https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572

Let the usecases that need passkeys use it.

Why can't there be a parallel standard with similar features that doesn't have the parts that can potentially be abused. If the difference between abuse and non-abuse is a vague promise and the good graces of corporate structures, it is better to err on the side of caution and demand solutions that make it impossible.

> The people don't care enough to bother, and that's fine - it's not your (or my) place to force other people to do anything.

Yeah it wasn't your place or anyone else's. How can you or I force anyone. Not sure why that even came up.

Debate is how we evolve new and alternate solutions. Handwaving by saying not your place or mine is not how we affect change if needed.

Before anybody thinks "surely they can't ban all linux users", they don't need to. The systemd folks are also working on a startup that is building verifiable computing into Linux via systemd. So, we have no choice on the matter anyway. It could become of choice of approved distro vs non approved distro.

> So the bad timeline is the one in which the industry gradually transitions to

We have been on that timeline for every other tech transgression. There are no signs that this will be a different timeline.

Like how everyone stopped using Google/Gmail, Facebook/Instagram and Windows/Office365 and flocked to alternatives?

Let's flip your suggestion. What if someone says if you need "high security" build a competing service that enforces it, no one is forcing you to use a "low security" service ?

It's ironic but you should have started with "In my opinion", "I think" or something to that effect. Now you never hear the end of it!

But it still does and can only claim having those after building them.

Their customers have been asking for that hard cap feature for a long long time, not building that feature while saying customers have all the tools to build it themselves is just a deliberate misdirection at this point.

The crater is small enough that it is probably not obvious to spot visually.

But I'm surprised that we missed noticing an impact event of that size when it happened, or even the space object that caused it.

The liability lies with the owner and the punishment(monetary or other) should strongly incentivize the owner to reduce the incidence of bites.

It cannot opportunistically morph between a human for benefits and a machine for liability.

Bill collectors are openly threatened by local elected leaders even in the presence of police.

The state chief minister(similar to a governor) acknowledged the problem and is planning to handover bill collection to a private firm specifically for that part of the city. The opposition is against the move as the area represents a major voting bloc.

Sometimes, policy based solutions work but political will is also necessary to enforce those policies.

1. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

Never mistake for bonhomie that which is adequately explained by money and self-interest

A Mac mini base model comes with 256G. It is manageable but barely unless used with an external disk.

22.8G as quoted in the article is about 10% of the available space and it is something that cannot be offloaded to external disk.

Many people including myself are going to be furious when their Mac is upgraded.

Whether we realize or not subconsciously our minds will associate the product and ad. When that association is reinforced by the salesman, a strategic placement on the shelf, or discount offers it is easier to convert it to sale.

4 friends walk together, it's just normal. 400 "friends" walking can and will be treated differently.

Moving around with a couple of bills is treated differently from carrying huge bundles of cash.

Those laws or exceptions were probably added later as a reaction to abuse of existing laws.

The problem with AI/scraping is that we can't afford to be reactionary because it may be too late by the time we realize what has happened and change the law.

It will be too late because governments and judiciary have been largely about maintaining the status quo and minimizing disruption when it comes to big tech related cases even when they have been found guilty of wrongdoings. We already see the too big to fail vibes with AI.

I think browsers can play a part in building a local search index for URLs based on those keywords the page declares and cross verify/accept only those that are in prominently visible content, or may be delegate to an external engine(like LLMs) via an extension etc. This is particularly useful for cases where full text indexing is not feasible or desirable.

I doubt Google will ever add such feature in chrome though.

Wouldn't admitting this invite trouble due to accusations of distillation flying around between closed and open models.

Garbage in, Garbage out. There are minimum expectations on user like ability to source proper materials, use them correctly and an ability to verify/check the result for problems. More important if it's something you want to eat or ride!

Very few have the same problem among FAANG and others.