sixtiethutopia

The hijacker effectively controlled the IP range used by the domain, not the domain itself.

There's a big difference between the two. The hijacker would not have been able to do dns-01 verification. Restrictive CAA records would have prevented the hijacker from having the certificates issued.

The lightbulb that you're throwing away also contains all the same electronics that a larger light fixture does, just in a smaller and less thermally efficient space.

Mounting options that allow larger LED lights allow you to use lights that are more thermally efficient without sacrificing any replaceability. JIS C 8310 mounts for example.

If we're sharing problems contributing to google maps: I tried submitting a correction to google maps for the first time a few months back. A cafe was listed in the wrong location by about 100m. Very confusingly putting it on the other side of the station it's in front of in a different building.

I submitted the correct location and it said the change required manual review. Then a few days later I got an email that the change has been accepted. But opening google maps it was still in the same wrong location, and it's still wrong now.

When a user reuses a previously saved government ID is that ID decrypted and sent in plaintext to your service? (Ie. does your service see the ID in plaintext every time a user uses the service?)

Do you use zero-knowledge proofs in any way?

> Still bugs me that states charge sales tax even on used items. It just seems wrong.

Yes VAT is a better system.

That's not what security through obscurity means. Security through obscurity has a specific meaning, it doesn't just mean to gain security by hiding anything it means to attempt to gain security by hiding how a system works.

ASLR is a well understood system that exploit writers know to expect and thus ASLR is not security through obscurity.

It's email-compatible and uses pgp for encryption. No forward secrecy and supports sending unencrypted messages as well for people who don't have pgp.

No forward secrecy and will automatically switch to unencrypted messages if you receive an unencrypted message from a contact.

I wonder if it's vulnerable to downgrade attacks from adversaries falsifying the sending address. If an adversary sends an unencrypted email imitating a contact will delta chat reject it or will it silently switch the chat with that contact over to unencrypted email?

This kind of "ethics" is common in many different areas.

For example in rock climbing there's no cheating, only lying.

There's nothing wrong with hangdogging a route (relying on the rope/gear to rest while ascending a route) but if you then tell people that you redpointed the route (climbed the route start to finish without relying on the rope/gear) then you're a liar.