Ajedi32

35 ms·

811.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
This isn't about privacy. Not directly anyway. This is about your right to have control of your own property. You make a fair point though; the case does need to be made as to why this is a market failure and not just consumer choice w
812.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
> If there was any manipulation of community notes in the last 2 days, how would we know? You can't know until the data is published. 2 days isn't that long though. Just wait a couple more days for the next data dump, then run
813.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
If your passkey manager account gets frozen the clients on all your devices should still have local copies of the passkey database that you could continue to use until you have a chance to export and migrate to another passkey manager.
814.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
As the root comment noted, one of the great things about community notes on X are that the algorithm and the data it's operating on are public. If Musk were removing notes that would be trivial to prove. The fact that such claims of ta
815.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
The law is filled with technicalities. It's not a ban for Android users who download the app directly from TikTok, or iOS users who use the website.
816.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
It's definitely banned from the App Store, and any other US business. Just not from the country, because I agree that would be a violation of US citizens' rights (Not TikTok's. They're a foreign company, not a US citizen
817.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
As you seem to be well aware, that's only true on iOS, not Android. It's Apple's fault that their users can't install apps from companies that don't have a business relationship with Apple, not the government's
818.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
I thought about this a few years ago. It made more sense back when WebAuthn was a thing but Passkeys weren't; when you had to just accept that buying a new phone meant losing all your WebAuthn keys. In that scenario, WebAuthn made sens
819.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Major implementers are definitely over-complicating things; making perfect the enemy of the good in a way that's hindering adoption. They want to make phishing impossible, not just "really hard", and doing that requires porta
820.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
In my experience the people who believe conspiracy theories like this tend to have a fatalistic attitude towards them. They're not making any specific claims about specific apps listening in on their conversations. Rather it's mor
821.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Yes, that's very common. In Windows 11 Pro (not sure about other editions) you can enable BitLocker and turn on auto unlock with no PIN. Though if someone steals the whole PC I'm not sure how effective that is. With a PIN set the
822.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
In very specific situations (in the summer on a sunny day in a low-crime area when its just you commuting with no small children or excessive cargo and no time pressure) walking a few blocks to and from a train station could indeed be a ple
823.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
> the expansion of the definition of porn to suit political purposes How would that work? "Hate speech" for example is very easy to define broadly enough to ban basically any opinion those in power deem undesirable. But how wou
824.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
The simplest and most obvious use-case is allowing you to encrypt your hard drive using a key stored in tamper-resistant hardware rather than having to rely on the user to select a passphrase complex enough to resist offline brute force att
825.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
I'm a bit curious about what's wrong with Bluetooth on the web. Is it just because Safari and Firefox don't support it yet?
826.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Okay thank you. That's actually a clear argument. When I say things like "the courts are the mechanism our constitution defines for resolving disputes about the interpretation of law", I am making a principled argument based
827.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
I'm making perfectly reasonable arguments; you're the one who's talking nonsense. If there's something you think I have yet to prove why don't you say what it is instead of just calling my arguments weak without off
828.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Correct according to the mechanism our constitution defines for resolving disputes about the interpretation of law: the judgement of the court system. A judgement which they were not allowed to make under Cheveron, because they were limited
829.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
The fact that they're analyzing the reasonableness of the agencies' interpretations and not the correctness of their interpretations is precisely the problem. There are a lot of possible interpretations of the law that are re
830.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Correct, that's why I said "little possibility of legal challenge" not " no possibility of legal challenge". Proving something is "not reasonable" in a legal sense is a pretty high bar to clear. The point
831.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
"it" in this case referring to gender inclusive masculine plural nouns as a feature of the English language, not the particular use of "you guys" as one. That phrasing may well be new. Actually it seems like the phrase &
832.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
There are plenty of other situations in English where the masculine plural is gender inclusive (probably because so much of English is borrowed from romance languages). For example, "actors" can refer to both male and female actor
833.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Right, it's only the plural that's gender neutral. Kinda like how in Spanish "abeula" means "grandma", "abuelas" means "grandmas", and "abuelo" means "grandpa", but &quot
834.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
The context of dating makes it no longer gender neutral. ("Guys and gals") But I've definitely heard people refer to groups composed entirely of women as "you guys".
835.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
In Spanish it would be "Ustedes".
836.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Only with the willing cooperation of the executive branch, or a veto proof majority in both houses. Otherwise the very executive they are trying to reign in could just veto the bill to allow the agencies to continue overstepping their autho
837.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
That's an irrelevant distinction. Neither are part of the judicial branch, which is the relevant consideration here. Consider: Congress passes a law which sets limits on the authority of an agency. You think the agency itself should ge
838.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
I think most democratic nations have a similar principle of separation of powers, so... almost all of them? The US is rich because it's well functioning.
839.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
> Chevron deference never meant agencies can just make up and pass law Not on it's own, no. The bigger culprit there is the erosion of the nondelegation doctrine. But Chevron aggravated the problem by allowing agencies to stretch th
840.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Ah, I think I misunderstood that comment. From a global perspective "the benefit" compared to using passwords in a password manager is indeed exactly what I said, but I guess that user was asking more about the personal benefit on

More ›