3 ms·

> I'm not following your argument. It's almost certainly true that you do, you're just being dishonest. (The alternative is worse.) > What is this thing that

> I'm not following your argument. It's almost certainly true that you do, you're just being dishonest. (The alternative is worse.) > What is this thing that URLs are which makes them public? You mean other than being identifiers (universal identifiers, at that)? It's like you've never used or encountered someone else articulating an argument that incorporates (or would be appropriate to incorporate) the phrase "by definition" before. If your security protocols are compromised by the card catalog or the Rolodex being invented—compromised not by knowing the contents of a given resource, but by knowing the correct way to refer to or otherwise describe the identity of that resource—then you don't really have very good security in your protocols (particularly in a world where those things have already been invented). > What's the analogous thing for URLs? What? What a bizarre request. The next time someone asks you to make your case in terms of bad analogies just because they can't get away from using them themselves, you can go ahead and say, "No, thanks. I'll pass."

geofft 5y ago
I understand full well that you are claiming that URLs are public by definition. I am disputing that you are interpreting the definition correctly. The invention of the card catalog and the Rolodex does not compromise anything, because the card catalog and the Rolodex simply catalogue information that is public, but in a poorly-accessible format. No card catalog can find the name of an unpublished, self-printed book that is sitting in my house. No Rolodex can determine the extension of the direct line at my work. Since I am claiming the URL in question is not public in the first place, I am claiming that it would not end up catalogued. Can you explain, clearly, how this URL would end up catalogued? "By definition" is not an argument.
- pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
  You're mixing up "public" with "published" (intentionally, perhaps). > I am disputing that you are interpreting the definition correctly. And I question whether you've actually made an attempt to grok the subject as a matter of definition, rather than substituting your synthesis (based on an experiential mental model of the subject derived from firsthand inference) in place of what URLs actually are actually supposed to be. (Meaning the playing dumb comment would be apropos here as well.) > Can you explain, clearly, how this URL would end up catalogued? The mechanics of how don't have to be explained, because that's how definitions work (whether you accept it or not). Explaining how is not a pre-requisite to what. But if you're really dying for some missing insight, how about pausing to demonstrate some awareness of the catalyst of this tedious exchange: that a company that was founded on the basis related to cataloguing documents and their public identifiers is (shocker) doing that, right before doing things to/with them—and this has led to people who built up a model of the world similar to yours getting upset because the mistaken assumptions that went into building that model conflict with they're now being told is happening.

geofft 5y ago

I understand full well that you are claiming that URLs are public by definition. I am disputing that you are interpreting the definition correctly. The invention of the card catalog and the Rolodex does not compromise anything, because the card catalog and the Rolodex simply catalogue information that is public, but in a poorly-accessible format. No card catalog can find the name of an unpublished, self-printed book that is sitting in my house. No Rolodex can determine the extension of the direct line at my work. Since I am claiming the URL in question is not public in the first place, I am claiming that it would not end up catalogued. Can you explain, clearly, how this URL would end up catalogued? "By definition" is not an argument.

pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
You're mixing up "public" with "published" (intentionally, perhaps). > I am disputing that you are interpreting the definition correctly. And I question whether you've actually made an attempt to grok the subject as a matter of definition, rather than substituting your synthesis (based on an experiential mental model of the subject derived from firsthand inference) in place of what URLs actually are actually supposed to be. (Meaning the playing dumb comment would be apropos here as well.) > Can you explain, clearly, how this URL would end up catalogued? The mechanics of how don't have to be explained, because that's how definitions work (whether you accept it or not). Explaining how is not a pre-requisite to what. But if you're really dying for some missing insight, how about pausing to demonstrate some awareness of the catalyst of this tedious exchange: that a company that was founded on the basis related to cataloguing documents and their public identifiers is (shocker) doing that, right before doing things to/with them—and this has led to people who built up a model of the world similar to yours getting upset because the mistaken assumptions that went into building that model conflict with they're now being told is happening.