She wrote a book a couple years back that explains where she vanished to. It’s good.

If you aren’t willing to work on your social skills, you need to stay in a position where you don’t need them.

The radios would need to have a very, very short range to avoid this. You’d need to know that everyone who can hear you can also see you (and potentially follow you if they’d like a word face to face), which is the accountability aspect that’s missing from online interactions.

Yeah, password on its own is weak. Any factor + password will always be a lot more secure than password alone OR the other factor alone, but pairing stronger factors of course results in stronger pairings.

Passkey is a device check (the key lives on your device and nowhere else), so it relies on your device security, even if it’s just a PIN…and there has to be a backup option in case you lose access to that device, in which case the account only ends up as secure as that authentication method…which hopefully isn’t password alone.

I see that the comment I initially replied to has been edited, but it still reads as though the second factor of 2FA is itself 2FA:

Because passwordless authentication is awesome and needs to be the standard. It’s basically just skipping the password and going straight to 2FA, which is the main security behind any account that you’ve got 2FA on.

2FA stands for two-factor authentication. The typical case you’re describing:

Factor 1: password Factor 2: device check, usually

That second step of device verification itself isn’t 2FA, it’s only the second factor of that particular 2FA, and the reason your account is more secure behind it isn’t because it’s a device check but because it’s a second factor. There’s not really a “main” security check in 2FA because having two is the whole point.

I do have thoughts about passwordless as a standalone security measure, but that’s not at all what I’m addressing here. I will add, however, that since passwordless can only ever be as strong as the security on your email account…it might seem like enough if your email is protected by 2FA—but not if you mistakenly leave your email logged in on a device someone else has access to, which may sound stupid but it definitely happens.

deleted by creator

I’m not defending passwords specifically. You could do better 2FA with email + biometrics, although of course device authentication is only as secure as the device itself—but that’s entirely beside the point, which is that there must be two factors if you’re going to call something two factor authentication.

If you skip the password then you’re back down to just 1FA, it just happens to be the factor that used to be second.

What do you carry in there?

No, not morally. What? The Luddites have not always been wrong about the adoption of a particular technology ultimately being a net negative on society/individuals/humanity. Citing their “failure” as a reason to blindly champion any use of technology is kind of weird.

Luddites “fail” to hold back technology insofar as many technologies are indeed adopted, but that doesn’t mean their message of temperance has never had any effect on how technology is adopted, or that all technologies have improved life on Earth. And of course not all technology has taken off. Yes, it’s hard to stop a moving train once an idea is getting popular, but we all get to choose whether to climb aboard. I wonder why it seems to ruffle your feathers to hear from people who don’t.

Ludditism always fails

But not necessarily because they were wrong.

TJ’s isn’t boutique, though. Before I actually shopped there, I conflated it with Fresh Market for years, but it turned out they were far and away the cheapest grocery option anywhere near me until we got Aldi.

I shop Aldi more now because our TJ’s is always so busy, but since they’re all store-brand, their prices are still usually on the low side (other than meats).

In a way, sure. What’s unfortunate with such a medium is what a small proportion of the thoughts in the final product are the prompter’s. The machine references countless works that the prompter has no knowledge of, whereas in a medium controlled by the artist, those references (both conscious and subconscious) add meaning to the piece.

Art is about thought, not skill.

Skill is required for craft. Can art be well crafted? Hell yeah. Does it have to be? Hell no.

AI makes a picture of something that just completely never happened, so the viewer’s imagination doesn’t even bother filling in a story. I think your collection is a thousand times better.

If this is in the U.S., teachers typically have to buy their own supplies on meager salaries. Watching one kid literally eat those supplies must be pretty demoralizing.

It doesn’t sound like they’re necessarily his erasers though

I googled this text to find the source. It goes on to say that the crossbeam alone weighed 45kg (about 100 lbs), so he could at least carry that much of it…

Real question, is feet-on-the-seat something people are typically arrested for there?

I broadly agree but there’s not necessarily anything altruistic about the “good” that they’re doing—they’ve just found a way to justify what they want/decide to do, same as everyone. They don’t have to believe it’s good for people or the world. As long as they can find a reason why those harms don’t matter, or convince themselves that those people/the world would’ve been fucked regardless, or figure at least they’re not doing [insert some other scenario they can imagine], they can live with themselves. And they can focus on who it is good for (their kids perhaps, and all the people in their lives who are undoubtedly pressuring them to abuse their power).

I just wanted to speak up for that nuance, because to me “they think they’re doing good” implies that they value the ideals of doing actual good…and I don’t think there’s necessarily true.