not familiar with the space. I wasn’t even familiar with ray cast or things like that before I started. But I’ll definitely test this out and see if it solves what I was setting out to accomplish
Totally understand you!
I worked on 3 versions for a menu bar solution app.
This was so frustrating.
The first try was 5 months ago
Let me know if this helps you achieve your goal
It would be pretty nice to write those simple things in one language if you have a ruby server, react front end, and postgres database. You could target different parts of the stack but think/implement in one language. Seems nice to me.
This looks amazing. We use Ruby, Javascript and SQL. I will try this out this week. Are you looking for contributors? What is your vision long term with this?
Build one. I did that for Christmas for my daughter. She is into ninja turtles and a skateboard game. So I built her a ninja turtle surfboard skate game using nano banana to create the images. The game play is bad but we built it together in a day for fun. checkout pandahugs.fun I’ll share my process if you’re interested
Please don't build this. We don't need human extinction due to hijacking the evolutionary instinct to bond with other people and knowingly guiding people down an evolutionary dead end.
There are so many ideas to explore and problems to solve. I would be happy to give you 5 for free, I have more problems in my business laboratory than I have time to build. I'll give you a few ideas to work on. Book office hours if youre interested: hourshttps://calendly.com/ryanwmartin/open-office-hours
Thanks. It’s nothing to do with the validity of people’s concerns about these kinds of products, but just the rules and the principles; they have to be upheld regardless of the specifics. And really, if we’re going to save humanity from products like this, it won’t be via HN Hiring threads.
There's absolutely no way it's worse than porn or obesity or - hell - war or climate change or any of the millions of shitty things humans do to each other. In fact some people might learn emotional intelligence.
Hard disagree based on neuroscience, psychology, and anthropology. There are multiple systems of the brain that deal with emotional connection. Sexuality is one system but pair bonding is a more whole brain and body bond.
Further, porn is generally an act of consumption not interaction (I get that is changing) but interaction poses a new risk of an influenza feedback loop. That will affect a person’s entire life.
I could go on about the distinction but I don’t want to write a thesis with my thumbs.
Depends entirely on the stage of the disease and the aggressiveness of the cancer! Getting an aggressive brain cancer when you had early stage Alzheimer’s [1] would be tragic. The tradeoff would be years of life.
For the record, I have no idea what the actual risk tradeoff is, but the point of regulation is that nobody does. You can’t have informed consent when you can’t be informed.
[1] Aside: Alzheimer’s is relatively early stage, as dementias go. It’s frequently diagnosed by onset in younger people.
Ruby is amazing. I recently built a layer on top of Rails that can generate an API from a single markdown file. I did the same thing in python but it was much harder and JavaScript would have been a beast. Ruby can meta program like nothing else.
We created an Abstract controller that handles all of the typical behavior for a resource, auth, filtering, pagination, tenancy, import/export, serialization etc.
Then we expanded rails generators to cover ALL typical behavior. And the markdown file calls the generators.
It was a bit complicated to model polymorphic behavior but we got it working thanks to Ruby/Rails.
But the basic premise that made this work is: Use only restful actions; don’t turn it into RPC.
Recognize that most RPC/graphql functions are state changes that could have been a patch request. So instead of /clients/activate its /clients with a status attribute for “activate” or “archive”. Then most nested routes aren’t needed, use accepts nested attributes for and return child ids in the show action. There’s more to it that this but by strictly following conventions and modeling the data for rest, the api ends up
Super simple.
Our standard controller only whitelists strong params. All other behavior is automatic.
Lisp is the cleanest language out there! It has one construct: parentheses. It's simpler than Ruby.
Wrt "forgetting" parentheses, the Lisp people have ways around that: they set up their editors so they operate on the expressions and can't "forget" a paren. They operate on the logical blocks (which is easy (because of the parentheses)).
Its not a hack to copy and paste text that is part of the document data. The incompetence of the people responsible to comply with the law doesnt mean its reasonable to label something a hack.
I’m not an attorney or anything, but the relevant federal statute is explicitly about unauthorized access of computer systems (18 USC 1030).
