ideally this would be a web application on StP, at least in terms of what I've been speaking of. although your suggestion is definitely valid for anyone that wanted to 'appify' such a thing.Just a quick tech support suggestion if you do decide to do this: the google corporation is not your friend for many reasons. Instead of the google play store, you could use this repository:
which is more privacy focused as well as being lesser known and off the beaten path a bit. I'm not a phone person, but it seems like it would only make sense, especially if you were going invitation only.
Is a wildly irresponsible attitude to take. Going through theoreticals, as well as beta testing, is exactly how good protocol is developed. Also, i didnt see where there was an agreement on the matter. It sounds like youre trying to pass your preference off as consensusI think we've already agreed there's no such thing as as 100% security in this kind of thing so there's not much use in going through theoreticals
please get over yourself. it's pretty easy to look over the posts here and see that the majority of people agree with me.I think the app in general is a bad idea and stuff like this should stay word of mouth, but this
Is a wildly irresponsible attitude to take. Going through theoreticals, as well as beta testing, is exactly how good protocol is developed. Also, i didnt see where there was an agreement on the matter. It sounds like youre trying to pass your preference off as consensus
get over yourself
Bruhi've been doing this a hell of a lot longer than you have kid
you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and now you're just inventing things to justify your opinion with exactly zero evidence to back it up. if you continue down this road I'm going to put your account on a 30 day mute.Bruh
I havent seen what you seen. I see a lot of people saying its a bad idea that, if implemented, would require some heavy technical uh stuff and proceeding to discuss in that direction . . . So youre wrong broski an your talking over ppl to give the appearance of authority, which you indeed have as, as an author (get it? auth, author, authority, get it?!) of posts you create it by talking. Its just that your logic is bad and youre ignoring folks who disagree in order to be The Dude Talking . . .
this is very true and relevant to not only this project, but also just in general. in the over 15 years iv been involved in punk or "radical" politics or whatever we are calling it these days i have seen and heard alot of great ideas fizzle out before they even had a real chance to blossom. i wish i had a solution, i really do.My biggest worry here is that, well... this community is a bunch of lazy fucks, and it's really really hard to get anyone to do anything harder than make a forum post, even if it's to help themselves, much less their fellow travelers.
Wow. What the fuck is your malfunction? You've both severely misconstrued what I was saying while also being a complete psycho with your tit-for-tat scoreboard no one asked for.Well since you called me on it, i went back over the thread. By my count i see two for the proposal, to include the op, who also considered the objections "fair". Ten against, one i consider vague, and four i would consider "technical"
Nowhere does anyone express sharing your sentiment, which is that security is a hassle and a low priority. However, the four technical contributions directly contradict your assertion that "there's not much use going into theoreticals". So you've got an op proposing an app, a bunch of disagreement with one agree, and you proposing something pretty thouroghly else and bulldozing over (voiced) technical and security concerns with the assertion that noone is concerned with the particular implementation and everyone agrees that security considerations are essentially a waste of time
would it be possible to password protect or just hide the part of the app which generates invite codes? maybe add in lije a BS password which when entered gives out a non-functional code or a code which only provides access to outdated or inaccurate infoon my first round test for a similar thing (mentioned above) with referral/invite codes, this security measure was bypassed with a "cop" (in actuality, a friend acting as a cop would in order to test this feature) gaining physical access to the phone of a user. That "cop" then sent an invite code to himself, and had access to everything just like that.
I'd imagine that once word got out about a traveller app that had good info on it, bulls would be going through phones of every crusty they pull from an owlhole
I don't think that would be necessary, since a user would have to be logged into a account before they could generate an invite code.would it be possible to password protect or just hide the part of the app which generates invite codes? maybe add in lije a BS password which when entered gives out a non-functional code or a code which only provides access to outdated or inaccurate info
At a certain point, you make the app so difficult to use to try and prevent unauthorized users that you make it too difficult for authorized users.would it be possible to password protect or just hide the part of the app which generates invite codes? maybe add in lije a BS password which when entered gives out a non-functional code or a code which only provides access to outdated or inaccurate info
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|PDX, looking for friends to explore with||Road Dogs & Meet Up||0|
|Looking for a road dog||Road Dogs & Meet Up||0|
|Looking for someone to scout trains with in vegas||Train Hopping||3|
|Seeking Couch Looking for a place to stay in Malaga, Spain||Crust Surfing||1|
|Looking for ideas on Abandoes||United States||5|