> have a hard time reacting to fully formed ideas thrown at me thrown at me over a table. The other side coming with fully prepared for the discussion, while on the receiving end you need to do your homework realtime also doesn't help.
That's the feature, not a bug. It gives the meeting initiator a better chance of steamrolling their way to approval.
Notice the difference between meetings where people share agendas and docs ahead of time vs those where you show up and they walk you through the doc.
If my laptop screen were legible in direct sun, I'd be out there. Wifi and headphones.
Sadly the laptop's too small and Chrome's too power-hungry for solar power to be an option: ⅓m width * ¼m length * 158W/m2 solar = 13W out of 67W to run it, or 19%.
Skin cancer is one of the more relatively common cancers in young people, but first diagnosis still increases sharply with age. Life expectancy at age 15 (so, without the 60% infant/child mortality) in the Paleolithic was apparently 54 years.
Don’t know about Stone Age, but look at the clothing worn by desert tribes. Loose fitting clothes covering arms and legs, so e kind of covering on the head.
I think the dangers of over exposure to the sun have long been known and only recent generations think shorts and T shirts in direct sun for long amounts of time is a good idea.
Stone age people used sunscreen. It wasn't anywhere near as effective as modern sunscreen. Presumably they were less concerned about skin cancer and more concerned about the immediate effects of a sunburn
Point being that ancients did not use sunscreen or anything remotely close to the formulae we have today - what we have today was roughly defined 100 years ago and has some serious consequential effects on the endocrine system and more.
The statement being made by others is that "ancients" applied a topical substance to protect their skin from harmful effects of the sun, most would call that sunscreen[0] but use whatever word you prefer.
> anything remotely close to the formulae we have today
HTTP got basic auth, which is crap because plaintext password transmission happens, also the browsers never got around to implement any sensible UI (e.g. you cannot log off). Then it got digest auth, which at least wasn't plaintext in transmission, but required plaintext password storage on the server. Then came negotiate, which only worked with some proprietary products, had even worse UI and was unusable outside a company's internal net.
Alongside that, there was HTTPS client auth, where, instead of fixing known problems, standards devolved into "sorry, we don't support that anymore". Also, the UI was crap.
Alongside that, there are homegrown methods using web forms, cookies, a lot of spit and maybe some javascript, which everyone uses atm. Everyone rolls their own, because over decades, standard bodies couldn't get their shit together. Also, everyone suffered from the corresponding attacks on all the weak and broken homegrown crap out there.
There is friction and cost, but those come from a lack of trying and a lack of giving a fuck by the people building web browsers, web servers and web standards. They basically declared the problem solved after the invention of cookies.
Since everything is TLS now, basic auth no longer transmits in the clear. But I agree browser vendors have refused to bother putting in even the bare minimum of effort for years. I've been subscribed to the firefox ticket to allow http auth logout for my entire adult life.
> HTTP got basic auth, which is crap because plaintext password transmission happens...
Plaintext submission happens with HTML forms too. The problem with Basic is the password goes with every request. That means you're exposing a long term credential to a higher risk. We want to exchange the long term credential for a short term one, ideally scope limited. That is far less catastrophic to revoke, and gives you some power of granularity (you can at the very least have some operations prompt for the password again). It also means you can limit risk on the server: only one page has access to the long term credentials, which can be more easily audited, or even hosted on dedicated servers.
WebAuthn has been the real savior here. Real cryptography has always been desirable for this, and removing per-site passwords is honestly just a bonus.
Imho WebAuthn is just the next problematic non-solution: Everything you do in WebAuthn you have to build up manually within the already-problematic forms+cookies+serverlogic+javascript stack. You cannot just instruct your webserver to do WebAuthn for /secret and everything works, no, you need tons and tons of code for it to work. Code that will have errors and problems. Code that is lots of complications on top of forms+cookies+serverlogic+javascript.
WebAuthn might solve a problem for the likes of Google and Facebook. But definitely not for the average web developer or server admin. And not for the user of some HTTP-based API. And the problem WebAuthn solves isn't really "we need better Auth", it is rather "we need better customer lock-in". Because the complexity and incompatibility of WebAuthn will just reproduce the debacle that was OpenID, only with the added "bonus" of being coupled to some hardware.
>also the browsers never got around to implement any sensible UI (e.g. you cannot log off)
FWIW in firefox you can go to "clear recent history" and then uncheck everything but "active logins". This will wipe out any currently logged in basic auth.
You don’t need to cancel it. Most electromagnetic surveillance systems have detection thresholds (e.g. in radar you have distance gate and return signal filters). Same applies for magnetically activated mines. Reducing the signature below detection thresholds is often enough. Alternatively masking the signature with another signal to confuse the detector also often works well.
EDIT: on second thought, if you can build a device to generate 20T you can probably build a contraption to cancel it out as well. It would most likely boil down to the economics or the scale of the contraption required.
It's because the US only has two parties, and both parties have priorities that override privacy concerns: pro-police and anti-regulation on the one hand; pro-tech and pro-federal govt on the other.
It's the case everywhere. A designer (in the context of software/hardware) does not work without user research, that is core to their work. Any position that does not require user research in design is titled differently these days.
Ironically communism would've had a better chance of success if it had AI for the centrally planned economy and social controls. Hardcore materialism will play into automation's hands though.
We're more likely to see a theocratic movement centered on the struggle of human souls vs the soulless simulacra of AI.
> Ironically communism would've had a better chance of success if it had AI for the centrally planned economy and social controls. Hardcore materialism will play into automation's hands though.
Exactly! A friend of mine who is into the communist ideology thinks that whichever society taps AI for productivity efficiency, and even policy, will become the new hegemon. I have no immediate counterpoint besides the technology not being there yet.
I can definitely imagine LLM based on political manifests. A personal conversation with your senator at any time about any subject! That is the basic part though: The politician being augmented by the LLM.
The bad part is a party, driven by a LLM or similar political model, where the human guy you see and elect is just a mouthpiece like in "The moon is a harsh mistress". Policy would all be algorithmic and the LLM out provide the interface between the fundamental processing and the mouthpiece.
These conflicts will likely lead to the conflicts you mention. I am pretty sure there will be a new -ism.
