- Many cases that require any kind of cast are this.
- The point is that this isn't unique to rust.
- Very few organizations need security from state level or similar threats and the infrastructure provider. Most organizations that want secure email don't use any kind of e2ee at all, they just trust Google or Microsoft or whomever.
The few jobs that actually care about this stuff, like journalists, do use signal.
Openwall doesn't get security via pgp, it gets a spam filter.
- I mean yes it is unsurprising that people with nearly infinite money are materially impacted by losing half of it.
But neither is at the level they were at before, at least in comparison to the market and economic growth overall.
> Not so. It's a lot worse now because before, people just monopolized fixed quantities of gold. If they made bad bets, their gold holdings would shrink.
Yes, this is precisely the "zero-sum" thing you said is problematic.
- Under a gold backed economy, things are zero-sum. Under a fiat based economy, they aren't. If your concern is about the problems of a zero-sum system, you should support a lack of scarcity in the money supply.
- Yes. People have complained about the difficulty of Google or Facebook account recovery and how they need to make it easier and more accurate for ages. You could search hn for "password reset" or "lost password" and you'll find tons.
- You don't necessarily need to hit the auth service on every request, but every service will ultimately depend on the auth service somewhere in its dependencies.
If you have two separate systems that depend on the auth system, and something depends on both, you have violated the polytree property.
- Your comments are the only ones in this comment section that mention retirement.
- I mean, Google just isn't participating it seems?
- I had a former coworker who moved from the medical device industry to similar-to-cloudflare-web software. While he had some appreciation for the validation and intense QA they did (they didn't use formal methods, just heavy QA and deep specs), it became very clear to him very clearly that those approaches don't work with speed-of-release as a concern (his development cycles were annual, not weekly or daily). And they absolutely don't work in contexts where user-abuse or reactivity are necessary. The contexts are just totally different.
- > (Also, they could make XSLT (and many other things that are built-in) into an extension instead, therefore making the core system more simpler.)
This appears to be what they are doing, in fact!
- I will simply say that Google is one of the few places that, to a first approximation, has this. We have our (pretty good) suite of tests. We can run only affected tests. We can them with instrumentation (*SAN), we can run them under various memory and CPU limits, we can run them 1000 times in parallel to deflake.
Anyway Google has all of that, and yet still finds this improvement.
- > A hobby project is not a product, and its developers are not vendors
But it's developers do offer paid consulting as ffmpeg maintainers, which Google does pay for.
- To be more precise, the law requires employees to publish the nlrb notice in well trafficked or otherwise conspicuous locations.
I think there are other places where "government mandated corporation inform people of their rights" is a thing, especially with things like data use and sharing.
In terms of consent decrees, that was the wrong example. But lots of judgements do involve various notification requirements.
- Two this, first, I want to jump back to something you said earlier:
> Nullification of immigration laws is, in fact, a right that states can exercise, but it's overt nullification is absolutely an escalation that undermines public trust because it force the feds to send enforcement officers into a hostile area.
Do you see why this might actually be seen as increasing public trust in local LEOs who aren't participating in human rights abuses?
> We should fight to win the immigration debate with persuasion, in the legislature. We need to have the law on our side, and we need to have the populace on our side.
And can you see why not condoning those abuses gets the populace on "our" side?
Second, you have asserted something like
> When the feds choose to enforce a law is areas that are actively trying to prevent that law from being enforced
a few times now. And I'd like you to clarify: in January 2025, what actions was Chicago taking that were "actively preventing [immigration] law from being enforced"? And what actions do you see municipalities engaging in today that are "actively trying to prevent [immigration] law from being enforced"?
And if you were in charge, what would you do instead? Keep in mind, as a mayor or police captain or whatever, you cannot tell Greg Bovino what to do. You can assist him, but his use of force policies are different than yours, and you cannot make him or his officers follow your directives.
- All sorts of consent decrees, a huge amount of union and workplace law requires things to be posted for employees.
