Jesus_666

So your argument is that since you are opposed to the app's very existence it's immoral to test it for security flaws. I'd like to argue against that with the principle of defense in depth. I'm also not a friend of OS-level age verification and would like it to be dropped. But if it is implemented I want it to be implemented in a way that isn't wildly insecure. I can simultaneously argue against the principle as a whole and insist that any implementation of it be secure. If it does come I at least want the damage from a botched implementation to be mitigated. To use your cage analogy, I can both complain about the principle of caging people and about the fact that the cage is badly made and poses an injury risk to the people inside it. Neither is acceptable.

Here’s one for a TV show. In 2022, a crack quality assurance team was made redundant by a CTO for a botched product launch they didn’t commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximally unstable job market to the LinkedIn underground. Today, still wanted by recruiters, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a broken codebase, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the QA-team.

An LLM trained on the PoE ingame chat would try to solve all my problems by asking to buy my Kaom's Sign Coral Ring for 1ex.

I'd change the second one to "reasonably progressive and actually tech-literate hypercapitalists who, in case they become part of a governing coalition, suddenly oppose everything the government does at the expense of their own credibility". Also you forget to mention that the nazis are blatantly abusing their privilege as MPs to spy for Russia.

Right. Safe Search doesn't matter because Google Search has been outclassed for a while now. There's no drawbacks... other than the fact that apparently OP gets told about this every single day.

The logic behind it is that a smartphone-bound passkey represents two factors of authentication: what you have (the phone) and who you are (the fingerprint used to unlock the phone’s passkey store). Anything on a PC is easily copied and can only ever be safely assumed to represent one factor: what you know (the password to unlock your password manager). Thus the benefit of getting a two-factor authentication in one convenient step falls away. Of course it’s still super annoying, especially if you don’t really trust your smartphone OS vendor and use a portable password manager already.

I also often see implementations where there's a first step where you have to select how to log in. It's an extra click but very clear (and usually one of the options is some form of SSO where that one click fully logs you in if you already have a session open).

My company uses Entra ID (or whatever they've renamed it to this week) and it's a pretty common sight in our login flow. I think our SharePoint instance does it so it should be something MS does. Of course it all depends on w how the company configures it.

Passkeys are supposed to be bound to one device and protected by that device's OS's secure enclave. If you have a second device you're supposed to create a second passkey. That's why many sites will flat out refuse to let you create a passkey with a desktop browser since a PC-stored passkey doesn't fit the security model.

It's not like you can't add a "Log in with your company's SSO" button to the form. That works just fine and at least Microsoft does something like that.

Unless other situations where the established technology wins due to inertia, sodium ion batteries have two benefits that make them interesting regardless: Firstly, they are safer. A punctured sodium ion battery doesn’t catch fire, which massively simplifies safety design. That makes them very attractive for certain scenarios, especially ones where density is a secondary concern. That in turn means they get further development money instead of withering on the vine. Secondly, they require fewer hard-to-obtain materials, which makes them attractive from a strategic perspective. This one should be less important than the safety factor but it’s also relevant. I’m pretty sure we’ll actually see wet sodium cells in the wild if they are actually practical. Sodium ion tech is already being commercialized and if this brings it within the same ballpark as lithium ion then it becomes a very interesting choice for vehicles due to instant crash safety gains.

I don’t know if they get a share or if they get a flat payment for every device that has crap preinstalled. Either way, not doing it would reduce profits and therefore go against the interest of the shareholders who would then have grounds to the CEO for failing to do their job. I’m very much unhappy with how that works but it’s a consequence of how publicly traded companies work. Companies that make it their legally binding goal to maximize shareholder gains attract more investors, have more money, and are thus more effective in increasing their market share. Over time they outcompete their rivals until the market is dominated by maximally profitable companies. At that point, shit-free products are only available if there is a clear indication that they will generate more profit than shitty products. And the handful of major players will happily collude to make sure only shitty products enter the market, increasing profits for everyone. Welcome to cartelville, population: the three companies that make up 95% of the world market.

It might but most devices only use HDMI. DP is pretty much only used by PCs. Maybe the GPMI consortium decides to make their standard open; that might help. But I don’t see DP catching up to HDMI; HDMI is too entrenched.

Would be great but the manufacturer would be at a disadvantage because that bundled bullshit effectively subsidizes the device. So you’d have to either raise prices or accept a lower profit margin. Due to the high barrier of entry (e.g. because of patents) it’s unlikely that a privately owned company can make a big market entry, especially across countries. And a public company will be forced by the shareholders to maximize profit so either you bundle crapware or they fire you as CEO. Of course if you look outside the TV maker, such devices already exist. High-quality digital signage devices can easily be had – for about three times the price of an equivalently-sized TV.

They've been refusing open HDMI 2.1 since 2017. I don't think that being afraid of Linux becoming the dominant gaming platform plays a role here; it's more likely that they're afraid people might find new ways to get at protected content.