skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
100% disagree. My standard gmail address is with dots but when I have to tell my (rather long because it is my full three part name) I either omit the dots or tell them they don't matter. Totally an important and useful feature. Netflix is at fault for letting someone else use your email without asking you for permission.
When reading the title I thought this was named after Peter Molyneux the creator of fable. And the problem was over sharing/promesing game features
Plusses are an optional part of a standard[1]. The main email standard does not require a+b@c.com to be treated the same as a@c.com [2].

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233

[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.3
This actually has been fully merged since (JIT compiled expressions (projections, aggregates, etc), tuple deforming, operator implementation inlining). There's a lot of further work to do however (caching, non-crappy code for expressions, better planner logic).
Things I learned at one of the most ambitious startups ever conceived (2016)
But if just the email validation problem were addressed - you wouldn't accidentally pay for someone's rides. Their account would never be created as they don't have access to the email they provided. Just dealing with email validation solves both problems.
By definition, only 1% of people can be in the 1%...
Evolution of the English alphabet
In gsuite dot matters.
ClickHouse ships with a command line tool which does this (without the actual database server):

ps aux | tail -n +2 | awk '{ printf("%s\t%s\n", $1, $4) }' | \
clickhouse-local -S "user String, mem Float64" \
-q "SELECT user, round(sum(mem), 2) as memTotal FROM table GROUP BY user ORDER BY memTotal DESC FORMAT Pretty"

┏━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ user ┃ memTotal ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ clickho+ │ 0.7 │
├──────────┼──────────┤
│ root │ 0.2 │
├──────────┼──────────┤
│ netdata │ 0.1 │
├──────────┼──────────┤
│ ntp │ 0 │
├──────────┼──────────┤
│ dbus │ 0 │
├──────────┼──────────┤
│ nginx │ 0 │
├──────────┼──────────┤
│ polkitd │ 0 │
├──────────┼──────────┤
│ nscd │ 0 │
├──────────┼──────────┤
│ postfix │ 0 │
└──────────┴──────────┘

Has the advantage of being really fast.
Does anyone else use dots in their email service? Wouldnt your second point be as simple as Netflix checking every gmail address against a dotless version of all of those addresses? Eg email-1 in the table is their address as input and email-2 is the dotless version, Netflix could then ensure that email-2 is unique. Seems pretty straight forward to accomodate an admittedly silly ‘feature’ of the largest email provider.
This is a classic logical fallacy called an "Appeal to Extremes" (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...).

It is about as compelling as stomping your feet and yelling at the top of your lungs.
My understanding is that the RFCs define how the Internet work so by definition, they are not wrong. You're certainly free to assert that they made a bad decision and I'm not qualified to offer an opinion on whether you are right or wrong.

However since Netflix is not managing email addresses in accordance with RFC-5322 They are clearly wrong.
Nope, that would violate the agreement made between you and your bank.
Mata Hari with a Clockwork Eye, Alligators in the Sewer (1963) [pdf]
After #CambridgeAnalytica #Facebook COO Sandberg admits another possible misuse
Yes, we changed to that from https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/culture/bo....
They could do those things, but like every other company in this space they have concluded that advertising is the most profitable option for them.
First of all, Aadhaar is not just being used for welfare schemes. It is a giant database getting linked to everything. I wouldn't be surprised if it will soon be mandatory for booking flights. Plus much of the database has leaked. You can find thousands of Aadhar cards online just by googling.

As far as preventing 'leakage'--the best approach would be to not subsidize products but to move to direct benefits transfer (like food stamps in the US.) The government has been doing this anyway, for things like the LGP cooking gas subsidy. But even that has been problematic in terms of implementation. When it comes to solving corruption, we can't let technocratic bureaucrats come up with solutions in air-conditioned offices and hand-wave away the deprivation and other problems their solutions cause on the ground.
This is fairly inconsistent with countries with riding inequality, such as the US. If anything, rising inequality shows that rather than there being a gradual curve of salary proportional to hours worked, there are tiers of salary and not much in the middle.
I'd log in an cancel the account. Why feel wierd? Someone is using your email address without your permission.

