Unfortunately, I think you’re going to run into trouble because fido authenticators are geared towards working as user authenticators rather than as device authenticators.
It certainly should be possible from a technical perspective, but implementation-wise, it’s very likely that the code focuses on making fido devices work with client keys, and using tpms for host keys, since that’s much more focused on headless server functionality.
Oval peg in a round hole.
The whole thing is great, but for me 3:50 is where you can really pick up the whole vibe in just about a minute. Particularly the perfectly respectful way of handling not knowing how to pronounce someone’s name. And then lapsing into a hallucinogenic zone out time.
Alright. It’s entirely incidental to the point I was making so I don’t feel particularly invested in defending his actions being the way he said they were.
Replace it with one of the news stories about a politician wearing blackface if it makes you feel better, or fill in what you think would work better as a racist caricature outfit depicting someone from Puerto Rico.
I stand by my original statement that if you think to yourself “I’m going to go to this Halloween party as a Puerto Rican (or any race)” you honestly shouldn’t do that, regardless of what comes into your mind when you picture that race, since races aren’t costumes.
I’m not sure why you would think Boricua is related to food. It means a person from Puerto Rico. It’s like arguing that “#new-yorkers” is about food. If it was about food, or his costume wasn’t what it was, why would the picture just randomly be labeled with either this unknown food term despite no food being in the picture, or why would you go to a costume party not wearing a costume or as a generic baseball fan and post a picture of yourself labeled “Puerto Rican”? And then resign, referencing the Halloween costume amongst the list of racial insensitivities behind that choice?
The person in the article who used the term brownface is a person who actually worked with him and would presumably be able to tell if he had put on makeup to change his skin tone.
Well, it’s what he said he was doing, so that’s why I went with that. Also note the specific terminology associated with Puerto Ricans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/dining/bon-appetit-adam-rapoport.html
In isolation it would be racist to assume a man wearing a baseball jersey was Puerto Rican or dressed as a one as a caricature. It’s not when it’s labeled as such by the people in the photo, and when asked about it they admit that’s what they were doing, and then apologize and then ultimately resign.
In reality? Like anyone else.
As a costume?
The not-puerto-rican editor of the magazine bon appetit went to a Halloween costume dressed as a caricature of a Puerto Rican with his also not Puerto Rican wife.
It came into my head as an example of something less obviously problematic than blackface, but more obviously problematic than dressing as a Disney character that’s a depiction of a different race.
Feel free to substitute any other ethnicity or race into my example as it makes sense to you.
What “idiots complaining about cultural appropriation”? It’s not exactly a common thing, despite what caricatures of them might make you think. No one is getting upset that anyone eats food from another culture.
The only actual examples I can think of that I’ve actually heard discussed are “please don’t dress as my race as a costume, it’s basically blackface” and “my religion was systematically driven to the brink of extinction, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t use it as a fun activity to express your creativity”.
These things always seem chock full of getting defensive about something that doesn’t really happen, or acting like the smallest pushback to the dominant culture doing whatever they want is incredibly terrible.
Appropriation isn’t an issue when it’s just cultures sharing. It’s an issue when people reduce the culture to the things in question, forget that there’s actually people involved who deserve respect, or outright claim ownership of the thing in question.
Don’t go to a Halloween party dressed as a Puerto Rican. Don’t grab a random assortment of native American religious practices, mix them with crystals and use it to showcase your creativity.
I feel like any AI tool that’s being sold as saving you money just won’t do that. Some of the ones that sell improved detection rates might.
AI that works as a tool designed to be used by an existing or new professional to augment their abilities works as well as any other tool. An ultrasound doesn’t save you money except in the abstract of being more freely usable than x-ray allowing for more checks with less equipment.
A tool that highlights concerning areas on a mammogram isn’t replacing a person anymore than the existing tools that highlight concerning heart rhythms.
Trying to get llms to replace people, particularly when it comes to trying to explain the content of a potentially technical medical discussion is just not going to be reliable.
So stop using it? If you keep using it they’re just going to think you want it, doubly so if they’re not getting the feedback that the answer was trash.
Accept “I have no idea” as an answer, and don’t use it as an opportunity to push things in the direction you want.
learn to account for people being wrong, and don’t punish them for it.
Engineers want to be accurate. They don’t want to give answers that they’re unsure about or just speculating.
Early in their careers they’re often willing to, but that gets beaten out of them pretty quickly by people with deadlines. Expressing uncertainty often means the person interprets the answer in the direction they want, and then holds the engineer to that answer.
“It could be anywhere from 2-8 months I think, but we won’t know until we’re further into the design phase” is taken as 2 months, planned around, and then crunch Time starts when it starts to go over. Or revising an estimate once new information or changing requirements are revealed is treated as incompetence, even though more work taking more time is expected.