Opening someone else’s laptop and guessing the password would absolutely fall under that definition, but I think it’s very much questionable if poking around a document that you have legitimately obtained would do so.
If someone sends me a document with text in it that they meant to remove but didn't and then I read that text, I haven't hacked anything they're just incompetent.
Hacking is unauthorised use of a system. Reading a document that was not adequately redacted can hardly be considered hacking.
Or in case some folks find the addition of a computer confusing here, if someone sends you a physical letter and they've used correction tape or a black marker to obscure some parts of the letter, and you scratch away the correction tape or hold the letter up to a light source to read what's underneath, have you committed a crime?
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what the law has to say about this. But I do have at least a small handful of brain cells to rub together, so I know what the law _should_ say about this.
Precisely. If someone wants me to sign a contract on acceptable use of resources (like an agreement not to reverse engineer their software) they send me then that's another thing.
Absent that excluding other default protections like copyright, what I do with it should fall under the assumption of "basically anything".
If this were prior to 2021, I would say the CFAA could be violated so long as the property owner's _intentions_ were for that information to only be accessible to certain users. But I think the CFAA has been sufficiently reduced in scope after Van Buren v United States [0]
Hacking is not just authorised use of a system. Hacking and hacking techniques can apply to systems you fully own or systems which you are authorised to hack.
Hacking is using something in a way that the designer didn’t anticipate or intend on.
Adobe designed pdf to behave this way. Placing layers over text doesn’t remove the text from the file. They have a specific redaction feature for that purpose.
Placing a black box on the text isn’t a redaction any more than placing a sticky note would be. No reasonable person can expect a sticky note to permanently prevent readers from seeing text and no reasonable person can expect a black overlay box in pdf to prevent reading text because this is literally a fundamental feature of pdfs as a layer format file
But copying and pasting text of publicly released documents is not illegal. Accessing someone’s computer is illegal.
While maybe it could fall under the umbrella of hacking in some general way, articles, and especially titles, should be more precise.
You guessing my password is not the same as a know and expected behavior of a program. Adobe has a specific feature to redact. PDF is a format known to have layers. Lawyers are trained on day one not to make this mistake. (I am a recovering lawyer). This is either incompetence or deliberate disclosure.
Yes, this is the digital equivalent of sticking a blank Post-it over text and calling it “redacted”. Mind-boggling that the same mistake has been made over and over again.
Hacking is any use of a technology in a way that it wasn’t intended. The redaction is so stupid as to almost appear intentional, so maybe you’re right, this isn’t hacking because maybe the information was intended to be discovered.
Also had this first thought, but then a hack could just be a way around a limit/lack of authorization, doesn't have to be unknown/sophisticated, so copy of black boxes fits
By serving up the PDF file I am being authorized to receive, view, process, etc etc the entire contents. Not just some limited subset. If I wasn't authorized to receive some portion of the file then that needed to be withheld to begin with.
That's entirely different from gaining unauthorized entry to a system and copying out files that were never publicly available to begin with.
To put it simply, I am not responsible for the other party's incompetence.
For starts, wouldn't it be kind of ironic to set up limits and authorization in a context that is about making some content available to the public?
I'd say any technical or legal restrictions or possible means to enforce DRM ought to be disabled or absent from the media format used when disseminating content that must be disclosed.
Censorship (of necessary) should purge the data entirely,ie: replace by ###
That's not true, you can mistakenly receive data you're not authorized to have (might even be criminal to have!)
> That's entirely different from gaining unauthorized entry to a system and copying out files that were never publicly available to begin with.
That's not the sum total of hacks, if you have publicly accessible password-protected PDF and guess the password as 1234, that's a hack. Copy& paste of black boxes is similarly a hack around content protection
> To put it simply, I am not responsible for the other party's incompetence.
To put it even simpler, this conversation is not about you and your responsibility, but about the different meanings of the word "hack "
> you can mistakenly receive data you're not authorized to have (might even be criminal to have!)
