Physical keys can easily be copied, and physical locks can easily be picked. That might be fine for your house or storage unit, but for your bank account or your car (newer cars no longer have simple physical keys/locks), we've moved beyond that tech.
That any and all physical security measures can be defeated is a feature, not a bug. Almost no human beings actually need that level of security, and the tradeoffs are absolutely not worth it for those of us without Mossad as a threat.
How often do people lock themselves out of their own house? Don't you know anyone with ADHD? Imagine any time that happens it is mathematically verifiably permanent as a fact of reality itself. It doesn't matter that the state still views you as the legal owner, you are never allowed in ever again.
Now we aren't talking about a security problem, we're talking about who really owns what. Google can lock you out of your account no matter what kind of authentication they use for that account
I'm not even sure what your point is anymore. If Google decides they don't want you to log in anymore, you can't log in anymore. It doesn't matter if you try to log in with a passkey, a password, your fingerprint, or sending a secret code in with carrier pidgeon. This has nothing to do with passkeys vs passwords vs anything else.
If Google does want you to be able to log in then they will work with you to make that happen, whether you forgot your password, lost your passkey, or your carrier pidgeon died.
Passkeys are not special in this regard at all. What does make them special is that nobody can use a phishing attack to steal your passkey and log in to your account. Nobody can guess your passkey and log into your account. Nobody can intercept your passkey in flight and log in as you. That's the important distinction.
> * In a just society, your opportunity in life should not depend on being lucky with who your parents are.
The vast majority of people are raised by their birth parents which means 0 luck was involved. You are here due to their actions and are who you are due to their combined genes and situation.
This is a very cogent observation that I'm afraid is going to go over many heads. Children and parents are intrinsically suited to each other by genetics, shared environment, and other empirical factors. Societal and legal reasoning that asserts a child as a Platonic form cannot in fact benefit the singular development of that child.
If luck = something you didn’t choose or had no control over, sure.
If luck = it could have gone otherwise, that’s nonsensical; if you had different parents you wouldn’t exist to begin with, as you are literally a specific fusion of your biological parents. Similarly, if we take luck to mean something probabilistic, or something coincidental? Also meaningless in this case.
If luck = how your situation compares to others, I would argue “fortunate” is the better word here.
And of course there’s a parallel spiritual debate if you believe that identity to be separate (were you “assigned” to parents, was it deliberate or random, etc)
But this is not what that site tracks. It lists any project with any LLM usage or potential usage (eg. permissive AI usage policy, but no evidence of AI use) without any caveats. It is an extreme, absolutely no AI usage, stance.
IMO it is a syntax thing. If you need to use a special keyword (eg. func vs async func) then it is colored. If it is a semantics thing (eg. parameters) is is not colored.
I'm not familiar with how Rust's async works. What if Rust used the function argument approach, how would that work? Would people pass around a reference to an async executor as arguments (or similar)?
I've made this Roman recipe probably a dozen times and everyone who's tried it really likes it [1].
The strange ingredients are garum [2] and asafoetida [3]. The former is just a fish sauce, so that's not hard to substitute, but you have to find asafoetida on the Internet or at an Indian food store.
I can usually find hing (asafoetida) in grocery stores in certain more populous parts of Canada in the spice section, it's quite a good garlic substitute for those who can't do garlic
It's used by Janes as eating root vegetables like onions or garlic is discouraged or forbidden in that religion [1].
(Un)related: onions and garlic are pretty close to each other. Chicago is named after šikaakwa, [2] the native word for the local Allium that's alternately called "wild onion" or "wild garlic" in English [3]. You can hear a similar word for onion in a different Algonquin language, Ojibwe [4].
Came here to mention Max Miller as well. Amazing work putting together historical context and recipes. Always fun, fascinating, and the recipes are generally very approachable.
I've also made the Babylonian stew from this recipe, and it's rich and hearty. It's easy to see how this would knock the...sandals off of ancient people.
Other ancient recipes...let's just say that humans have very much not held the same tastes over the eons. Some recipes were incongruent or sweet and savory in a strange way, or simply a flex about how many spices you had access to and cold throw in a dish, not about what it really tasted like. YMMV.
reply