"Everything is broken" used to mean "all software is insecure because the inherent complexity of a modern software stack ensures it's beyond the abilities of the average developer to eliminate all attack vectors" [1].

Now it just means [2].

1: https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1

2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pndhO5DcSI0

0: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue

(available in Best of Creative Computing Vol. 2 at https://dn790007.ca.archive.org/0/items/bestofcreativeco00ah... , p.133)

I'm a little surprised, however, to see him here proselytizing for a particular side in the constructivism debate. I associate him more with what he has described as a "quasi empirical" approach to mathematics[0] where the adoption of new axioms (such as for example the axiom of choice) is justified by their resulting in new, interesting mathematics.

But here, it seems his goal is to arrive at a somewhat Platonic conclusion, that either the reals are valid numbers or (seemingly he prefers) not.

My lay and naive take would be: if you adopt these rules (this Formal Axiomatic System) then you can have Big Fun in the playground of ever more esoteric and complex infinite cardinals, or if you adopt this other FAS you get to discover which results can and can't be obtained under a strict constructivist regime, and whichever FAS you choose it's just the same process of choosing axioms and applying valid deductive steps to arrive at a result you find interesting, with no more "existence" implied than the thoroughly non-Platonic existence of a solution to a problem, which can be demonstrated by solving it: if you take such-and-such steps then such-and-such result will follow.

I suppose the point being made is that avoiding axioms which imply the "existence" of the reals is more useful for doing physics, but that seems non-obvious in a field which for the last 200 years has seemingly sought to progressively make more and more phenomena intelligible by means of differential equations from infinitesimal calculus!

0: see, for example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0303352, 1.9 Is Mathematics Quasi-Empirical

Beats me too! Thanks for the heads up.

> wiggly string-like texture from treating a noise field as an angle and sampling the curvature, with some dodgy trig.

https://www.shadertoy.com/view/XssGD8

I wonder if the gifs in TFA would translate into the shader animation domain?

https://archive.ph/fM7jf

> The US/Israeli wars and threats to end Iranian civilization with massive bombardment have drawn attention away from the ongoing genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. Looking back, the Columbia students with their encampment were very much right about what was going on.

However "baseline" epistemic hygiene seems to be a somewhat distant goal for the vast majority now we live in an infosphere essentially comprising a Darwinian nightmare of competing agnotological agendas.

I'm just now migrating away from gmail for a different kind of inanity[1] all the same.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48367950

A breach which surely will go down in computer history as one of the most egregious and avoidable corporate IT failures of all time.

I recently tried to access my google account on a new browser install. Google did not believe my login/password was sufficient, and insisted on me surrendering my phone number:

> To help keep your account safe, Google wants to make sure it’s really you trying to sign in [...]

> Enter a phone number to get a text message with a verification code.

I have never given my phone number to Google for that account (I have a separate account on my Android phone).

So how on earth this will "make sure it's really you" I have no idea.

I am unable to access Google from my new browser install so am stuck with using my old one for anything which requires a Google login.

I guess at some point I'll try and resolve it by adding a recovery email or something, but.. my inclination is to throw Google and the account in the trash right now.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48356948

Points: 9

# Comments: 4

To that end an option to disable storage access by type would be nice to have. All I see in firefox settings is the ability to block all storage including cookies, and the ability to block persistent storage when the site requests it. It's not clear to me how the OPFS system in TFA relates to either of these, but I'd guess that it's a separate system. There's a bunch of storage quotas in about:config, but nothing obviously related to OPFS (that I can see).

Given the choice I would be happy to allow traditional cookie storage and block everything else with any exceptions I need (none that I can think of) on a per-site basis. If this can be achieved via about:config, I'm all ears!

While looking at my storage data, I see youtube has 174(!) cookies and 57M data stored on my machine. Sigh.

0: http://www.roguelikeradio.com/

Browsing and not using these tools nowadays is volunteering for a bad time, IMO.