umbrae
- In the past month and a half or so since we’ve launched, about 20% of published profiles have had a reveal request. That varies heavily based on profile quality, some have gotten 4 in a row.
That said, even though it’ll be pretty low volume it should be very high signal. Our accept rate is around 70% right now. This is primarily because people have to pay outright to contact you (excepting the first free one), so only folks with pretty good matches should be reaching out.
- Tech only right now and also heavily biased towards US, probably 95% US. Startups and Agencies have been the primary target and market. You’re less likely to find a Facebook on Limbo and more likely to find a small team that is a pretty precise match for you. There are a couple larger companies on there though, like Mozilla.
The long and short of the problem is that great folks are often employed and finding your next ideal role is too time consuming and emotionally taxing, and that great folks with diverse backgrounds are unfairly discriminated against at resume review time. Limbo attempts to solve those problems with an anonymous job platform.
More on the concepts behind it here: https://medium.com/@chrisdary/introducing-limbo-ddb97a67ff63
Example: https://i.imgur.com/IHKy3I5.png
RE: Questions to candidates: We've considered precisely that, with a very similar implementation. We may build it soon!
Fun fact: jsonlint uses an html5 cache manifest, and can be used even while offline.
I forgot that they even existed until you just mentioned it. Maybe other people would want to use it?
(You were right in either case, apparently.)
What we've done is provided each user with a set number of votes - by default 10 per room - and each user can put as many votes into one idea as they'd like. This forces them to make hard choices about which ideas are the most valuable to them.
This economy of votes has worked out surprisingly well for us in practice, and people become very thoughtful about how many votes they want to expend on an idea. I'd be curious your thoughts.
Kindling is an idea collaboration engine. Meant to find brilliance within an organization.
MFSA 2009-41 Corrupt JIT state after deep return from native function
http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2009/mfsa2009-41.ht...
(b) Obviously. Still extraordinarily difficult given this implementation IMO. But I take your point genuinely.
(c) Agreed.
If you weren't so friggin inflammatory I'd think we could come to a conclusion here. I could definitely be using a more lossy visualization to be more secure. This is something I'll look into, even though I'm sure you'll still consider it 'retarded' even if it helps your grandma login to her googles more often, making you get less phone calls to fix it as a result. She's got that palsy you know.
A: It only uses the first 20 bytes of the hash. You could narrow it down from this if you were really determined, but you'd not be able to reverse it.
B: The visualization of the sparkline doesn't have the fidelity to determine between characters 6 and 7. So you'd have a range of possible characters.
C: The alternative being suggested by Jakob Nielsen is no masking at all ( http://www.useit.com/alertbox/passwords.html ) - which is less secure? I know this isn't the best argument, but it still is -an- argument.
With that out of the way, my paranoid mind agrees with you in this context: just masking the passwords is the more secure solution. But that doesn't mean that experiments to provide a more usable approach with (arguably) equal security should be avoided.
HashMask - Another (More Secure) Experiment in Password Masking
You'll notice that I'm only using lowercase letters currently - that was an intentional choice as it seemed too obscured when using a fuller character set.
I'll give this another look though and see if there may be a good middle ground.
Forking to try new things is heartily encouraged - I'd like to see new approaches to password masking.
Once he was outed, he realized what he'd done and came to his senses.
I expect it involves checking users' passwords two different ways (with salt, without) for the foreseeable future.