Curious how often this happens.
More curious would be to show people a set of cube/sphere datasets & ask them to categorize
One of the super-fun aspects of coeliac disease is sensitivity increases with lack of exposure to gluten. The longer you’re on the gluten free diet the worse the symptoms are.

Of course it could be that you never noticed how bad it was before.
Are you kidding? Have you been to SOMA?
But also to basic thermodynamic considerations. As far as chemical systems go, mammals actually operates near the low end of temperatures.
This seems very cool, but it's hard to imagine myself ever using this for anything. What use cases do you imagine this has or have other people found for something like this?
Can see you found out how to sign-up for the HN Tokyo slack, so welcome #Sukotto!

For anyone else reading who wants to join there is an auto-invite here:

https://hntokyo.io/
>And they evolved a foraging technique called lunge feeding, where they accelerate into a shoal of prey, open their ballooning mouths, and suck in vast volumes of water.

This is terrifying.
> The OP is saying, correctly, that certain data structures are inexpressible in safe Rust

The op didn't say "safe rust", that's my point.
> Americans are citizens of their country whether they can prove it or not. Whether they can pass an ID scan or not. It's one of the reasons why voter ID proposals are so vocally opposed. I am a citizen, just as I am a human being. I do not need to prove it to exist.

I hope you mean this in jest as this privilege does not apply to vast swathes of the population.
Absolutely. I don’t blame people who don’t interact with email for not reading the relevant RFCs, but not verifying control and expecting local part uniqueness to mean uniqueness of users is obviously busted to anyone who has worked with email. This is Netflix failing to understand part of their product surface.

Both the dot behavior and the even more common ‘+’ feature are perfectly spec compliant.
“Don’t Mess with Our Elections”: Vigilante Hackers Strike Russia, Iran
> Some would say that Netflix should verify the email address on sign up, but there's no obvious attack that this mitigates.

Someone could carry out this exact attack but without dots. The attacker creates an account, associates it with your email, and hopes you put your credit card info into the account.

How come the attacker didn't "[cede] account control to [you]" when the attacker put your email into the attacker's account? The control issue seems the same regardless of how dots are treated.
That's only true as long as corporations remain relatively small in power. There has been a definite trend in consolidation of power amongst the larger corporations and if it continues there won't be much practical difference between them or the government
I just got a non-dot response to someone paying their Duke Energy bill, addressed to my name. I did find another person with my name in Indiana so maybe they screwed up their rmail? I checked my credit and I have no fraud activity, so it’s just weird.

I don’t like the dots-don’t-Matter policy. It’s just an opportunity for abuse.
"They cannot accommodate public-key encryption"

I take it you mean that there are no known hash-based public key encryption systems. I assume you don't intend to say they are provably impossible to construct?

I remember when I first learned about hash-based cryptography I was amazed how hashing was the only cryptographic primitive used. Ever since I regularly (once or twice a year) try to google "hash-based public key" and other combinations in the hope that someday someone will have worked out how to found public key encryption on cryptographic hashing...

It feels impossible but so felt hash-based signatures before learning how to sign a single bit and then generalize to more...
Completely disagree about the solution, I use that all the time and it's very useful.

This would be a Netflix issue IMO for not validating emails properly and allowing duplicate signups.
Seems like a classic case of standardizing interpreting email moniker. Need an RFC for this
The problem lies in accepting "m['xz'.substr(0, 1)] = true;".

This line must only be accepted if a proof that 'xz'.substr(0, 1) != "x" is provided (for instance, inferred from a runtime check or encoded as a type) [obviously, that's impossible with that specific value]

While "unergonomic", code that doesn't do that is just broken and might for instance result in a security catastrophe if the key is attacker controlled.
And how do you provide DBT - direct benefits transfer - to whom? How do you qualify them? Underpinning all this is identity.

