News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A critique of Gmail's “smart replies”.

Re:A critique of Gmail's “smart replies” by tkcins on Monday November 12, 2018 @03:36PM (#18435506)
He shouldn't have blurred the text in [0], as blurred text could be read using techniques I admit knowing nothing about. It's better to just use a black block or something like that. Pixelating is bad too.

[0] https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*h8cIVhi7n9-vuNJ-1...

Edit: I just noticed parts of the concealed text have been "smudged" before blurred. So no risk here. Still valid as a PSA :)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A critique of Gmail's “smart replies” by 51lver on Monday November 12, 2018 @04:01PM (#18435771)
Personally I prefer replacing the text and then applying a light blur. Let them feel smart for a few seconds.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A critique of Gmail's “smart replies” by userbinator on Monday November 12, 2018 @04:00PM (#18435763)
Yes, the first thing I noticed is the date quite clearly says 18 (why not blur the whole thing?)

There's a discussion on deblurring techniques before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4679801

[ Parent | on HN ]