Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more bqmjjx0kac's commentslogin

> I’ve used bad redaction to my advantage at work to make money

You've certainly piqued my curiosity. Can you say any more?


I sell construction work. Sometimes my customers will have me price up something that someone else priced to them and they will send me a competitor’s redacted scope letter with the pricing blanked out so I can bid ‘apples to apples’ aka the same scope of work.

I’ve unredacted proposals using the ‘unflatten’ command in Bluebeam Revu (which is by far the best PDF editor) which allowed me to underbid my competitor and win the job (and at a higher price than I would’ve submitted).

Definitely an ethical grey area, but an edge is an edge ;)


I really don't think this is grey, I think these cases have clear legal implications, though I'm not a lawyer. You are circumventing redaction, regardless of how boneheaded it is, the intent was clear.

I'd not do this if I were you.


The information was in the document they sent me, they should’ve removed it completely if they didn’t want me to see it. The situation is identical to them mailing me a paper copy with a black piece of paper scotch taped over the price.

There are zero legal implications, it was a private contract. My customers regularly tell me the exact price that my competitors have submitted to them and that isn’t illegal.

Probably there are legal implications for attorneys circumventing redaction in legal documents but construction proposal letters have no protections against unredaction.


Morally gray, sure.

Legally, I can't see what's wrong with using information that you have, even if the other party didn't intend for you to have it. Lawyers themselves will use information in court that was accidentally sent to them by a counter-party, and that the other lawyer never intended them to have.


It may be technically an issue with some government bids, if you need to file an affidavit certifying you had no such knowledge.

But how would they prove it? And, doing so would reveal that they fucked up in the first place by sending it to you.


I would be really surprised if there was a law against this, and even if there was who really cares? As long as you don't make it super obvious (like consistently bid 1p under the competition) nobody will know.


There's no way there's a legal case that can be made against him imo


Probably trading of some sort?


Here's a more informative doc about sandboxing in Chromium

https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:san...


In my experience, you should prepare for retaliation when you do a charge back.


Whether one cares depends very strongly on what "retaliation" means. If they ban your account, not a big deal - you were getting bad service and didn't want to do business with them anyway. If they send an armed hit squad to kill you, that would be worth being concerned about though.


I "purchased" a digital game once on the PlayStation Store. It wasn't clear from the description that it was completely useless without an active subscription to PSN, so I tried to return it. They said no way, sales are final and you've already launched the game. I did a chargeback, and they basically locked down my account until I filed a support ticket and had to lie, saying someone else made a purchase on my account.


If they don't want you as a customer, it's not wise to fight them on that.


I think over the course of 3+ years, that keyboard probably wasted at least 30 minutes of my life.


Wow, you got off easy.

That keyboard was such a POS that a Wall Street Journal writer did a feature story on it without correcting any of the mistakes the keyboard introduced. It was essentially illegible. Then the Web site had buttons that you could push to remove each kind of error and make it legible: https://www.wsj.com/graphics/apple-still-hasnt-fixed-its-mac...


I love org-mode, but if I were king, it would accept freakin' back-quotes for monospaced text. Instead, it takes ~tilde~ or =equals=, and I will never remember the difference no matter how many times I look it up.


I use orgmode's ~tilde = "for code"~ and =equals_for_filenames.txt=, but what do I know.

I also like [Markdown's text first](https://hyperlink.com) then link format much more than [[https://hyperlink.com][Orgmode's link first then text]].

But for the life of me, there are so many things I hate about Markdown:

  - Alternative syntax for _italic_ *italic* and __bold__ **bold** (why?)

    - versus using /italic/ and *bold*. It just feels so right

  - You need to use HTML tags <u>to underline</u>, or <s>strikethrough</s>, or just about anything in Markdown (including line breaks! You need to use the <br> tag)

    - +strikethrough+ is alright, but _underline_ just makes sense

  - Lack of a unified Markdown standard:

    - Diminishes portability (e.g. varying approaches for file meta tags like in Obsidian)

    - Causes different renderings of the same document (e.g. Obsidian vs GitHub)

    - There was a serious standardization effort in 'Standard Markdown', only for the original creator to be a knob about it: https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-markdown-is-now-common-markdown/
It's a shame too because despite Orgmode being superior to Markdown in just about every way, its adoption is nowhere near as close (editing is hard on iOS, and needing Emacs is a barrier for the general public).

Markdown isn't going away anytime soon.


