this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
96 points (96.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35525 readers
664 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

SSN numbers are good for 999,999,999 people alive or dead. At some point the US will hit that, right? Do we start reusing numbers? Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 193 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

Just add another digit and watch the entire country break down because they can't find someone to update their 40+ year old software written in COBOL.

[–] purplemonkeymad@programming.dev 51 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Sorry we can't employ you as your ssn is too long. Also we can't have any new employees called Mike Smith as the HR system already has someone with that name.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The LMS we use at my school can't handle multiple students with the same name. So we have John Smith and John Smith-2. We have like 2000 new students each year, and we have recently transitioned to this LMS. Smh

[–] Tywele@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 4 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 45 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I want to see the high-octane action thriller where the grizzled old hand and the renegade upstart trek to the remote compound in the woods of Montana to find Bob, the last man alive who understands how some obscure part of the IRSs core systems works and bring him back in from the cold for one last job... to save America(s neglected computer systems from decades of under investment)

[–] undefined@links.hackliberty.org 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Act II needs to have an overdone political scene where congress doesn’t want to pass the budget and almost shuts down the Fed meanwhile some hackers from try to take advantage of the situation or whatever

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

AI, Sure! Here's the full code:

.....

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 40 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Social Security numbers are not unique identifiers.

[–] Zacpod@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nope.

If you got your social Security number before 2011, your first three digits represent the geographical location you were born in. You share those three digits with each of your siblings who were born in the same geographical location before in 2011. Go ahead and ask them.

If memory serves, and all we would really need to do is check a Wikipedia article, the middle two digits were done in some weird sequence, and then the last four were pseudo-random.

So basically, any people receiving their social security number any multiple of 100 people apart from another (prior to 2011) in the same geographic location have a 1 in 10,000 chance of having identical social security numbers.

Basically, if you live in a large city, you definitely have a few twinsies out there.

This was changed in 2011, because of this, but it is still not a unique identifier. It's just more random.

[–] yoevli@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This generally isn't true. The SSA makes an effort to assign a unique number to each individual. It's happened before where two people have accidentally gotten the same SSN, but they try to avoid this.

[–] homicidalrobot@lemm.ee 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

An ID analytics study showed 40 million united states SSN had more than one name associated with them over a decade ago.

https://risk.lexisnexis.com/cross-industry-fraud-files/docs/financial/LexisNexis-Risk-Solutions-SSN-White-Paper.pdf

Whitepaper from LexisNexis, corporate background check company, explaining avout SSN not being a unique or even really reliable identifier

[–] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That white paper was very uninformative lol. I see now rereading your comment that its wasnt meant to support your 40 mil claim. So I googled varius combinations of ID analytics, ssn, studies, and 40 million but couldn't find anything. I'm not that interested, I just wanted to read it tonsee if my gut feeling was correct. The funny thing is the white paper kinda outlined my gut feeling, that the 40 million count is wildly inaccurate demonstration of duplicate ssn's being issued. Rather I felt it was more of an indication of the rampant problem this country has with the amount of stolen identities that happen each year.

Do you have any direction you could point me in to read more about this douplicate ssn problem?

[–] homicidalrobot@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Idk dude, just googled "id analytics ssn" and I immediately get a page of results of articles from 2012-15. Could probably just add "as someone else" in scholar for the paper

[–] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

I guess i shouldve just asked where you pulled the 40 million from? Lol cuz that would mean 15% of the US is sharing ssn's and that seems super high.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 40 points 4 days ago (2 children)

We could switch to hexadecimal digits and we’d be good for 68 billion.

[–] rbn@sopuli.xyz 19 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Why stop at hex? You could use the entire alphabet. Even if you take only uppercase letters and numbers, we are at 36^9 possible numbers. If we include lowercase and special characters from ASCII, we can go much further.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It's all fun and games until you're assigned an SSN that contains a profanity. Because you know there's a strong chance they'll forget to implement a check for that until someone complains, and an even stronger chance that something that looks like a profanity will escape the first implementation of checks.

e.g. There will be someone assigned IMABUM123 and a) that will get through the understaffed / automated profanity check (no four letter words) and b) the person who gets it will have so many problems getting people to believe that it's really their SSN, including the people who could assign them a new one.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 days ago

You can actually get a new SSN already, if you have strong cultural or religious issues with your SSN https://faq.ssa.gov/en-us/Topic/article/KA-02220

So no need to implement a check in software, let the people do it for you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Piafraus@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

E. G. For storage and performs reasons. 5 bytes vs 9 bytes. Multiplying by amount of users and various indexes - can produce very noticeably difference. More records per page.