- > I mean this is demonstrably false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_from_the_United_St...
You're doing a motte and bailey again. I, at least, don't object to some level of immigration enforcement.
What people do seem to object to, and what is unprecedented, is the aggression of enforcement, with roving packs of CBP officials going on snatch-and-grabs in random cities and detaining anyone who is latino-looking, including some citizens. That isn't how immigration law has been enforced over the past 5 decades. It's new. It wasn't policy under Bush or Obama or Biden or even under Trump the first time. The laws were not enforced like this since WWII.
The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked was during WWII. Its use this year was only lawful if you agree with the interpretation that certain Presidential determinations are wholly unreviewable by courts, an interpretation that so far, courts (including SCOTUS) have been unwilling to agree to.
There is significant controversy over whether much of this is even legal at all. And yet you seem to be of the opinion that state and local governments have some kind of responsibility to assist with actions they believe are illegal overreach. Because you're framing a lack of active participation as "nullification". You at least see why that's odd, right?
- The counterargument to this is pretty straightforward: what is being done in Midway blitz isn't democratic and is bordering on autocratic. We have a responsibility not to normalize and acquiesce to a transition to an undemocratic system.
Keep in mind these laws weren't enforced in this way for the past 50 years. It's difficult to accept that this was just democratic party disinterest in enforcing them. It really seems like no one wanted to.
- > we don’t use the repeated inflammatory “kidnappings” of our concern is merely detainees treatment.
No, but we do use it for otherwise unlawful stops without probable cause that lead to people being put in detention facilities that don't have water or food.
> like any issue in democracy, that means the Democrats are the party that needs to change minds.
This is not the argument you just made. You were (and are) arguing for collaboration. That's not "changing minds". In my opinion, being loud and not collaborating with federal forces, to make them engage in violence themselves is very effective at changing minds, as we see with cratering public support for these kinds of things.
I admit I can't quite follow what your philosophy seems to be here, at best I could summarize what I've seen as "Republican immigration policy is bad and has grown more unconscionable but I actively support it because Democrats didn't fix it already", but that seems weird.
- You're doing a selective quoting thing.
Not assisting with enforcement acts you don't feel are worthwhile is not nullification. I'm not engaging in "nullification" when I don't call the police on a jaywalker. Or I mean maybe you think this is, but then police engage in wildcat strikes all the time, or change enforcement priorities, or whatever you want to frame it as. Calling a difference in prioritization "nullification" wrong, especially if local police in immigrant communities want to maintain good relationships with those communities. I think it's laudable that some police forces show an interest in serving their communities interests, as opposed to yearning to be fashy.
> but it becomes very obvious nullification when the state passes laws preventing individuals who would LIKE to help, like local policed departments, from helping even if they wanted to. And this is exactly what has happened in many blue states.
Can you give examples?
Keep in mind, "sanctuary city" policies are usually actually supported by local police forces, because while they may look not tough on crime (and for this reason sometimes police forces halfheartedly lobby against them), they actually make on-the-ground local policing easier, because they engender trust between the local police force and immigrant communities who otherwise might not report crimes at all.
- > I do not think it is a reasonable position to consider deportaion of folks overstaying visas as "a violation of human rights" in the vast majority of cases.
This is a motte/bailey. Deporting people is not inherently a violation of human rights. However, when judges have to clarify that "detainees" must be provided water and toilets[0], I think it's pretty clear that their human rights are being violated. The significant objection is to that, not to any semblance of immigration enforcement.
> I think the ideal solution is to create a system where overstaying a visa is practically impossible.
I can assure you that you do not want this, it is predicated on a level of government invasiveness that would be unpalatable to both citizens and legal immigrants. Some abuse is the cost of many well functioning systems.
