LocalPCGuy

I have seen an exception to this with Microsoft Entra. I was not able to store and use the passkey in my password manager of choice, I had to save it in Microsoft Authenticator. I haven't tried again lately since that was for a previous job, and I didn't look into the underlying reason it failed, whether it was attestation of some sort or something else about how they set it up.

I'm generally pro-passkeys, but also acknowledge they are a hot mess for the average non-techy consumer. And there does seem to be room for the screws to tighten, and we definitely need to resist that.

Adding the kind of sharing it sounds like you are describing would just shift the attacks to that new attack surface. The attackers would basically try to trigger and intercept those shares.

If machines, browsers, phones etc are set up properly (yes, I know, big ask, especially with the confusion surrounding this, so I acknowledge the caveat), then the vast majority of passkey requests will go right into the preferred method (i.e. 1Password, Bitwarden, even Apple, browser of choice, etc). And most of those now will allow that passkey then to be used on a different device if signed in and synced.

I have found it to work pretty well with a password manager. I would suspect OS level passkeys would be much less "portable", especially across different manufacturer devices, like Mac/Windows, or even Windows/Android, etc. Which is why I waited to start using passkeys until I could use a password manager to store them, and I turned off all other passkey storages (same as I did for password storage before).

The spec is quite thorough and well thought out in this regard. Despite what it "sounds like" when described, it is very secure, even with a variety of implementations. What is far weaker is that most sites that offer passkeys also offer a multitude of fallback recovery options.

That QR code from a malicious website will not actually communicate with the malicious website with authentication from the correct origin, most QR code phishing scams do not actually use passkeys but rather fall back to trying to get the user's fallback login information (if any). By spec, if the domain does not perfectly match the domain where the passkey was originally created, the phone (or passkey provider) will fail to find a matching passkey. And the domain is derived, not provided by the QR code data (it's all in the spec).

Basically, it's very hard if not basically impossible to spoof a QR code to access the real passkey via a malicious site. (caveat, without already having compromised something like the user's DNS, maybe? Even then the site would likely fail the cryptographic checks.)

I have done exactly that. I've seen your bias re: psychology as a whole and it appears to color your research and information gathering. I hope, like I have been doing even if not apparent from my replies, that you are able to consider your viewpoints and whether they actually hold true.

Along those lines, I do appreciate this conversation. I do like questioning what I believe, and I had to steelman some of the views you put forth and then see where they then didn't hold up. I do that while being willing to change my own mind if that is where the evidence leads, but the research presented didn't hold up to scrutiny. So while I definitely disagree with you, I do so from a place of appreciation for pushing me to do more digging into this things and whether *I* should hold the beliefs that I do.

Your (and the authors of your paper) reliance on biomarkers are not how most psychiatric conditions are diagnosed. The fact you even ask about 5 vs 6 demonstrates a lack of understanding (or willful ignorance of) of how and why the diagnostic criteria are what they are.

Completely disagree with your conspiracy theory about the drugs. That's just laughable. Obviously need to prevent abuse, but there are both legitimate uses of and reasons to restrict general use of the drugs. Not to mention there are non-stimulant drugs as well, which kinda stomps on that argument.

I skimmed over that paper, and may do a deeper dive later, although doesn't really seem worth it. I thought it was going to be a scientific study, but it reads more like a essay from two authors with a specific viewpoint trying to convince others, via slanted/biased text, that other text and language is baising an entire industry and population? I find that questionable at best.

And while the authors made a lot of claims, and cited some other studies, they don't really, IMO, prove their point in any scientifically valid way, or even as a solid, well-formed argument. Add in that the authors are sociologists, not neuroscientists or psychiatrists/psychologists, and it makes me question both their claims and understanding of the topic.

I did catch that one of their main points (that you mentioned as well) boils down to not having a physical test or clear biomarker. But that applies to nearly all psychiatric conditions. Saying the absence of those kinds of tests is the same as the absence of a real condition ignores the research that has been done demonstrating functional impairment (including twin studies, some indications of genetic heritability). The paper presents a specific sociological viewpoint, and that isn't the current scientific consensus.

Like I said, probably not gonna convince you, just dropping this for others that might see the essay link and think it might actually provide validity when it does not. That essay does not really make significant arguments against ADHD.

It does present good warnings to be aware of pressures that would distort diagnosis and I do think there is good reason to be cautious about over diagnosing, or diagnosing by unqualified personnel, both of which do happen of course. But the article goes too far beyond that.

You seem to have your mind made up, so just gonna say that for anyone else reading this, this is not accurate or scientific information. Lacks an understanding of how the medication works, the differences in kinds of medications. The fact it used to be legal is not relevant. Misrepresents how ADHD is diagnosed, the criteria for it (by professionals), and even to a lesser extent the biomarkers statement.

The word you are looking for is Inattentive - when diagnosed they should state whether the diagnosis presents as Predominantly Inattentive, Predominantly Hyperactive/Impulsive, or Combination.

Correct. People with focus issues do not necessarily have ADHD. That requires meeting a defined set of diagnostic criteria, including that it has an impairing effect on an individual's life.

Also, just because it seems like a simple lack of focus to you externally, that does not mean the person does not have a disorder.

Not going to get into a back/forth due to the pseudo-conspiracy end, just stating that this is significantly inaccurate.

Those are some possible outcomes, yes, but it is not a black/white thing, and that is actually WHY it's important to work with a qualified doctor to monitor medication, effects, dosage and so on, and make adjustments as necessary.

Different medications work very differently as it relates to dopamine, uptake, production, etc. And there are also non-stimulant medications that may be effective for some folks.

Be careful and approach `HealthyGamerGG` with a bit of healthy skepticism. I have benefited from a number of his videos, but recently small things have lead to me growing concerned that as his reach/influence grows, the same motivations that existed early on mutate as with many influencers. Not suggesting anything negative per se, just recommending a variety of sources and validating his claims. For another source, Dr. Barkley's videos are very good.

Dr. Barkley does a great job presenting research and factual information in a way that is easy to understand and I've also found it very helpful personally. Was diagnosed in adulthood, so resources like this were great finds during my hyperfocus dive into gaining some measure of understanding of ADHD.

I agree and it would be great if we could do that and ideally there would be roles for people that are not able to maintain the strict structure and their contributions were valued even if different.

That said, I think we agree that accepting the treatment folks need to function in society as it exists is a step in the right direction.