I switch between Markdown and Org Mode a lot, the syntactic differences don't bother me too much, but I guess I like Markdown's a bit more. But what I really miss in Markdown:

1. Collapsible headlines and headline search.

2. Executable source code blocks (for notebook style work).

3. TODO states.

4. Time tracking and clock tables.

5. Table formulas.

6. Inline LaTeX and document generation in general.

Now 1 is just an editor feature, and some of these others could be, too. But I wish Markdown was more powerful, extensible, or less ubiquitous.

What bothers me most about Org Mode is that support is pretty limited outside Emacs. We use it as a wiki replacement at my company, for that integrations into other editors are kinda good enough. But there's some areas like reporting only Emacs users can realistically work on. GitLab (and Forgejo, which we recently switched to) render Org pretty nicely, so it's easy to consume in a browser. But editing is a different story.

So I guess I wish for either a less complex (and thus easier to support) Org, or a more powerful Markdown.


I’ve seen a lot of apps extend markdown to support various additional features. Obsidian, for example, has an extensive number of community plugins which offer a ton of features.

This of course ends up being editor specific, but if org has the same limitation, by being tied to emacs, is it really any different? I think what emacs has going for it in this case is that it’s been around for decades, and we can assume it will continue to be around for decades into the future. The markdown editor de jour may not be.


Yeah, that's my thinking with these tools. I think it needs to be more of a standard.

Either Markdown++ or Org Lite. I'll take either :) I'm not a fan of coupling formats and tools tightly.


This is also the primary hangup that's kept me from adopting org-mode for notes, and I instead keep everything in MarkDown, and miss out on all the org-mode organization effects. The differences in link syntax are hard too, but I've got 5-10 years of DokuWiki in my history that make the link syntax more palatable. However, I still prefer MarkDown syntax for links too...


=string= leads to the text being transcribed verbatim. A good hint is to recall that the equals sign kinda implies verbatim.


Ironic then that [0] (the first hit when I search "emacs org mode tutorial") says:

    You can make words *bold*, /italic/, _underlined_, =code= and ~verbatim~, and, if you must, +strike-through+.

[0]: https://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/org4beginners.html


That seems to be a very old tutorial. It's indeed confusing that they host that on the official site.

The official manual states equals is used for =verbatim= quotes: https://orgmode.org/manual/Emphasis-and-Monospace.html


I just "lustrated" [0] my Debian Stable machine onto NixOS on Friday, and it's gone surprisingly well! It sounds silly, but I installed this way because I didn't want to figure out how to mount my LVM + LUKS encrypted partition on the live USB.

What is lustrating? Basically, you run the NixOS installation tools on an existing Linux installation (install the tools with the Nix package manager). The installer wipes out anything on / that doesn't belong, with a few exceptions, including /home and anything listed in /etc/NIXOS_LUSTRATE, a file you create as part of the installation steps.

[0]: https://nixos.org/manual/nixos/stable/#sec-installing-from-o...


"I decided time zones should be abolished..."

It reads as tongue-in-cheek to me :)


Just right for the "Abolish everything" show https://nebula.tv/abolish


> Here’s a simple app my toddler made to generate toy trains[0].

Can you explain what you mean by this? How did a 3-year-old (or younger) meaningfully contribute to the design of this app? Do they know how to read?


Good question! He can't type and the local voice assistants can't really understand him...

He simply asked it to make toy trains, all I did was clean up the text to "create toy trains"

From that prompt, it goes through steps to build out a UI and any back-end functionality (Loops) needed.

To use it, he tells me what type of train to generate ("underwater"[0]) and I type in the prompt. He has a lot of fun with it!

[0]https://app.magicloops.dev/storage/v1/object/public/images/d...


Yes! Children of Time starts with a AI-capable civilization and proceeds from there. I won't give anything away, and I recommend going in cold! https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25499718-children-of-tim...


Go has surprisingly good "UX", which I don't hear people talk about much. It compiles very quickly and gets out of your way. I've found it useful for a few reasons:

1. The standard library has a real HTTP/2 implementation (unlike Python).

2. The Go compiler creates statically-linked binaries and cross-compiling is painless.

3. Channels and goroutines make it relatively easy to write parallel code. There are certainly sharp edges, like every language.


It is also conveniently easy to compile everything into a single file, using embed, and this helps with deployment in a few ways.


I love how readable it is, even by people who don't know Go.


Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

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

Search: