notzorbo3

The beauty of it is cases like Google's. They have this bizarre 2FA security-theater Google Authenticator thing, but then nearly force everyone to have their phonenumber as a "backup device".

Guess what the send you when you forget your 2FA or password? Yep, an SMS. So out the door goes the whole point of 2FA. Your three factors (account name / email address + password + Google Authenticator) have now been reduced to one factor: your email address.

I can rent a mobile tower in Malaysia or some other asian country, advertise your phonenumber as roaming there for about €10/h and start intercepting all your shit. Or just get your telco's inept service dept to forward your number somewhere else.

Lessons here:

1. Even the giants get it wrong. 2. There is no security anywhere in the tech world. Literally everything is broken. Your electronic car locks / starter system, your phone, your internet, everything is horribly horribly horribly broken beyond any imagining, even for hyper-tech savvy people. 3. Remove your phonenumber as a backup device from your google account and never use it as a backup device every again.

Those numbers are from 2009 through 2015. That's just cherry picking, because those years just happen to include Anders Breivik. I think its well established that the US is the market leader in mass shootings.

Edit: Also, the president of Crime Prevention Research Center is John Lott, who's a known gun rights advocate. Your source does not seem to be very impartial.

I agree with everything you said, however

> The more likely cause is the legal structure around gun ownership in the United States.

Gun ownership may be an enabler in mass shootings, but I don't believe it's the cause. Merely having a gun doesn't automatically make you a mass murderer. There are other underlying issues there. Not that that means the U.S. shouldn't do something about the legal structure around gun ownership. It's probably going to be much much harder to actually address the underlying cause.

> If you accept the idea that a penchant for math is randomly distributed among all people

That would seem rather detached from reality.

> A smartphone isnt required

It is for Whatsapp. Not only for sign-up, but actually all communication on the web version goes through the app running on your phone. The web "session" times out constantly, so I'd have to re-pair it with my phone all the time. If I still decided to use whatsapp.

Because NATting encapsulates while routing doesn't? And encapsulation is the whole idea behind containers. Until everything is ready for IPv6 (lol, yeah right), NATting seems the only way to me.

Does the author have any evidence that's it's typically white males?

Is the author implying that white males are to blame for draconic / legalistic Wikipedia?

Has the author proven that draconic wikipedia editting is a bad thing?

Does the author show, in a mere three words) that they're both racist and sexist? (answer: yes).

I like how the author negates the entire point of their article just by casually mentioning thier unproven, unfounded bias. This person's thoughts are not worth anybody's time.

> Obviously no one would ever run something like this 1 vm per request thing irl.

I can see plenty of use-cases for doing just that. Large uploads, time-consuming request/responses such as server-side data processing, RPC, as a backend behind a caching front-end so that it only has to respond to invalidated cache entries, etc.

I don't see many people using this to actually serve general website requests though. It'd probably be modified to serve multiple requests until nothing is left to do and then exit.

> Feynman argues for unit tests

I'm not sure that would be my takeaway from that quote. In the analogy of Unit testing, the test would have found the cracks in the turbine blades. It seems to me that Feynman continuously argues for deep investigation into any problems encountered, rather than (seemingly) ignoring them or making up excuses for why they're not problems.

He regards independent code verifications and testing highly, it seems:

> The software is checked very carefully in a bottom-up fashion. First, each new line of code is checked, then sections of code or modules with special functions are verified. The scope is increased step by step until the new changes are incorporated into a complete system and checked. This complete output is considered the final product, newly released. But completely independently there is an independent verification group, that takes an adversary attitude to the software development group, and tests and verifies the software as if it were a customer of the delivered product. There is additional verification in using the new programs in simulators, etc. A discovery of an error during verification testing is considered very serious, and its origin studied very carefully to avoid such mistakes in the future.

I'd consider this quote a clear argument for unit testing though:

> There is additional verification in using the new programs in simulators, etc.

In the end, it seems to come down to the simple concept of: spending more time on verifying code results in better code. Whether it is through automated testing, code reviews, independent (and competent) user acceptance testing, etc.

I used to run an abandoned warez site when I was young. I received a lot of cease and desist letters from "lawyers". They usually failed to identify the infringing material, failed to show they had the right to act on the copywriters behalf and a staggering amount of them confused trademark infringement with copyright infringement. Also, every last one I received via email. Yeah, right, like that's going to hold up. I ignored all of them and never got even so much as a follow up.

In other words, such things are considered low-hanging fruit by these companies. Just throw it out there and see what sticks.

> A well designed ui should be learnable while being used

Strongly disagree with that one. A UI that lets you work in the most efficient way (e.g. vi) can also be well designed, even if it's incredibly difficult to learn.

> creating a fresh learning repo for dedicated learning for fear of losing data while using the tool in your "real" repo is the ultimate red flag in terms of usability.

Again, strongly disagree. Git is a powertool. You don't let loose a powertool if you don't understand how it works. Creating a fresh learning repo is merely acknowledging that you don't know the tool well enough yet. There's nothing wrong with that.

There's a big difference between being noob-friendly and being user-friendly. Personally, I hate noob-friendly tools, because they tend to just get in the way.

It seems everybody has different goals for UBI. Getting unemployed people to work is not one I've encountered before I think. I fail to see how giving everybody free money is going to get unemployed people to work. For them, nothing changes.

> The taxes will come from the same places they are expected to: automation increasingly taking over the creation of most of the wealth in society.

I think this is the "lets tax automation!" argument? That's another one I haven't seen convincing arguments for. Why do you think companies would stand for such a thing and not oursource their automation to a country that doesn't do UBI?

> that's the theory.

I think there's a lot lacking in the theory, and I'm not hearing any convincing solutions for the problems UBI presents from anyone. It all seems to be built on hopes and dreams and best wishes, with little accounting for actual real-world considerations.

Traditional social programs are a safety net for single people like those going through divorce and such. Under UBI, it just puts a lot more pressure on those people, while at the same time alleviating the pressure on multi-income households. It's might force people to stay together in unhappy marriages, etc. I see that as a problem.

> If UBI = $1 / person, then the difference in pressure is small.

The pressure might be small, but it's still there. The €1 still has to come from somewhere.

> Also, you presume that people only work for money. I think with UBI, you'd see a revitalization of community oriented, but low profit pursuits.

How are low-profit pursuits going to pay for everybody's UBI? You can't heavily tax low-profit pursuits.

I still haven't found an solution anywhere for the following problem: Living (not just housing, but everything) expenses are a lot less for dual, or even triple, income households than for single people. So there's going to be a lot less pressure on dual income households to work beyond their basic income. Logically, this would put double (or even triple) the additional pressure on single income households. Under UBI, they'd have to provide enough in taxes to provide the UBI for themselves AND dual income households.

How do UBI proponents solve that problem?