|
Neito posted:Can't compress a liquid. Not with that attitude.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
Eyes evolved underwater, don’t want air eyes popping out under different pressures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.Lawnie posted:Isn’t part of WhatsApp’s schtick that it’s more secure than other forms of mobile communication? That’s reason enough alone to keep account identifiers unique and simple. Fruits of the sea posted:Restricting people from making multiple accounts on just about any online service is an attempt to mitigate spam, fraud, abuse, impersonation and all sorts of other mischief. fishmech posted:One number is one account.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:
Except one number is one account. That is why you can't have multiple numbers. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this in search of some fake answer? Here's your fake answer since you keep denying reality: You can't have multiple numbers because Jesus said so. But the reality is because one number is one account.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Except one number is one account. That is why you can't have multiple numbers. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this in search of some fake answer? Only then you go on to imply it's some kind of technical limitation, like as though it would be impossible for them to have designed he system in some other way. But that's obviously not true. They made a specific decision to limit it to one account and one phone number per device and what I want to know is why they made that decision. If you don't know, that's fine; I didn't really expect anyone to, I was just curious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
I have a single-page PDF that's normal width but like 5x the length of a sheet of paper. How can I split this into 5 separate pages, preferably on macOS/iOS?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I'm asking "why is this the case?" and you're saying "because it is". That's not an answer! That is the answer though. You refuse to accept the answer but that is in fact the answer. Tiggum posted:Only then you go on to imply it's some kind of technical limitation, like as though it would be impossible for them to have designed he system in some other way. It is a technical limitation: they designed it for one number = one account. It is frankly baffling how you don't understand that there are simple answers to things like this. All the rest of your post is just irrelevant, they used a very standard design for their system and for how identification would be done with it. Picking an identifier and sticking with it is a staple of computer account creation going back to the early 1960s invention of computer account passwords.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I'm asking "why is this the case?" and you're saying "because it is". That's not an answer! My question is "what is the reason for this decision they have made?" Literally the only people that can completely answer that question for you are the owners of WhatsApp, and they're not going to explain their business decisions to you. You have to let this go because there are no answers that will satisfy you. Fishmech has explained this to you and all you're doing at this point in time is thread making GBS threads. fishmech posted:It is frankly baffling how you don't understand It's Tiggum
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That is the answer though. You refuse to accept the answer but that is in fact the answer. In the case of things done by people, there is a reason in the sense that someone made a decision and there were priorities and factors they accounted for in that decision. Their thought process is the reason. In the case of natural phenomena there's a reason in the sense that there is an underlying cause. The mechanism that causes the thing to happen is the reason. In this example we're talking about some computer software created by people. So the reason for why it works the way it does is the thought process that led to that design. "Because that's how they designed it" is not the reason, it's the result of the reason. Memento posted:Literally the only people that can completely answer that question for you are the owners of WhatsApp, and they're not going to explain their business decisions to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:"Because it is" is never an acceptable answer to a question that begins with the word "why". It's a non-answer No, it's not. I told you why you can't have multiple phone numbers: because they bind the account to a single phone number, which is the user identification method. That is why. That is the explanation. You can continue to go aggro about it but it is the reason and the explanation. Edit: and to make it very clear since you missed this earlier - when you switch to a new phone number on whatsapp, you have to have the old number still active because you have two separate accounts at that point, and you must show your identification under the old number to authorize moving data between those accounts. Because 1 account = 1 phone number. fishmech fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
I’d rather hammer nails into my dick than read any more autistic WhatsApp chat
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
Thanks for the info re: fermentation and food storage of yore. I love eating and drinking fermented stuff but I've only ever seen it in glass or cans. I wasn't sure if the porousness of storage containers (unglazed pottery, for example) would be beneficial or detrimental for long-term storage. Not that I want to store my ferments in clay pots, but I was curious how my ancestors would have done it, especially during the winter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