Not the layman, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Yes, certain licensed professionals can be subject to legal obligations in very specific situations. But in general, if you screw up and mail something to me (electronic or otherwise) then that is on you. I am not responsible for your actions.
> if you have publicly accessible password-protected PDF and guess the password as 1234, that's a hack
Sure, I'll agree that the software to break the DRM qualifies as a hack (in the technical work sense). It also might (or might not) rise to the level of "lack of legal authorization". I don't think it should, but the state of laws surrounding DRM make it clear that one probably wouldn't go in my favor.
However that isn't what (I understood) us to be talking about - ie legal authorization as it relates to black box redaction and similar fatally flawed approaches that leave the plain text data directly accessible (and thus my access plainly facilitated by the sender, if inadvertently).
> this conversation is not about ...
You are the only one using the term "hack" here. Please note that I had responded to your "limit/lack of authorization" phrasing. Nothing more.
That said, while we're on the topic I'll note the ambiguity of the term "hack" in this context. Illegal access versus clever but otherwise mundane bit of code (no laws violated). You seem to be failing to clearly differentiate.
> Not the layman, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Are you not aware of content that is criminal to possess? Like CP is the most common example.
> I am not responsible for your actions.
I've already addressed this confusion of yours - this is NOT about your responsibility for someone else's actions, but about your own actions and whether they constitute a "hack".
> You are the only one using the term "hack" here. Please note that I had responded to your "limit/lack of authorization" phrasing. Nothing more.
Please open a dictionary for the word hack to understand this conversation! And note the word "authorization" in the definition.
> However that isn't what (I understood) us to be talking about - ie legal authorization
Understandably you're confused, the legal limit is your own making, authorization is way broader than that.
> I'll note the ambiguity of the term "hack" in this context
Exactly!!! Keep looking into the definition to resolve the ambiguity!
You realize we just went from (the legal equivalent of) "I accidentally mailed you my tax return" to "I accidentally mailed you a bomb". Like yeah, it remains illegal to retain possession of said bomb irrespective of the fact that someone intentionally sent it. That is ... not at all surprising?
Beyond that you're clearly just trolling at this point, going to great lengths to manufacture an argument about a term that I never used to begin with. "Lack of authorization" has a clear legal meaning whereas "hack" does not.
For the 3rd time, this conversation is not about YOU and not about what surprises you!
> "Lack of authorization" has a clear legal meaning whereas "hack" does not.
No, you've made up this limit to some "legal meaning" (also wrong here, large variety there as well but wouldn't want to endulge you further). Again, open up a dictionary on "hack", then follow the definition of "authorization" from there, if you only find "legal" in there, get a better dictionary, journalists / commenters are usually not lawyers, so they wouldn't accept your artificial legal limits on meaning!
> Beyond that you're clearly just trolling at this point
I think this is the greatest proof of the simultaneous validity of two different arguments. Disclaimer, I'm assuming (I think fairly) that you're in good faith.
The funny thing is, to me, the other commenter's arguments are quite clear/obvious to me and make sense. Not that your points are wrong - but... I'm 99% sure the other person isn't trolling in the slightest. Y'all are just talking across each other.
Initially, perhaps. However note that my attempts to clarify exactly that are repeatedly followed by misconstruing my position. It's not so much that we disagree as that the supposed disagreement is about things I never said. The repeated failure to respond to what was actually said coupled with the combative tone is pretty much the definition of trolling. Of course that term does assume intent to an extent - if he's just having a bad day I'm not sure that technically qualifies. The end result is the same though.
BTW if you feel I've missed some insightful point of his do please elaborate.
But this isn’t an unexpected technique it’s literally the core design of the pdf format. It’s a layered format that preserves the layers on any machine. Adobe has a redaction feature to overcome the default behavior that each layer can be accessed even if there is a top layer in front.
A dictionary definition: "use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system."
This isn't about knowledge or expectations. They didn't use colored boxes to jazz up the presentation, they _intended_ to prevent you from reading it, and now you can, with this, again incredibly _lame_ almost meaningless even-my-five-year-old-could-do this "hack."
