Atheros

These buyers agreed to move into a house for which there is both a one-time-fee equal to, let's say, $300k, and a monthly rent. They may (or may not) be refunded a large portion of their move-in fee when they move out but the monthly rent amount is controlled by a landlord. This is the agreement they apparently signed up for.

It's a home, yes.

It's a significant portion of most people's net worth, yes.

But it's also a subscription service.

to slow down attackers who want to brute force your password hash. At least that was the idea. I guess it also includes the salt stuff built in so that it's harder for implementers to screw up.

Is a 9-order-of-magnitude slow down worth the trouble? I dunno. Maybe.

Servers usually accept data in a thousand ways in a thousand endpoints. Anyone who tries to prevent buffer overflow or slowloris attacks by limiting password length specifically is doing it wrong. An absurdly long password is surely one of the least likely places where a resource-use vulnerability would pop up since the data usually gets sent straight into a 20 year old hash implementation.

The only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead.

If the data can be read by so many people in the company that even the customer service people have access, it's functionally not encrypted.

In case any programmers read this, the better procedure, if you want to use bcrypt, is to hash the password with something else first, like SHA512, then feed the output into bcrypt.

You aren't persuaded by what I wrote because I did not attempt to persuade you. You asked me to explain what I meant by "plausible deniability" so I did.

> Neutral inanimate object or tool X is "bad" (we need laws/bans/broad social disapproval, etc.), because it enables bad faith actors

I never made this argument. I did, however, give what I thought was a pretty good example of good faith actors behaving badly when there is a plausible excuse for them to do so. (narcissism vs. creepiness)

I don't think you're a human. Whenever someone has misunderstood me this badly in the past, and I've kept talking to them, they turned out to be a bot. I've typed this out for you just in case I'm wrong but I'm not going to respond any further.

> In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording

You have them.

> then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not?

No, they have plausible deniability if they use the common device.

> Are we talking about legal accountability

Social and legal.

> What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not?

The glasses enable the wearer to say, "Oh sorry I didn't know they were recording." Or "They weren't recording, they're just glasses." Using a handheld VHS video camera from 1992, in 1992, would cause you to get arrested in a locker room because there is no plausible deniability. The recorder definitely chose to use it there in violation of social norms so off to jail they go.

> argument.. would have to be applied universally

Yup.

> how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording

Someone else in this thread suggested that the entire rim of the glasses light up in a plainly visible and obvious fashion, including in broad daylight. That would make it acceptable because then you could tell the person, "Hey your glasses are on. They should not be on." And then the person can say "oops" and we all go on with our lives.

> You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals...?

Prosecution is not strictly necessary; social effects would likely be good enough just like they are in most other contexts. Especially because many of the bad uses of these glasses will simply be mistakes. I can give you an example. I was changing in a men's locker room. You may be completely naked. There are showers and whatnot. Someone had a tripod set up with a phone attached and an LED light to take video of himself in the large mirror they have there. He surely didn't know that he was doing anything wrong. But he was. He could be told not to do that because we all could tell it was happening. With glasses, we can't.

This is an example of a problem that the glasses bring but the fact that I have typed it should not imply that it is my or anyone else's only concern. There are others.

> at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones

There is no guarantee that this will happen. Open display of a firearm will get you put in a police car in many places despite owning it being a right enshrined in the constitution. You may drive a car but not anywhere you want. You may use firecrackers sometimes but not anywhere you want. You may own a cell phone but not possess it wherever you want. You may buy a backscatter x-ray machine but you may not use it wherever you want. Examples abound. You will almost definitely be able to buy Meta glasses in the future but there is no long-term guarantee that you may use them in public.

They won't be thrown out. You'll surely be able to buy these in the future just like you can buy cell phones and fire crackers. But you can't take cell phones and fire crackers anywhere you want. You may not drive a car wherever you want, you may not carry a visible firearm wherever you want, and you may not use a backscatter X-ray machine wherever you want.

The other devices do not feature plausible deniability when caught. The glasses do. That's the problem.

Naaaaa I don't believe you. If you were actually concerned about objectification of women, especially as it applies to relationships, you would be 100 times more concerned about TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube than porn because the impact of those is proven 100 times over. The term "body count" didn't come from porn, it came from the manosphere. Incel ideology didn't spread because on xtube, it spread on Reddit. Manosphere influencers are having such a large effect on the population that men vs women demographic shifts are showing up in questionnaires about religious affiliation.

And please don't say, "I care about those things too." You brought up porn specifically. That's why I don't believe you.

Maybe it's not mentioned because it's not supported by data and probably wrong. I think if that if porn were effectively banned outright, not only might nothing change, it might get worse. After all, we remove AI-child-porn from online services under the argument that such porn would increase the desire to do the activities shown, right? If that's true then it's true whether the people depicted are 17 or 19.

> it goes unspoken.. because no one wants to admit

A more likely explanation is that few people actually agree with you. Your argument is extremely common among people using motivated reasoning to try to ban content they don't like, starting with porn.

Airtaxis can't retrofit suburbs just like cars can't retrofit 1850s cities. Imagine a city built around airtaxis and delivery drones. I think it is doable which means that they'll do it.

Cities were originally built around walking. Later they expanded a little bit with horses. After that they were rebuilt for cars. They will be rebuilt again when transportation technology changes, at least for those that can afford it.

They hacked the hackathon. You didn't.