WendyTheWillow

You've said over and over again how you don't want to talk about the subject, yet you keep replying. I'm just making sure people understand this isn't the strategy of someone who knows what they're talking about, and you're cooperating magnificently.

Morality is what separates us from animals. The suggestion right and wrong don’t exist is the real tyranny. It's what evil people say to do evil things.

This isn’t a debate, this is me getting you to reveal how little weight you have behind what you believe.

This is useful because if anyone else reads this, they will get a pretty standard idea of how people who think like you can’t really justify their beliefs when challenged.

I do appreciate it, but I doubt you do. Easier to dismiss me and ignore any dissent, than it is to consider that you might actually be the bad guy here.

I told you this approach weakens your advocacy. Too bad you can’t listen.

That’s true, but it’s not what I said. It seems like you may need to reread what I wrote in order to respond to it, but then again it’s probably easier for you to pretend to misunderstand me than it is to actually address what I’ve written…

But you seem utterly incapable of justifying those beliefs to others...

Your beliefs are worthless to everyone else if you can't explain them, and no all you've done so far is declare what you believe to be correct, and have crumpled at the slightest sign of resistance. That demonstrates the weakness of your belief.

"Because I believe differently than you, there isn't much to discuss." is a terrible way to convince others of your belief.

You're presupposing your conclusion and seem completely closed to the idea that you may be wrong.

No, what I disagree with is his inconsistency, and also his manipulatability by the Russians, who allegedly told him a nuclear war would erupt if he didn't do what they said.

What's to stop someone else from otherwise manipulating him to not stop the asteroid, using similar threats or similar reasoning? Perhaps he finds a way to survive for a time off planet (or sufficiently deep underground), for example. He's the kind of unstable that might result in him not therefore caring how the rest of us fare.

A better comment would attempt to explain why is my point. Thus far, you've been insistent on refusing to explain yourself or being open to alternative views.

I couldn't disagree more strongly; you will screw this up if you roll your own. The only secure option is to push as much as possible outside of your infrastructure. The concerns that it won't be "auditable" or that you "give away the keys to your kingdom" are nonsense and implementation-specific. If it's important, then don't build your integration with those flaws. You will still have substantial control, so you can decide how "auditable" the auth actually is and what to do with users authed from one platform or another.

If you can avoid managing authn, you will be substantially better off. I don't think you can so easily do this for authz; however, it depends on what you're building.

That’s even worse! I would try to avoid a library with a function that fragile.

Where did I suggest such a thing?

And everything discussed is consent driven anyway. It’s not like a smart phone is mandated.

…the whole thread you’re replying to is about it not actually being necessary. To participate in this conversation you either accept that premise or disagree with it, passing it as a given is not really an option for the argument.

Or use a library that doesn’t modify the input…

The smell here is in the library, is the commenter's point. The solution would be to search for a better written library.