I feel like it should be clarified here that async/await is not exclusive to TypeScript, but a ES7 (?) feature that is also available if you use the Babel transpiler.
Having type safety is great of course, but it might be too heavy to add if you just want good async handling.
Hehe, there aren't.. I looked in the source code. Another aside is that getting the Blockchain technology opens you up for the hackers that steal $10M, so it's really just a big loss.
Even if everybody does not have the same aptitude, that should not mean that the people who might have more difficulty with certain subjects should avoid them.
Sure, it might be more difficult for me to learn to play the piano than for some virtuoso, but my life will still be richer after I learn it, instead of giving up because it is difficult. No?
Only in a vacuum: there might be something besides piano more in line with your aptitudes that, for the same effort, will give you more reward (or the same reward with less effort).
This isnt to say I don't believe we should do things we're bad at -- I think broadening our aptitudes is good for us -- but you do have to consider the opportunity cost of piano versus another option.
That's the tragedy of 'everyone can do everything' thinking. And it's why growth-mindset has to be tempered with recognition of aptitude. If it isn't it can derail lives.
> Sure, it might be more difficult for me to learn to play the piano than for some virtuoso, but my life will still be richer after I learn it, instead of giving up because it is difficult. No?
The very process of working to improve at something you're not good at (or have any natural aptitude for) is a wonderful way to learn how to adapt, compensate for weaknesses, and overcome adversity. I know I'll never be a weightlifting champion, but aside from the health benefits, I lift because it's something I'm not good at.
Exactly, we should encourage attacking adversity. It is the only way to get resiliency.
I've been told in the past I'm good at solving complex problems I've never encountered before. I just show them my notes on how I solved it and say I'm not good at all, just persistent and willing to learn as I go. I notice a lot of people give up at the first sign of adversity. I might too depending on the criticality but that doesn't mean I accept defeat.
This quote sticks out as a bit of an exaggeration regarding the difficulty of this operation:
"Notably, integration of WhatsApp's and Facebook's networks would require matching WhatsApp users' profiles with their profiles on Facebook (or vice versa). This would be complicated without the users' involvement since Facebook and WhatsApp use different unique user identifiers: Facebook ID and mobile phone number, respectively."
However, after reading this I feel like the decision focused mostly on the possibility of Facebook merging WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger into a unified communications platform. This feels different to me than merging user-ids over platforms to improve targeted ads. But IANAL, and there are probably documents that I have missed.
The quote basically says that this task is complicated because it requires an equivalent of a SQL one-liner that any CS undergrad should be able to write. Where would Facebook/WhatsApp find experts that good?
Select *
from fb_users
join wp_users
on wp_users.id = fb_users.phone_number
A really basic query that will give you all the fb users who have listed their phone number.
Also i just realized while typing this, i think fb started allowing logging in using your phone number around the time they bought whatsapp. So even the profiles that didn't give their phone number to fb, they could get it via this logging system. ( I guess i was a victim of that)
I think more than half of the FB users also use the app or facebook messenger, which gives them access to their phone number through app permissons alone. Additionally they have access to the contact lists of both apps and can correlate names and phone numbers from there. Even if someone doesn't use the FB app and hasn't listed his phone number in FB - if any friend has him as contact in FB and Whatsapp it's quite trivial to match the IDs.
And that's why i said users who have listed their phone number.
They can get phone number from users who use their phone number to log in but not have listed it in their profile (me), people who have enabled 2FA or from messenger. It's just a simple sql join. Ofcourse not at FB scale but this is me thinking about this problem for 10 seconds and also i'm in probably not even as intelligent as the dumbest guy working at fb.
And then there are people who just use a Google Voice number on Whatsapp instead of a real phone number, and many don't even have a phone number listed on Facebook. I'm actually surprised that anybody would give their real phone number to Facebook, Whatsapp, or any of the other "social networks"...
But you can give Whatsapp a Google Voice number instead of your real phone number. That way if they decide to sell it as part of your profile, you can easily change/cycle it (or apply better filtering, DND, etc.)
And you're basing this on... what? Facebook nags you EVERY TIME you login for your phone number. EVERY TIME. I can tell you every last one of my friends who is non-technical has put in their phone number simply to get rid of the nag message. While my evidence is anecdotal, it flies in the face of yours. So I assume you have a citation for your "most users" comment.
So i did some search. Facebook app is installed 1 billion - 5 billion times on android alone. Facebook app has access to your contact card, your contacts and bunch of other stuff. Now let's say there are 20% of people who review these permissions and don't give fb access to everything. Even with that it leaves ~800 million apps with access to phone numbers. And this is Android alone.
I would be pretty surprised if evgen had same views if he wasn't working at fb.
Have left and have been working on my own startup for several months now, but I am aware of how some of the data is siloed at FB and also that WhatsApp was run very independently (as in, almost no operational contact between the two companies) up until the summer at least. I don't doubt that FB can tie a specific FB user id to a WA user id, and if they tried hard they could tie a large fraction together using a variety of data sources (certainly not a 'one-line SQL query') but between 10-25% would fail due to bad data on either the FB or WA end. A partially complete data set is not as useful as you might think...
Yeah, this would be really simple, and even without this, I do not believe that fingerprinting the phones and using that as an ID to join identities is that complex these days?
> This would be complicated without the users' involvement since Facebook and WhatsApp use different unique user identifiers: Facebook ID and mobile phone number, respectively.
For some time now, facebook has been requiring a phone number to register. In some cases, they don't ask for one until you try to add people, or something alike.
If you use Facebook Messenger (with no facebook account), you can sign up using ONLY you phone number.
Your RFID card is very easy to attack. Recently I heard of an attack where a guy was sneakily putting a RFID card reader against people's pockets on the subway. With this he was able to charge each card $20 without them even having to authorize the transaction. (above $20 usually requires some auth)
Phones authorize the transaction differently and are this still safe to use for tap & pay.
The problem with that kind of attack is that it's easily traceable and easy to spot. That guy needed a merchant account to carry it out. To get that someone had to show their identity to the processor. Also, once it's discovered you can easily find out who else was affected.
It also takes some time to get that money out of the merchant account. I've yet to hear someone actually doing that in practice because it only sounds if you don't think too long about it.
Got any sources? That's a very common urban myth, there have even been some pictures that have gone viral on Twitter. As far as I can tell, every such story that's been actually tracked to the source has fallen apart.
This attack doesn't work because as soon as you're discovered by a few victims, the payment processor is going to roll back all your transactions. Not to mention the massive paper trail you leave behind when you are applying for a merchant account.
Not over the contactless interface, part of the data is different every time the card is tapped. It becomes worthless to 'clone' contactless cards because of that.
Credit card companies use their huge database of merchants and your own transaction history to authorize tap transactions. If anything is too out of the norm for you, the tap won't go through.
Furthermore, nobody is going to pay out on these fraudulent transactions once they're discovered. It's not as if the money is instantly transferred.
