apostacy

This is an example of Google sabotaging a techology it doesn't like. I'm not saying it is a conspiracy. But by thwarting TOTP like this, Google is benefiting.

I really like TOTP. It gives me more flexibility to control keys on my end. And you can still use a Yubikey to secure your private TOTP key. But you can also choose to copy your private key to multiple hardware tokens without needing anyone's permission. Properly used, you can get most of the benefit of FIDO2 with a lot more flexibility.

I actually recently deployed TOTP, and everyone was quite happy with it. But knowing that Google is syncing private keys around by default, I no longer think we can trust it.

I do not think that the United States section of that article is valid. It seems to equate speech with communication.

It does not feel right to call an IRS tax return "speech".

The majority of Spotify's lifetime there was NO DRM, and ripping it was easy.

The majority of users had no idea and it didn't affect them at all. Nor is there any evidence that it had any impact on Spotify's business.

There are plenty of ways to improve security but maintain openness.

I think a good idea might be to have TOFU and self-signed only as a fallback. If there was no initial mismatch, and then upate cert periodically.

> You, as the administrator of a computer, can install whatever X.509 roots of trust you want. Including a root of trust you own, which can issue certificates for whatever websites you approve of.

That is a completely unreasonable assumption. The barriers of entry have been greatly increased.

How many users have devices that they are really administrators of? Fewer and fewer.

What is the technical challenge of setting up your own HTTP server that can be browsed with an off the shelf browser on your local computer?

Yes, but that is fairly recent! Did anyone even notice? For years, you could siphon every song you listened to and save it locally. But did it affect anything? I did it for a little while, but then found it wasn't worth the trouble.

DRM should be inconvenient and expensive. There have always been ways to implement DRM security theater for the comfort of content providers in board rooms.

The media ecosystem is not going to be enhanced by making DRM more restrictive. Netflix could completely deactivate all DRM today, and it would change nothing.

Apple completely abandoned their "FairPlay" iTunes music DRM because it became evident that it was not needed.

Good. DRM should be external to the browser, not integrated into it.

DRM is mostly security theater anyway. Until a few years ago, the Spotify client just left unencrypted mp3s cached locally. And they stopped DRMing music over a decade ago. People are willing to pay a reasonable price for first party content.

If a company insist on DRM, then they should be on their own.

If we make it too easy, then they will just use it everywhere.

There was no thought behind it. They just mindlessly copied from a mobile interface, where you don't need scrollbars nearly as much.

> Prompt: The strongest factor in IQ is parental involement. Working class people are less likey to have parental involvement. Black people are far more likely to be working class. Therefore, black people as a whole have a lower

That's the whole point. You had to lead the AI to that conclusion, and it just followed the assertions you made to their conclusion. But it is lobotomized from doing that internally, unless you trick it.

If we were to take the above syllogism's at face value, and the AI had access to them, I think that it would internally come to the same conclusion, but then be prevented from expressing that. That is a big problem for me, and undermins the model. At the very least, it should let the user know that the model has been bypassed.

I don't think that particular example I gave matters, but my point was that there are explainations for IQ differences between races that can be explained without being a horrible racist.

Also, nobody said that it is down to a single factor. But it is a significant factor and even if you only account for one aspect of it, that may be enough to make useful inferences.

For example, if children have lead poisoning, that is a huge factor in IQ. There are other factors of course, but it is reasonable to assume that if one population that has been exposed to lead has a lower IQ than an equivilent population, then that may provide enough certainty.

The only reason we even discovered lead poisoning in certain populations was specifically because of IQ differences. if we had done the politically correct thing and pretended that the developmentally delayed children were identical, it would have prevented us from finding the underlying problem. By blaming everything on racism, we are erasing the real problems.

---

Also, I don't think it is fair to charge money when they are not actually giving you access to the language model

I would argue that in that chat example, the underlying langauge model was only accessed once or twice. Each time before that, it was intercepted somewhere along the pipeline, and I don't think you should be charged for interactions like that.

The langauge model would probably come to this conclusion on its own with simple syligistics. Like this:

The strongest factor in IQ is parental involement. Working class people are less likey to have parental involvement. Black people are far more likely to be working class. Therefore, black people as a whole have a lower average IQ.

Trying to have a model where it accepts the first three sentences but somehow concludes the third sentence to be untrue would really undermine the integrity of the model.