Koivunen posted:Thanks for the info re: fermentation and food storage of yore. I love eating and drinking fermented stuff but I've only ever seen it in glass or cans. I wasn't sure if the porousness of storage containers (unglazed pottery, for example) would be beneficial or detrimental for long-term storage. Not that I want to store my ferments in clay pots, but I was curious how my ancestors would have done it, especially during the winter. Unglazed pottery actually isn't necessarily porous, just for the record. Pottery fired to the correct temperature (that can vary a lot depending on what kind of clay we're talking about) is basically not porous. A lot of old red ware actually had no glaze at all; that was just various iron-based stains or iron-heavy clays. Glazed stuff was better in various ways for a lot of reasons but it wasn't a necessity if you wanted water-tight pottery. Of course it's just plain easier to make water-tight glazed pottery than water-tight unglazed pottery. Ceramics is actually a massively complex, very technical subject. I also earned a BFA studying ceramics so I could probably post endlessly about it. It's also fascinating to learn about just how much archaeologists can learn about a society just by looking at the leftovers of their pots. But yeah, pottery might not be quite as good of a storage container as an air tight jar but it's still a pretty drat good one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
big crush on Chad OMG posted:I’d rather hammer nails into my dick than read any more autistic WhatsApp chat Well it's not like you can't do both
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
What did Lowtax do/post to get permabanned from Twitter?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
i dont know who tiggum is but there is a point in that the question hasnt actually really been answered sincerely yet so, warning, more autistic (product management?) whatsapp chat ahead Tiggum posted:There is no reason that 1 phone number needed to be tied to 1 account and that you couldn't have had a 1-to-many relationship between users and unique identifiers/points of contact - it's technically possible. However, it makes no sense to do so for this product - the benefit is negligible and it's far more complex to build and maintain. They have enough users that they are likely to encounter every single weird esoteric freak of nature bug that you can imagine - designing it this way would have been lunacy unless it was a USP. In general the steps required to come up with an implementation strategy far outstrip the potential benefits of it implemented "right". So, toss it, and focus on doing the core product right, otherwise you'll spend the next month stuck in meetings asking questions about dominant/subordinate accounts (you'd likely need to auth via email and then add phone #s), authentication (how frequently do you reconfirm auth for each ph #?), needlessly duplicated or triplicated messages (how many simultaneous accounts do you permit? will it scale?), how do you manage setup in the interface as well as just general use, how does this differ between devices and people with different physical handicaps (or differing levels of technical competence), and so on. Then your devs will spend the next billion years making, breaking, and fixing the code, getting frustrated as poo poo the entire time, for a minefield feature that only a handful of people would ever use and which actively degrades the value of the rest of your product for people who would have been perfectly happy with 1 phone number = 1 account. And then at some point, after the nth app breaking bug that results from this code and related dependencies updating/changing/loving up over time, you bite the bullet, rip it out, rewrite the whole drat thing as you should have done in the first place, and deal with the abuse of a very vocal, very small minority of users who are upset that their niche needs aren't what's putting money on the table at the end of the day. When you're working with that many users, you want to keep the concept and application as streamlined as possible. A cute wandering japanese garden might suit the handful of people that pass through every day, but if you want to move millions of people then you need to go back to the drawing board - you can't just widen the pathways and add signs. Incidentally, there's a management technique called RICE which helps compare the relevance/worth of different options and help you decide what work to prioritise, and how: https://www.intercom.com/blog/rice-simple-prioritization-for-product-managers/ Intended to quantify the Reach, Impact, Confidence (of results), and Effort of an option. that might help you brainstorm why 1 account = 1 number is a good idea for whatsapp. and, in fact, the fact that they didnt pursue it or other fringe ideas like it is probably why the product is so stable as it stands. it's surprisingly easy to gently caress up even simple, established concepts, even when people make all the 'right' decisions - diving head first into feature creep is not why these people got hired Sulla Faex fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 08:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, it's not. I told you why you can't have multiple phone numbers: because they bind the account to a single phone number, which is the user identification method. That is why. That is the explanation. If you still don't understand that "how does this system work" and "why was it designed to work that way" are different questions then I don't know how else to explain it to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:you'd likely need to auth via email and then add phone #s
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 08:52
|
|
