dale_huevo
Joined 1 year ago
Joined 1 year ago
If only they invested in venture-backed mass surveillance apps instead
There are millions of non-technical people with jobs, where they are issued a company computer.
It's conceivable they might want to access the World Wide Web on it.
Assuming they own no other devices other than a mobile phone as you suggest, they still have at least two and probably don't want to sync anything from their personal phone to a company computer.
P.S. your comment was funnier before you added the part about the gucamole
> No one says the plethora of email client choices is confusing. This is exactly the same
It's absolutely not the same. No one is manually syncing files across PCs and devices so they can retrieve mail on all of them. You have zeroed in on some irrelevant pedantry and continue to ignore the big picture.
So no one uses desktop or laptop computers anymore? Who made that decision for everyone, I wasn't consulted.
> You don't understand KeePass, which is fine
Haha this is so hilariously smug and condescending I have to wonder: are you the real-life Comic Book Guy?
For example, nearly every visit to my Amazon orders page I am now greeted with a nearly full screen modal browser popup letting me know about passkeys and why I should switch to them RIGHT NOW. I politely declined - the first thousand times. I don't know if this is a site or browser issue and frankly I don't care anymore. It's spam at this point and I want nothing to do with it.
My hesitancy was rooted in concerns about potential issues pretty much what you just described so glad to know I was right.
Seems like passkeys use a very simple model where you are using a single device with a single browser or are somehow syncing across devices with some cloud service - and from your description it sounds like that doesn't even work.
No thanks - I'll stick with passwords. Did everyone forget about hardware tokens which are device and OS-independent and rely on no external infrastructre?
HTTPS only guarantees the packets containing the unverified malicious code are not tampered with from the server to you. A server which could very well be compromised and alternate code put in its place.
You are drawing an egregious apples-to-oranges comparison here. Please re-read what you said.
You could serve digitally signed code over plain HTTP and it would be more secure than your example over HTTPS. Unfortunately there are a lot of HTTPS old wives' tales that many misinformed developers believe in.
unfortunately, there has been a lot of typical misdirection and wild statements out of India, like trying to preemptively clear the pilots of wrongdoing before the recorders have been read out.
most of the initial reports about the flight recorders were easily disproven as the 787 does not use an FDR/CVR but a more modern type of recorder that captures more data. which supposedly India lacks the equipment and/or knowhow to download.
the chances of an objective and transparent investigation are basically zero.
This represents like 75% of surveillance camera systems out there btw.