A modern state that cannot establish identity is not very useful.

(Wow, I am being downvoted).
> finding stuff without gluten might have been pretty hard.

Finding anything was pretty hard on its own. In the XIX century, famines due to bad-harvest years were still a thing - potato blight etc etc. It wasn't until early XX century that the combination of industrial practices and a well-established railway network made food scarcity (mostly) a thing of the past, since stuff could now be grown more intensively and then transported quickly all over Europe.

Until then, taking entire foodstuffs out of one's diet could mean the difference between eating and starving.
It’s not too short. 12 characters including the name separating dot.

This person that recently started using this email is using the same name but with no dot.

first.lastname@gmail is what I use, and now I’m getting a bunch for firstlastname@gmail.

Some of these emails look pretty important too, if I had malicious intent, I could probably ruin and or steal this persons identity and or business with the specific mail that I’ve received recently.

I’m really amazed at the lack of confirmation of emails before sending things like your HVAC business license, or city contracting permits, that have other people’s identifying information in them too.
That's not communism, though. Communism requires the withering of the state, so a communistic government is a contradiction of terms.
Nobody said they never did. I personally am thrilled by:

* It works reliably enough to be useful in the most extreme inhabitated environments. (And this habitation is artificial and very expensive)

* The logistics behind the experimental setup must have been pretty complex and all worked out. It makes me wonder whether people who manage artic stations get loaned to ESA/NASA and vv.[1]

I would say that proving a technology under those circumstances is the ultimate proof of usability, something an artificial test setup can never provide.

[1] Deploying something to space or the arctics both means that you can only fix a very limited set of problems on-the-fly. Everybody ask themselves whether they would bet someone's survival on their code or logistics.....
A big hurdle is that when you hire the first dedicated person into a new domain (be it UX, Embedded, Security, EE, Legal, Finance whatever.) you often don't really understand the domain well enough to know what you need. You should also be thinking that rather than this person doing all the work themselves they should be educating the rest of the company in this area. They need to be experts, they also need to be good "people" people. You probably already got lots of "not experts" in those areas ;)

Security is very multi-faceted. Securing your internal/IT applications is very different than writing secure code which in turn may be different than some other specialized situation. Ideally you already have some people who have some clue and/or have seen something that works somewhere else from an organizational perspective (or have seen things that don't work that you don't want to repeat). E.g. you may have some IT person who isn't a security expert who has worked in a team that had a stronger security bias/expertise and has seen how that team worked/was structured. You may have a senior coder who has pretty solid ideas about security but it's not his main expertise. Leverage that stuff! Talk to those guys about how to build the team...
What great timing -- I've been fighting Uber on this very issue as of last night: https://twitter.com/mholt6/status/982414407941611520
completely agree, I've a rather common name with a corresponding gmail, it's absolutely shocking how little validation major Airlines do around emails!
I'm pretty sure Amazon allows unlimited accounts as long as you have different passwords.

This is beyond bizarre. I have at least 2 accounts with the same email and the way into it is by knowing what password leads to which one.

I have yet to see what happens if I try to set both accounts to the same password.
Control of mineral resources, for example. Mining and oil/gas companies are already some of the largest corporations in existence. These are capital-intensive businesses where small entities often can't survive market downturns. Small resource owners get acquired by bigger ones during periods of financial distress, or juniors pre-emptively try to join forces with established companies as soon as they have a proven project to develop. The "natural" tendency, in absence of limits imposed by states, would be to reap maximum economies of scale, control over pricing, and resilience to downturn by combining extractive businesses without limit. A handful of giant corporations could acquire a commanding position over every mineral commodity required by industrial civilization. OPEC could be a very effective price-setter indeed were it a transnational corporation with unified ownership. Its monopolistic aims are actually hobbled by the diverse ownership of the oil fields of its members.