Tiggum posted:You could surely just authorise a second phone number the same way you did the first, by text message? Which is the 'fallback'/primary phone number, in case of login issues, compromised accounts, or ownership/access disputes? How often do you need to reauthorise each phone number, to prove that it's still you? I don't know specifically how WhatsApp manages this so I can't comment further Tiggum posted:I don't understand most of what you said, other than that you're saying it would have been much more complicated to do for some reason? ok well that's effortposting for you the point is that a lot of stuff goes into making even a "simple" looking product like whatsapp. but if you don't understand any of my post apart from "it's more complicated than you think" then maybe just accept that as an answer Sulla Faex fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 08:56
|
|
|
How about the simple concept that it is irresponsible to give people access to completely anonymous telephony services. A phone number means if you act irresponsibly, you can be found. If multiple accounts could be made for the same number, a script would be made with a gvoice number or something to give people completely anonymous accounts. If someone wants the ability to phone anyone in the world, expecting them to have a minimal amount of accountability isn't a big compromise. You'll notice it's a recurring theme beyond apps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 09:01
|
|
revolther posted:How about the simple concept that it is irresponsible to give people access to completely anonymous telephony services. A phone number means if you act irresponsibly, you can be found. If multiple accounts could be made for the same number, a script would be made with a gvoice number or something to give people completely anonymous accounts. It's the other way around -- what they're talking about is not sharing the same phone numbers between multiple users, but giving each user the option to add multiple (but still unique) phone numbers.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I don't understand most of what you said why the gently caress people bother with you I will never know
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 09:21
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:Which is the 'fallback'/primary phone number, in case of login issues, compromised accounts, or ownership/access disputes? How often do you need to reauthorise each phone number, to prove that it's still you? I don't know specifically how WhatsApp manages this so I can't comment further How it works is: You install WhatsApp; You enter your phone number; You get a text message on that number with a code; You enter the code into WhatsApp; You're done. If someone wanted to log in to your account on another device they'd need access to your text messages, but once you've logged in on a device you're logged in permanently on that device and there's no password or further verification. If I lost or changed my phone number I could keep using the old one on WhatsApp indefinitely, unless it was assigned to someone else and they tried to use it on WhatsApp, because you can't use the same account on two devices. Logging in on the second will log you out of the first, and if you switch back and forth too much they lock you out of your account for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 09:47
|
|
|
It's hard to verify that a person has all the phone numbers they claim to have is probably it, yeah. If you disconnect your account and number and it gets immediately assigned to someone else wouldn't you still be able to use it in whatsapp? Or if I want to spy on someone like my wife I could just get the number added and verified once and then be able to use it maliciously from then on. Not that this isn't an insurmountable problem it just probably isn't worth it to implement or open themselves to liability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 10:35
|
|
Memento posted:why the gently caress people bother with you I will never know
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 10:47
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:There's no limit on the number of accounts a person can have on WhatsApp. The limitation is one account per device, not one account per person. Two people sharing one phone could only have one account between them, even if they swapped out the sim whenever they used the phone. One person with two smartphones can have two accounts. Read my post again. This time with helpful bolding. Fruits of the sea posted:Restricting people from making multiple accounts on just about any online service is an attempt to mitigate spam, fraud, abuse, impersonation and all sorts of other mischief. It doesn't work perfectly, good example being WhatsApp and the recent killings in India. Bet you the terms of service state that banned users can't create new accounts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 11:16
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:If you still don't understand that "how does this system work" and "why was it designed to work that way" are different questions then I don't know how else to explain it to you. They're not different questions in this case. I refer you to your claims of not understanding any of the other explanations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 11:44
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:it would have been much more complicated to do for some reason? This is the essence of it and you're obviously not capable of understanding anything further than that so you might as well go get inexplicably angry about something else like how fish can't breathe air or something Penguissimo fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 12:16
