turtletontine

If you keep reading the article, you’ll see that the claim is current (unattested) passkeys are a stepping stone to “attested passkeys”. Attested passkeys would require remote attestation with OS, TPM, and password manager all working together, and would allow websites to require things like hardware backed non transferable passkeys that you don’t control. This has always been my suspicion and I do think it’s worth worrying about.

Have you settled on a BitWarden alternative, or a short list you’re considering?

Why do you say “immigrant population”?

The scale bar (20 AU) represents 20 time the distance between the Earth and the sun. This star is about 41 parsecs away, so the angular size of that scale bar is about half an arcsec. (One degree is split into 60 arcminutes, one arcminute into 60 arcseconds. Just like a clock).

That angle is about the diameter of a US quarter coin seen from 11km (7mi) away.

did an AI surveillance startup write this? You gotta be kidding me

If by “we” you mean “experts and professionals outside the US”, I think the short answer is they’re not talking to you here. They’re trying to secure regulatory capture in the US, and monopolize their hold on US corporations. To the extent they’re thinking of other “markets”, I would guess the assume the outsized influence of US corporations will have the much of the rest of the world using their products.

… and on the other hand, it feels like everything I use has become way buggier and unstable in a similar time frame. Websites, apps, iOS, the only exception is offline open source tools which run locally. (And to be fair, many of those have slower development cycles and I am likely using older versions.) This is just my experience, so inherently anecdotal, but it really feels pervasive across a ton of different things.

Obvious bugs and low quality software are nothing new, but something feels new about it. Occam’s razor says LLM coding is a likely culprit, but it could also be management style encouraging this sort of carelessness from the top down.

Tl;dr the argument is if three letter agencies can’t buy or make exploits anymore because all vulnerabilities are patched, they will ramp up legal and legislative pressure to make vendors install backdoors. Which is bad and we should all worry about.

One of the author’s blind spots here is the concept of “digital sovereignty”. The US is continuing to ban more and more Chinese-made hardware out of fear that the Chinese govt has installed backdoors in them… which you could interpret as an admission that the US does exactly that with American made products. Globalized supply chains are, erm, complex, and few if any companies are really going to be able to achieve “digital sovereignty” with hardware. But with software it’s actually plausible, though obviously hard. Whether or not the feds have actually installed backdoors in Microsoft Outlook, foreign govts are rightly concerned that they have, and are increasingly pushing to avoid US made software for simple national security reasons.

This is foolish for several reasons. It’s an undue burden on authors to make them download and upload potentially a gigabyte of files (or more) from many different sources. It is also likely a copyright violation for many or the sources. This also makes it arbitrarily difficult to cite things like conference talks, which are not published texts.

There are already standard keys to index publications, like DOIs. Requiring a list of DOIs for citations would make a lot more sense and be somewhat feasible, but still doesn’t prevent errors in the author list given in the draft.

> I can imagine in 2027 academia looking like Moltbook.

This is certainly “directionally correct”, but keep in mind this is all highly uneven across fields and subfields. The people generating slop articles are mostly trying to publish big flashy things, and naturally ML research has it much worse than most other fields. There are many topics that are super important and interesting, but niche or obscure enough that no slop authors is trying to publish on them yet. So plenty of topics are still dominated by real earnest researchers doing their best, but they’re niche enough that you wouldn’t know about them unless you study that field.

The labs might not be that different from consulting, the NYT reporting on this notes they run R&D labs so they can license the tech they develop to people who actually make chips.

I’ve seen it claimed that higher taxes on corporate profits incentivized that lab model. Better to invest in risky research than have that money taxed away. When the regulatory environment changed, shareholders insisted they should get that money through dividends and stock buybacks, and goodbye Bell Labs. I don’t know how accurate that argument is, but it certainly sounds plausible.

This is obviously an overly simple narrative, but one real factor: the Bell Labs model was built around giving brilliant people a lab and a bunch of funding, and leaving them on their own to explore for a while. Lots of blue sky goofy research, a lot of which ended up being useful. That has its own problems, including “which few brilliant minds get this opportunity?” and “how do we make the researchers accountable for actually getting something done?”

These are both reasonable questions about equitability and accountability. Unfortunately the solution we chose is a proliferation of bureaucracies that micromanage funding allocation and use. Some widely acknowledged consequences are 1) researchers spend more and more time writing grants and reports, and less and less doing research, and 2) the funding agencies (public and private, but especially public) are conservative and overwhelmingly fund work that they know will succeed. In practice that encourages monothink and endless incremental improvements on things that we already know how to do, and disincentives dissent, creativity, and real blue sky novel ideas.

Everyone loves to say they support creative ground breaking ideas, but that requires letting smart people sit around and think for a long time. And however smart they are, results are not guaranteed. The bureaucratic process is always going to prefer short term thinking with clear “deliverables”, even when it’s detrimental to progress.

> … considered one of the more accurate translations of the work.

I think you’re missing a big point of translating literary works. A purely “accurate”, phrase-by-phrase translation is often not very good; the actual literary style, the feeling and the allusions and references, often get lost that way. A good translation of literary work requires a lot of deliberate choices by the translator to deviate from literal translations in ways that convey the style of the original, or an extra layer of meaning that would be lost by an “accurate” translation of a phrase. Also, being consistent with these choices matters a lot, which OP claims LLMs are less good at.