I didn't get that intent from what the original user of orthogonal posted. Maybe I just didn't understand what they posted. > >Lose your (google) passkeys acco

I didn't get that intent from what the original user of orthogonal posted. Maybe I just didn't understand what they posted. > >Lose your (google) passkeys account for whatever reason (ai says no, wrongthink, itar ban), and you risk losing your digital life. > Isn't this entirely orthogonal to the usage of passkeys? You could "lose your digital life" if you forgot your password, or remembered your password but tripped their risk scoring system (eg. fresh login from an unusual location). So the person they responded to was saying that loss of (centrally coordinated) passkeys means potential loss of all digital life. They are responding that a loss of (centrally coordinated) digital life can happen for a variety of other reasons unrelated to passkeys. The first person is narrowly concerned with central coordination of a particular passkey system, and the second person is saying that if "loss of one's digital life" is the primary concern, then they should instead be concerned with broader central coordination and verification. In essence, their criticism is that cause and effect are being reversed, or at least mistaken. I dropped out of school in the middle of taking linear algebra, so you know more about math than I do. Maybe orthogonal was appropriate here, but I'm still going to push back against its colloquial use in most situations.