If you picture eliminating the state altogether, including its enforcement of property rights and contracts, then I concede that the powers attendant to wealth would no longer involve a de jure state. I think that the powers of concentrated wealth would remain nonetheless. Wealth would hire private guards to exclude others from their mines instead of using the law enforcement apparatus of a state, for example.
Uh correct me if I'm wrong, but "kill all cancer cells" is less lucrative than "put you on a maintenance regime that you need to stay alive", and is a major part of the ethical debate surrounding gleevec.
And with your own personal block of /64, you could give out unique numbers to anyone you want ^_^
I feel like this would be a great argument for an args keyword, in the same way that this is a keyword. args would just be a JSON object with some additional syntactic sugar for adding/removing parameters.

So if you have an overloaded method, say

print(String)

print(String, Int)

you could just do

print(args.extend(Int))
Giving is exactly what turned one blogger's bipolar struggles into something manageble [1]:

"I felt trapped, waiting for the descent, wondering how steep, prepared somewhat for its arrival because it had never not come. Now, though, here was a PhD telling me the altruistic acts Buy Nothing Bainbridge enabled me to perform spurred production of chemicals that actually helped heal my misfiring synapses."

Sometimes science and religion do converge around the same truth. Some form of meaningful (to the recipient) giving is one path that would restore the "lost direction and belonging" mentioned in the top parent.

[1] https://buynothingproject.org/2013/12/23/my-buy-nothing-expe...
Really, it was simply your mistake for following a link in an email and then entering credentials where you landed, i.e.. you fell for phishing.

The idea that a company should only accept one account per email address is bullshit (it a contact address, not an identity), and if they don't do that, any of that "don't allow any aliases for email addresses" on the part of the email provider would be completely pointless anyway. You simply don't use context delivered by email as a starting point for disclosing credentials, and you have solved all (email) phishing attacks.
Your bank could put a line at the top of your statement that reads:

SPECIAL HAPPY NEW YEAR MESSAGE FROM FACEBANK $0.00

and then come February they realise they look pretty stupid so they take it out of the statement (web page). No one would care too much.
Or just lived with minor discomfort, as plant strains were different and were consumed in much lower quantities anyway.
A lot of the newer industrial cards are 'aMLC', which basically means you take an MLC NAND, but only stuff 11 or 00 into a cell and sort of treat it as SLC. You can get for close to $1/GB at sane quantities.
In game design, an imbalanced game is not fun for anyone.

Games that allow both skilled/rich and less-skilled/poor players are common even in balanced games, and they are fun.

The problem becomes when a few players are cheating or the game is imbalanced to the point that noone can win but the already winners and noone can have any fun.

Right now we have inequality that is more like cheats in a game than a balanced, fun, fair game.

Ultimately money wasn't designed to be hoarded, it was designed to be an exchange of value and services. Hoarded money that isn't put into action is taking from the game and the fun which cheats everyone.
If Google fixed dots-don't-matter, couldn't someone still sign up for Netflix with jameshfisher+netflix@gmail.com?

If Netflix checks for + address duplicates, then that's not an issue. But you could still have the situation where someone signs up for, let's say, Hulu with your standard jameshfisher@gmail.com account. And then you could still end up paying if you forget whether you ever signed up for Hulu or not (maybe you were about to sign up and didn't, maybe you planned to in the future).

Email validation seems like the most important defense against this kind of thing. Dots mattering seems secondary.
"Nice about it"? What should they do, hand it out to people?
Also quit using quora, deleted app, because of this.
You will still be expected to pay taxes in the official coin of the realm and will probably want to keep it in something slightly less volatile than current cryptocurrency.
Yep. Bug is the ability for users to charge a credit card before verifying email.

Or did the victim in this blogpost also verify their email at some point?

Netflix could be forgiven for thinking that updating payment details via email = verifying email. But if the victim had to respond to two emails, the first of which is a “verify email for your new account,” the phishing would be less believable.