[–] rbn@sopuli.xyz 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

If we say that the SSN database internally only stores numbers today, but could also store hexadecimal values without significant redesigns, I would assume that SSNs are stored as text already. So no matter if you put numbers, hex or text, 9 places will always use 9 bytes (assuming it's ASCII only and doesn't support UTF-8 etc.).

Furthermore, the post implied that the current technical limit is 999,999,999. That very much sounds like a character data type to me. Otherwise, the limit is usually something like 2^x.

If SSNs are stored as numbers today, then hex and text would lead to quite some change. If you go for a re-design, you can as well just increase the length of the field.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] undefined@links.hackliberty.org 14 points 4 days ago

Just use IPv6

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago (1 children)

SS numbers can't start with a 9, so you might wanna recalculate that.

[–] PrimeErective@startrek.website 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] BajaTacos@lemm.ee 21 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Reserved for employer identification numbers.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Or newborn babies. I still got a 950 number written on the back of my official birth certificate.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think they're used as placeholders while they file the documents. My OG SS number started with 950, but that only lasted until the paperwork was complete.

Obviously I won't be sharing my private info here though, but yeah, those numbers can't officially start with a 9.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 days ago (5 children)

There are several more that aren't used. There are a few reserved for promotions or movies and such. 666, 900-999 and 000 numbers are out as well.

I believe that SSNs have to pass a luhn check too.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Norawy is facing a similar issue. Even though the national identification number is 11 digits, the first 6 are reserved for birth date. The 7th digit has some set of rules derived from which century the birth was (something like 5-9 is reserved for year 2000 and beyond). The 9th digit is even for women and odd for men. The 10th and 11th digit are fixed and derived from the rest of the numbers.

In conclusion, the system only leaves room for around 240 people per date of birth per gender (yes this system assumes 2 genders). So if the birth rate would have a spike, even just for a day, the system could be in trouble.

[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Could embiggen it by a factor of 10 by removing the gender marker.

[–] match@pawb.social 4 points 3 days ago

It'd be easier for the government to start assigning new genders

[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago

Since the distribution of male/female is roughly 1:1, that wouldn't really do anything (except for positively being more accepting). The real solution would be to unlock one of the two last digits, but you can bet that a ton of systems will break as they validate those digits.

[–] bokherif@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Considering there are around 330M citizens right now, I think they ran out already and they’re probably recycling them.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 29 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

The first SSNs were issued in 1936 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number

According to the death master file entry in wiki 111x10^6 SSNs died between 1962 and 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Master_File

That's 1.982 x 10^6 x deaths x year^-1. Assume that number to be a constant during the period 1936-2024

1.982 x 10^6 x deaths x year^-1 x (2024-1936) x year = 174.4 x 10^6 deaths

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States there's 335.9 x 10^6 residents, but I can't tell if they are citizens with SSNs, but I'm going to assume that for now.

So (335.9 + 174.4) x 10^6 is 510.3 x 10^6 spent SSNs.

According to the same demographics wiki article the birth rate is 11 births per 1000 population. Death rate is 10.4 deaths per 1000 population. Because I'm just doing back of the envelope estimation for fun, while trying to manage my hangover in the early afternoon, I'm not going to create an exponential function to describe population growth. Instead I'm going to only consider future the US population a constant and not consider the 200 x 10^3 annual net growth (it only affects the next year's growth by 120 anyway)

With all of that BS out of the way, at the present birthrate the US requires 3.695 x 10^6 new SSNs annually. The total amount SSNs in the current scheme is (10^9) - 1. I'm going to be leaving out the -1. 10^9 total SSNs - 510.3x^6 spent SSNs leaves 489.7 x 10^6 SSNs available. 489.7/3.695 is 132.5.

So in conclusion, assuming a constant population, the US can go for another 132.5 years with the present scheme without having to reuse any SSN.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

SSN’s are also given out to immigrants as well though, so that’s a whole other population of people outside of just natural born citizens to account for. The US awards around one million green cards annually, though I don’t know what the historical numbers are.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] kambusha@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)

Maybe they can just add one digit, or start using A-F

load more comments
view more: next ›