Anyone else think this is bullshit? It's just an outline of what an automated bot would have to do to work with some technical buzzwords mixed in.

Not saying it's not doable, nor that OP didn't actually do it... but I am tired of all these people posting technical fantasies to improve their social presence.

It's doable for sure, but making an auto-posting bot for instagram isn't easy right now. How did he post without access to the business API, and I don't think the "Private API" is the answer, I've gone down that road and had a few accounts banned because of it. This is clearly just an attempt to boost their LinkedIn blogging ambitions.

It is easy. It's super easy.

I developed a full product using private IG's APIs and developed a public API on top of it.

I shut down the project after a C&D from facebook, let just say they weren't too happy about it :P

Do you have any idea what got you banned?

Sudenote: I've heard that as a rule of thumb you shouldn't automate more than a few IG accounts from the same IP addr.

I think the fact I had four accounts, one personal, and three that were posting a lot of content twice a day contributed to one of the accounts getting banned. I think there are a few things that will get you banned, and it's not hard for IG to tell what actions are coming from the app and when they aren't. Uploading via Selenium or another headless browser emulating a mobile device seems to be the best way to do it without emulating an entire phone.

Yes, I don't understand why he supposedly kept the account 'secret' (why not run two, one for the demo and one for... whatever else!?).

Absolutely. It's not easy being on minimum wage. But most people don't know what they are talking about. A good example: https://twitter.com/gwynethpaltrow/status/586168041576116224...

There exist tables in the internet how to optimize your grocery shopping while still getting all the necessary nutrients if you are short on money. Use them. I know that it will not be comfortable, but to me there is hardly any excuse for not using them.

Could you link to some resources to help understand this kind of stuff? It's hard to navigate between all the numbers people at startup throw like it's always good things.

For example in your case why was it bullshit? It sounds like you potentially own less but it got more expensive.

>why was it bullshit?

It probably was bullshit because to raise money the company will usually create new shares - and doing this will always make all existing shares own a lesser percentage of the company.

Fun example time! Let's consider a company with 100 shares in total (as printed physical IOUs). An early-stage engineer received 1 of those shares, so they own 1% of the company. Fast forward to the next all-hands meeting, and a founder says they just raised a new investment round. Common practice suggests that the new investors just bought 25% of shares/IOUs. But where did these IOUs come from, if there were only 100 and all are distributed already? In essence, the company just printed new ones, much like the government can print new money. In this case the company started with 100 shares, then printed 33 new ones for the new investors, and now those investors own 33/133 shares or ~25% of the company. And our early-stage engineer owns 1/133 shares, or their ownership got "diluted" to 0.7% from 1%. Perhaps. Or perhaps the company printed 500 new shares, and the new investors now own 80% of the business (500/600 shares), and the engineer owns 0.16% instead of 1%. This is what the engineer is asking: "by how much did I get diluted?". The founder is replying "you didn't", which is mathematically impossible if new shares/IOUs were created. Of course now the engineer's 0.7% is probably worth more in $$$, but that wasn't what they asked.

That's under typical conditions, but it's possible that the founder was correct as long as the company did not print new shares. Two examples come to mind: (1) the founders sold some of their own shares to the new investors at a much higher price, thus keeping the total share count at 100 but implicitly increasing the price of the 1 share the engineer holds. This scenario is unlikely because it's seen as a bad signal - the founders are cashing-in and existing the venture. (2) The company had 100 shares, but only distributed 80 of them initially, so the new investors are getting their shares from the remaining unallocated pool. This means the total share count remains at 100, and the engineer still owns 1% with no dilution, and the price just went up and that's it. Having 10-15% unallocated for attracting talent is normal, but having ~25% unallocated for future fund raising is unnecessary complex and highly unusual.

Curious about the 2. JWTs are signed via a secret key right? Couldn't the backend verify the signature and reject the token. I am pretty confident most JWT implementation does that automatically.

The dude just didn't think about that or looked into how JWTs work. Which I believe is even worse :<

I think you're thinking of a different attack vector, namely, forging a new JWT.

Whereas the parent poster said "what would happen if I stolen his token" (for example, via XSS). So in that case, it's a legit token in the hands of a bad actor, and the signature would be still be valid as far as the backend could tell.

I agree with you. You are most likely being downvoted by his fans. But this video (and all his others apparently) is empty of substance.

From my experience HN users will down vote if a comment comes across as uncivil, as at least three commenters have already noted. How you say it matters on HN.

Same experience. Lots of noise making it hard to ask questions. The guy sounded like he was blackmailed to do that kind of job. He asked me to "sum the contiguous number in the array". So I start writing the code looping through the array, finding the boundaries and adding the elements. After 15min the guy is like "why did you add the elements? I asked you to summarize them."

Ok. Never answered their email again.

I read your comment a few times and still don't quite understand the difference between "summarize" and "sum" in this context (non-native english speaker here). Care to explain what exactly he wanted?

They do this on purpose to make you clarify the question.

If someone asks you to "sum an array" then it's quite reasonable to think they mean calculate the sum of an array. Some languages (PHP springs to mind) have native "array_sum" functions. Wondering if someone from Google, who is interviewing a developer means "sum or summarize" would be weird.

Yep I guessed. And that's a good thing. But they should make sure the call environment is optimal (good reception, no background noise, ...) and the interviewer sounds eager to receive questions.

Ancient greek stoicists didn't retreat from social duties. The core virtues of stoicism are the opposite of what you wrote.

They would take part on actions against injustices. But they would try to be guided by reason rather than emotions.

I dont see how anything I said disagrees with stoicism?

My beef is with the pop philosophy idea of 'your happiness is your choice'.

Apologies. I thought you took the previous comment as a definition for what is stoicism.

Once I landed back home in Paris on a Sunday. I couldn't find any grocery store open. I couldn't find any restaurant open. I lived there 20 years and I was honestly lost... I literally forgot how different NYC and Paris were. I ended up eating at McDonalds...

I ended taking a nap in CDG until sunrise. The RER stops after midnight for maintenance and I didn't want to tsk the night buses. Once you factor in transfers it would get me to the city just a few minutes before sunrise.

Or Quick? lol

> Some adult guy preferring to draw pokemon avatars and doing some small things without value over more or less challenging things.

That is a bit disdainful. It has at the very least value for him. Isn't it the most important?

Yes of course. He postet his opinion online and i did the same.

That's the only reason why i postet how i see it.

Advice from a french expat in the US: do not. The image of France you have in mind does not exist. Go in vacation in Paris or in the south. It is a beautiful country. But do not move there.