Ultimately, the viability of a phishing scheme depends on the plausibility of receiving an email from a source. In this case, Netflix does send emails about updating your card details when a subscription charge fails, so plausibility of receiving the email from Netflix is high.

Another symptom that this is a bug with Netflix is that they granted the ability for one user to trigger a crafted email to another user.
> However since Netflix is not managing email addresses in accordance with RFC-5322 They are clearly wrong.

Where are they not?
I prefer creating a unique email alias from dots more than plus. Especially if I sign up for something I'm worried will leak my email address to a third party, I use the dots. A malicious sharer of emails could trivially strip all the "+site@gmail.com" before sharing, but they can't know ahead of time if they get my primary email by adding or removing dots.

Also, a few times when I've signed up with "name+service@gmail.com", I've then failed to unsubscribe because their unsubscribe form didn't accept the + but the subscription form did.
Well I've been working on a language based on Linguistic Universals for like over 10 years. It's called Pyash.

of the things you mentioned, it is analytical rather than isolating, so there is morphological separation between grammatical concepts and stem constructs -- much like in Lojban cmavo vs gismu.

Biggest difference from Lojban and other unnatural programming languages is the use of grammatical cases for denoting parameters.

for instance: "hyikdoka tyutdoyu plostu" which glossed is "one _number _accusative_case, two _number _instrumental_case plus _deonetic_mood", or in colloquial English "Increase the number one by the number two!"

(result is "the number three." or "tyindoka li")

because it has a rich type system which is based on noun-classifiers, a language construct popular in asia, english example is "two dollars of corn" where dollars-of is the noun-classifier for two.

In terms of tenses and concurrency, I have fairly elaborate asynchronous parallel execution model already. but probably could use future tense of scheduling. And the computer could accurately describe it's state by combining tense and grammatical aspect.

articles are generally found in languages that have lost a nominative-accusative case distinction, and can generally be piled up with anaphoric references, i.e. refering to variables.

Here is a paper wrote about it last year:
http://liberit.ca:43110/1DYjc22BP5VkqNLJgr3nQfoGiNLbGFGffG
for slightly more information http://pyac.ca

If anyone is interested can put up a more recent paper also.
Too often do I begin writing pseudo code only to realize that writing valid python is actually quicker. Its sloppy python, but we'll get back to that once the concept is proven.
What is DH?
That sounds at most as crazy as female peacocks appreciating beautiful colors
Pandas Extension Arrays
I frequently use the dots-dont-matter feature as a substitute for plus-labeling when dealing with sites that prohibit pluses in their email addresses (which is painfully common).

That said, I have a firstname.lastname Gmail account and I get a lot of email following this problem:

https://xkcd.com/1279/

And some have the dot, and some don't. Piles of services. Sometimes I get confused for a second because they're services I use.... but maybe registered under a different account.

The number of emails that don't include a "this is not me" link in them is pathetic. Or that require you to sign in with a username and password to contact support.
That the ailment is nutrition based competes with all other factors. It is a giant diagnosis problem, not a just a nutritional elimination problem.
Voluntary communism was tried too, read about kibbutzim. As you can expect it had practically the same problems as USSR (weirdly including authoritarianism) and they mostly had to return back to private property rights for members.
At least in Capitalism you are allowed to talk about your suffering. In the communist utopias of the 20th century, speaking of your suffering or trying to alleviate it was a capital offence.
Everybody's MMV; I have more trouble with the difference between "Kirche" (church) and "Kirsche" (cherry) in German.
Birth rate is a function of poverty. It's high in poor places, since the childhood survival rate is low, and you need extra children to help support family and community.

As standards of living increase, birth rate drops, until it's at a sustainable 2-per-family, like it is in rich countries.

Force poor people to have less kids, and you keep them in poverty. Improve their living situations and they'll have less kids.