Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | 986aignan's commentslogin

> They get blocked by Recaptcha, I think.

I think SV was asking what onion services, which can't really use recaptcha, do to prevent the DDoS storm.

And I would imagine the answer is obscurity, since the dark web isn't nearly as well-mapped as the public web. That and some Anubis or other PoW would probably go far.


Proof of work I get, but isn’t that like step2?

If I’m hosting at some IP, I still need Anubis or something to serve up the challenge, so doesn’t that become the attack point?


If it's just a contact form on some random site that isn't particularly valuable to spammers, a bespoke solution like hidden input fields, obfuscation, or some kind of token calculated client-side by JS will probably work just as well.

That used to be the case, unfortuantely today even bespoke solutions can be completed by automation - any anything that just requires running JS in a headless browser was ineffective for a long time already.

Certain esters have been found to be much safer (in mice, at least):

> The glutathione hepatic values in mice obtained by intraperitoneal injection of the ester are superimposable on controls and the oral LD50 was found to be greater than 2000 mg kg^-1 and the intraperitoneal LD50 was 1900 mg kg^-1 ...

That's for pyroglutamic and glutamic acid esters of paracetamol: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8799871/

and more general analogs apparently can also be designed to not produce NAPQI:

> Thus, in 2020, N-sulpharyl-APAP prodrugs 39–40 (Fig. 11) were developed. [...] They are not hepatotoxic because they do not generate toxic metabolite NAPQI, even in concentrations equal to a toxic dose of APAP (600 mg kg^−1 in mice).

https://pubs.rsc.org/zh-tw/content/articlepdf/2024/ra/d4ra00... p. 9702.

These would probably require trials, though.


There's a broader law: If it needs to insist on what it is, it probably isn't. E.g. "People's Democratic Republic of Foo".


The code lets you shoot yourself in the foot in a lot more ways than a spec does, though. Few people would make specs that include buffer overflows or SQL injection.


"and don't have any security vulnerabilities" isn't a spec though. As soon as you get specific you're right back in it.


That sounds like a good way to get extreme short-term optimization.

Say a particular finetune prioritizes profits right now and makes recommendations like "cut down on maintenance, you can make up for it later with your increased profits and their interest". It produces more profits, and wins the AB test. Later the chickens come home to roost.

You can reduce the problem by using long-term indicators, but then each AB test is very slow.


The Rivest methods in the CSR13 paper - ThreeBallot, VAV, and Twin - seem to be relatively simple. Not directly applicable to online voting, though, but perhaps they would be simple enough to prove to the people that regular voting has no voter fraud?


Not all answers are conducive to such subtle manipulation, though. If the user asks for an algorithm to solve the knapsack problem, it's kind of hard to stealthily go "now let's see how many Coca Colas will fit in the knapsack". If the user asks for a cyberpunk story, "the decker prepared his Microsoft Cyberdeck" would sound off, too.

Biasing actual buying advice would be feasible, but it would have to be handled very carefully to not be too obvious.


I wish there were some kind of file search for the Wayback Machine. Like "list all .S3M files on members.aol.com before 1998". It would've made looking for obscure nostalgia much easier.


I'm surprised that the article doesn't mention the peroxidase hypothesis[1]. Has it been disproven?

[1] https://tmedweb.tulane.edu/pharmwiki/doku.php/acetaminophen


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: