News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google’s new reCAPTCHA has a dark side by benreesman on Thursday June 27, 2019 @04:48PM (#20298577)
GitHub is always at your disposal. NV doesn’t sell the consumer cards to enterprises. So on AWS a multi-GPU box will cost you about 12 dollars an hour. If you can disambiguate, let’s just say 85% of profiles absent IP or cookies, well I think you just broke the academic SOTA and I’d love to make some calls.

Cheat sheet: you can’t.

Re:Google’s new reCAPTCHA has a dark side by byonge on Friday June 28, 2019 @01:53AM (#20301818)
I sorta understand the sentiment where there are tools like :

https://amiunique.org/ https://browserprint.info/

whose results would have you believe that one's footprint is very unique. I'd be interested in hearing more about why this is hard to implement into an efficient process.

Re:Google’s new reCAPTCHA has a dark side by saagarjha on Thursday June 27, 2019 @05:44PM (#20299145)
> GitHub is always at your disposal. NV doesn’t sell the consumer cards to enterprises. So on AWS a multi-GPU box will cost you about 12 dollars an hour.

I don’t see how this is related to the claim, since it doesn’t solve the problem. But the advertising company that I let run code on my website will certainly do the job pretty well, I’d say.

Re:Google’s new reCAPTCHA has a dark side by benreesman on Thursday June 27, 2019 @08:32PM (#20300367)
I was pointing out that it’s a commercially applicable of a very strongly worded claim that I know would be expensive to test because I’m optimizing GPU intensive code at the moment. I don’t know where in this thread I generated so much ill will for trying to add knowledge to the conversation, but I’m not making shit up.
Re:Google’s new reCAPTCHA has a dark side by saagarjha on Friday June 28, 2019 @04:23AM (#20302437)
There are tools that will supposedly do this to a high degree of accuracy. Are you saying that they are fake/don't work as well as they'd want us to believe?