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Unglazed pottery actually isn't necessarily porous, just for the record. Pottery fired to the correct temperature (that can vary a lot depending on what kind of clay we're talking about) is basically not porous. A lot of old red ware actually had no glaze at all; that was just various iron-based stains or iron-heavy clays. Glazed stuff was better in various ways for a lot of reasons but it wasn't a necessity if you wanted water-tight pottery. Of course it's just plain easier to make water-tight glazed pottery than water-tight unglazed pottery. Please pose forever about pottery. For instance, why does the literature speculate that the First Nations in the plains of Canada never made pottery (then beer like the egyptians)? They had access to clay from river valleys and the sun never goes down in the summer so what gives?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
Tiggum's autism is extremely strong and powerful To contribute to the thread: How often do pine trees need to be trimmed? I've got about 3 that are really, really tall and shedding pine needles like crazy over my roof/gutters. I've called a gutter guy to clean out the gutters but at this rate I'll need to call him again in like 3 mos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
Can anyone help me find an article I'm looking for? It was about how to argue/debate/converse with someone who blatantly disregards facts. I feel like it had a buzzfeed-esque headline, but was actually well written. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
There's a (probably completely fraudulent/fake) business that has my phone number listed on their Contact Us page for some reason. Regardless their toll-free number also directs to Not Them and they aren't responding to their emails, message forms, or DMs to their Facebook page. I even tried looking for them on Google Maps so I could just visit the office (they're local, supposedly) but they don't have their address listed. What the gently caress can I do about this besides changing my number? Originally I thought they typoed it on their website but I got this number just a couple of months ago so I'm wondering now if the business went defunct recently, leaving the number up for grabs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
I don't feel like finding it in one of the millions of compilations on youtube, but I've never understood this one vine: Character 1: I like your accent. Character 2: I'm Liberian. Character 1: Oh I'm sorry. {whispers} I like your accent! Like, I'm sure its something simple, but god save me I can't wrap my head around it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I don't feel like finding it in one of the millions of compilations on youtube, but I've never understood this one vine: Liberia Library
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I don't feel like finding it in one of the millions of compilations on youtube, but I've never understood this one vine: The joke is that they're mistaking "Liberian" for "librarian"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
it's done that way because it's easier than doing it your way, and causes less bugs for the end user. It was a development decision done to reduce complexity, scope, and ultimately the budget of the project. it's cheaper, easier, and less complex, because this way they do not have to write a system for putting and maintaining multiple numbers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Mak0rz posted:The joke is that they're mistaking "Liberian" for "librarian" gently caress me running, I knew it'd be something simple. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Please pose forever about pottery. For instance, why does the literature speculate that the First Nations in the plains of Canada never made pottery (then beer like the egyptians)? They had access to clay from river valleys and the sun never goes down in the summer so what gives? No idea, that's one thing I haven't read about. Even so the only thing you can really do is speculate. Stuff like pottery it's pretty easy to figure out why but why not is harder. Sometimes various cultures just don't develop something we'd consider basic. Usually the reason is practical. Often they'll have something that works and will just go "meh, we'll keep using this" if they get exposed to something else. There are cultures in the world that didn't ever develop the bow and arrow for thousands of years. For whatever reason they just, you know, didn't. In the case of plains people they tend to be nomadic. Nomads travel very light and pottery is not light. Nor is clay. Potters historically settle near clay deposits because moving that poo poo sucks. Even now most clay is actually worthless but you still have to pay for shipment and processing and the like. Anyway my guess there is that leather containers were good enough and they never settled long enough for a pottery tradition to develop. Making pottery is actually a kind of long process and you have to store lots of stuff long term so people that move a lot but also have access to poo poo loads of leather and fur aren't likely to bother with it. Cultures with strong pottery traditions tend to be more sedentary ones. Even so the only way to know for sure would be to go back and ask them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
I try to stay private on the internet so when I do have to fill out Google captchas they usually take ages. One of the steps has pictures I pick slowly fade in and out over a few seconds, with new ones often matching several times, before I can move on. Is the slowness actually useful for proving I'm human? Or is Google being an rear end in a top hat because I'm trying to stay "off the grid"? Edit: not the length of the captcha, I get that if it's uncertain it will want to check more. Just why that section of it has the enforced delay. uvar fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
I got a save the date from a former coworker and I won't be attending. Should I go ahead and tell them before I get an actual invite or is that bad etiquette? I've never turned down a wedding invite before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 23:35
|
|