It’s in the self interest of the engineer to be cagey. “I don’t like to give estimates this early” is much harder to turn into a solid commitment than an earnest best estimate given the current known state of the project.
Similar for resources required or processes. Anything you don’t say is unlikely to be held against you.
This doesn’t even seem like the most egregious “weird warning”.
Thinking you can use a pet urine cleaner for fibres on a shaggy dog isn’t madness, it’s just “nope, actually a skin irritant”.
Yup. Disliking the guy is no reason for academic dishonesty though. He gave 70/30 odds. The key part about odds though is that they’re basically confidence ratings.
He was wrong and surprised, along with basically everyone else.
Guy came up with the method basically everyone uses to combine and aggregate polling data now, which is far more accurate than previous methods. It’s weird to say he’s an idiot.
His argument has legal inconsistencies. It’s been soundly rejected by every authority with any say in the matter, so … You’re entirely correct. If his argument were to be accepted, then he couldn’t be president.
A legal argument being rejected also rejects the parts that would harm the person making it, as well as the parts that would help them.
It’s like a person in prison yelling that they’re innocent. You can say what you want, but the decision has already been made.
It actually does.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
(Edited to add) And from the 12th amendment:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
You can be elected twice and you can serve for no more than 10 years total.
It’s like people forget why the NLRB exists: the government being present to meditate and force management to the table keeps them from having to bring in the military when the police can’t suppress the workers.
We’ve been there before. The sliver of union protection is what’s been keeping the old ways of negotiating from coming back.
Paranoia in the sense of being concerned with the ill intent of others, not the sense of an irrational worry about about persecution. Much like how the intelligence community itself is said to have institutional paranoia.
While they created a set of patches that would implement the security features that selinux provides, what was actually merged was the result of several years of open collaboration and development towards implementing those features.
There’s general agreement that the idea that the NSA proposed is good and an improvement, but there was, and still is, disagreement about the specific implementation approaches.
To avoid issues, an approach was taken to create a more generic system that selinux would then take advantage of. That’s why selinux, app armor and others can live side by without it being a constant maintenance and security nightmare. Each one lives in their little self contained auditable boxes, and the kernel just makes the “check authorization” function call and it flows into the right module by configuration.
The Linux community was pretty paranoid about the NSA in 2000, so the code definitely got a lot more scrutiny than the typical proposal.
A much easier way to introduce a backdoor would be to start a tiny company that produces some arbitrary piece of hardware which you then add kernel support for.
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/drivers/input/keyboard - that’s just the keyboard drivers.
Now you’re adding code to the kernel and with the right driver and development ability you can plausibly make changes that have non-obvious impacts, and as a bonus if someone notices, you can just say “oops!” And not be “the god-damned NSA” who everyone expects to be up to something, and instead be 4 humble keyboard enthusiasts with an esoteric set of lighting and input opinions like are a dime a dozen on Kickstarter.
I can think of two billionaires that I’m tentatively okay with. One sold a software service for a dollar a year to a couple billion people, and the other is a musician with an extremely valuable musical portfolio and popular live shows.
The key part being that they almost entirely made their money by actually producing something themselves, not just leveraging money to make money or leeching off the work of others, and what they made actually provides value. $1 a year for communication services is a fair value, and the musician has easily provided more than a billion hours of enjoyment.
I can’t think of anyone else that it seems reasonable to have that much money that actually has that much money.
and tasted normally
I agree we should eat the rich, but I’ll also admit that it’s a rare treat, so worth going all out on the seasoning and dining experience. At the least some fresh herbs and butter basted. :P
I’d cap it high enough so that you can obviously retire with a life of luxury, leave your children unquestionably provided for, and start a few odd businesses without realistically risking the previous points.
“Solving” you and your families material needs is sort of the endgame for wealth. The extra for random business ventures is because society actually benefits from people with safety nets taking risks to see if something makes money. It works better if we had a society wide safety net so failure doesn’t kill you, but even a limited form still has a benefit.
Anything leftover shouldn’t go to charity, it should go back to the society that helped them get the money in the first place. Charity is good, but it’s ultimately a bandaid on social problems, and too often isn’t distributed evenly or without condition to those who need it. Taxes and entitlement programs won’t require a religious sermon to get food,
Well, goes to show how fucked my memory is recently. 🤦
Just imagine if we brought the efficiency of the insurance that tries to keep you from getting healthcare to the systems that want to give you healthcare but are grossly underfunded, like medicare or the VA! Why, we could ensure that almost no one gets a covered doctor’s visit while doubling prices.
The only part they won’t gut is the part that mandates that everyone must have insurance.
Nothing better than being legally required to pay for a service that exists to fight to provide no value to you whatsoever in return for the money.
You’re currently connected to your neighbors that intimately. Chances are a good chunk of your neighbors are on the same ISP as you.
What disconnect do you think a non-local ISP is providing that a local one wouldn’t?