I'm generally pro-passkeys, but also acknowledge they are a hot mess for the average non-techy consumer. And there does seem to be room for the screws to tighten, and we definitely need to resist that.

If machines, browsers, phones etc are set up properly (yes, I know, big ask, especially with the confusion surrounding this, so I acknowledge the caveat), then the vast majority of passkey requests will go right into the preferred method (i.e. 1Password, Bitwarden, even Apple, browser of choice, etc). And most of those now will allow that passkey then to be used on a different device if signed in and synced.

I have found it to work pretty well with a password manager. I would suspect OS level passkeys would be much less "portable", especially across different manufacturer devices, like Mac/Windows, or even Windows/Android, etc. Which is why I waited to start using passkeys until I could use a password manager to store them, and I turned off all other passkey storages (same as I did for password storage before).

Basically, it's very hard if not basically impossible to spoof a QR code to access the real passkey via a malicious site. (caveat, without already having compromised something like the user's DNS, maybe? Even then the site would likely fail the cryptographic checks.)

Along those lines, I do appreciate this conversation. I do like questioning what I believe, and I had to steelman some of the views you put forth and then see where they then didn't hold up. I do that while being willing to change my own mind if that is where the evidence leads, but the research presented didn't hold up to scrutiny. So while I definitely disagree with you, I do so from a place of appreciation for pushing me to do more digging into this things and whether *I* should hold the beliefs that I do.

Completely disagree with your conspiracy theory about the drugs. That's just laughable. Obviously need to prevent abuse, but there are both legitimate uses of and reasons to restrict general use of the drugs. Not to mention there are non-stimulant drugs as well, which kinda stomps on that argument.

International Consensus Statement on ADHD: https://www.russellbarkley.org/factsheets/Consensus2002.pdf

The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 Evidence-based conclusions about the disorder: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33549739/

And while the authors made a lot of claims, and cited some other studies, they don't really, IMO, prove their point in any scientifically valid way, or even as a solid, well-formed argument. Add in that the authors are sociologists, not neuroscientists or psychiatrists/psychologists, and it makes me question both their claims and understanding of the topic.

I did catch that one of their main points (that you mentioned as well) boils down to not having a physical test or clear biomarker. But that applies to nearly all psychiatric conditions. Saying the absence of those kinds of tests is the same as the absence of a real condition ignores the research that has been done demonstrating functional impairment (including twin studies, some indications of genetic heritability). The paper presents a specific sociological viewpoint, and that isn't the current scientific consensus.

Like I said, probably not gonna convince you, just dropping this for others that might see the essay link and think it might actually provide validity when it does not. That essay does not really make significant arguments against ADHD.

It does present good warnings to be aware of pressures that would distort diagnosis and I do think there is good reason to be cautious about over diagnosing, or diagnosing by unqualified personnel, both of which do happen of course. But the article goes too far beyond that.

Also, just because it seems like a simple lack of focus to you externally, that does not mean the person does not have a disorder.

Those are some possible outcomes, yes, but it is not a black/white thing, and that is actually WHY it's important to work with a qualified doctor to monitor medication, effects, dosage and so on, and make adjustments as necessary.

Different medications work very differently as it relates to dopamine, uptake, production, etc. And there are also non-stimulant medications that may be effective for some folks.

That said, I think we agree that accepting the treatment folks need to function in society as it exists is a step in the right direction.

The reasons you cite are why it is a controlled substance, and why it should be taken under supervision of a doctor. But they aren't arguments against the drug itself or that it is in a different "category" of drug. It is a treatment, and like any treatment, the pros/cons should be discussed with medical professionals and appropriate decisions made for each individual.

And yes, sadly our society fails people who are different and our medical system fails people with regards to their medication all the time - that can happen with any medication though. And yes, consequences vary greatly depending on the medication.

To that point, I'm going push back on this language just a bit:

> you end up addicted and pretty much permanently require drugs to function well

That is negatively framing medication, which if taken properly as prescribed is no different than any other medication someone might take to help with a chronic health condition. It slightly encourages and leans into the idea that ADHD is "fixable" without medication and so taking medication is a problem (or due to a weakness, etc).

I'm not discounting the value of other forms of non-medical treatment, but in many case medication IS appropriate as part of the overall treatment that a person requires to manage their ADHD. We should not use language that stigmatizes treatment that should be between a person and their doctor.

Seriously though, I'm not sure why Google evolving in this manner precludes them from having a profitable business model. Right now we're subsidizing the costs (probably just a bit) and having ongoing subscription revenue they can increase as needed (particularly in the "google won the race" scenario) will be key before they even have to consider layering advertising on top.

I think that is significantly overlooked when people ask "where are the 50+ engineers?".