> However, since it has proven to be too practically difficult to negotiate comprehensive immigration reform for various reasons, the American left -- a left that I consider myself a part of -- has gone in the complete opposite direction for most of my lifetime. We have established an overt nullification policy that effectively facilitates folks ignoring immigration law.
It is somewhere between deeply misinformed and rhetorical malpractice to say this, pretending that the American right bears no responsibility for preventing progress on immigration reform and that there haven't been multiple attempts by the left to improve things here that were blocked by the right (including multiple iterations of DREAM and various attempts at asylum reform).
[0]: https://www.scribd.com/document/943713376/Broadview-TRO
- Amusingly, my first intro to the Whole Earth Catalog was the cocktail menu at Trick dog in 2019[0], which is very clearly a reference to the Fall 1970 issue.
[0]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/file/484/6/4846-Whole%20Dog%20Ca...
- > Yes, "we" were, definitely.
I am not unaware of the potential dangers of device attestation.
> Would you be ok if for example your government's website to pay your taxes mandated a device with attestation knowing you can only get one from Google, Apple or Microsoft ?
My point is this is already possible today. A lot of apps do it. An open attestation API means that, at least theoretically, systems not owned by one of those three providers could be used. Today you get, functionally, a signal of "this is blessed android or not". An alternative world where the device attests "I am grapheneOS" and it is up to the service to accept that attestation or not is strictly better than the ability today.
- More specifically, the theory is that cannot compel you to lie, there are all kinds of cases where businesses are compelled to share specific messages.
- > A couple of years back I switched password managers, I didn't go over 1000 sites and changed all my passwords, my password manager exported a plaintext file and I had it imported in the other after a small transformation step.
And, modulo the "plaintext" part, I think this is a reasonable usecase. It's equivalent to the "backup" case. I transfer an encrypted blob between devices and decrypt it locally is reasonable.
> No they don't and if they did they would also understand not to upload their plaintext credentials.
Except that you have already stated that you have done exactly this, and you claim to know what you're doing!
- I mean, I would agree that it's not a particularly useful thing for consumer-phone-bank usecases, but that doesn't mean the feature is bad (or harmful).
Just to be clear, no one is saying
> banks have to use it to be compliant
nor are they saying
> it only works on our platforms
As far as I know, if systems were to use attestation it would be in a lot of senses more open than what attestation is available today (in the sense that more devices could use it). But also I don't think anyone who works on passkeys is saying banks need to support FIDO attestation to be "compliant".
- I'm not sure what your point is here. How credentials are stolen today is irrelevant to the fact that today, right now, at this very moment, banks can and do already do the thing you're worried will be possible only due to the prevalence of passkeys.
- > Even without copyable keys, if your friends and family can be tricked into pasting their plain text keys into a scam site, they can be tricked into pasting their encrypted keys and their associated password to a scam site.
The point is that data shouldn't really be copyable, but a backup should at least be encrypted.
Ideally you don't have or need a key transfer mechanism, because sites have the ability to register multiple keys and you add or remove devices by adding or removing new keys, and you recover a backup to the same passkey-manager.
"Please upload the backup of your password manager and enter the root password" is not a thing you should ever do, and reasonable users, even technically incompetent ones understand that. The only people who want that behavior to be possible are weird power users whose desire makes it easier for anyone who uses such a password-manager to be phished.
Like, I've had this conversation before on this site, and my personal rule of "I should never copy a private key, and I should certainly never copy a private key between devices or onto a cloud" remains something I'm confident in. If I need a private key used across devices, I can trust it to a key-management scheme like the ones built into Signal or the various passkey managers I use. I don't want to manually copy my signal cypher-data between devices either!
This doesn't actually follow, for a variety of reasons, including that jobs have compensation ranges and in a lot of cases the bottom of one is pretty close to, or even below, the top of the previous one.
One of the big reasons that changing companies was good from a compensation perspective was 4 year initial offers. Upleveled job-switches do happen, but from what I've seen they don't usually happen much faster than internal promotions, and often they happen slower!