I'd absolutely qualify it as non-secure in this context. Signal is E2E encrypted but there are no systems in place where it understands who's added to a chat and validates access based on ACLs or anything. Authorization policies are critical in securing systems.
Yep, we disagree. The world and technology especially is an extremely complicated place. IMO any complex system that is built upon "humans should just know all this complexity and keep it in mind all the time" is fundamentally broken.
I think you're saying the same thing as what I am. If it's more complex than what you may think, the language should guard against it. If not, it should make it simple.
Rust, for example, is the only mainstream language where it isn't possible to read from a file handle after it's been closed. Doing so is a compilation failure. This is just a general invariant of "how to use files".
But you also don't need to think about allocating or deallocating memory in Rust. It does that fke you automatically, even though it's not GC.
JS can also be complicated when it tries to hide realities about the world. E.g. is a const array or object immutable? No, the pointer is. But pointers don't exist! /s
I mean, this is correct in many cases, unironically.
It should be one of the core purposes of a programming language to help humans to write the code they intend. If a language doesnt do that then it's bad.
If this were a normal, fairly subjective disagreement, I'd feel the same way.
If this were a medium level disagreement and they were objectively wrong, I'd also feel the same way.
Supporting Trump is stunningly, objectively wrong, and in doing so they're basically doing the opposite of this. They're supporting lots of people losing a lot more than their homes.
I'm still appalled that my Yubikey / FIDO2 still doesnt work on Firefox. I have it as a passkey for GitHub, realized it doesnt work on Firefox, so they just prompt me for my password. That seems backwards to have password as a fallback, too.
Google. They had such a noble cause and potential - to organize the world's information so that everyone could search it effectively. There was a point I thought of them as the epitome of academia, a huge force in the quest for the advancement of the world.
Scientists should consult tech people about stuff like this just like we should consult scientists for science stuff. Unfortunately a lot of tech people also aren't conscious of this stuff either.
Might be because of tax brackets and not knowing ahead of time if you're getting a raise. E.g. maybe you are the top of some bracket for most of the year, and youre on track for not surpassing it by the end of the year. Then you get a raise near the end and it bumps you over.
Should they take a huge amount off your last couple payslips? Or just let you pay it in taxes later?
Might be better for some people to pay via taxes instead of automatically losing the money for that month.
Instances are stores (think Amazon or Etsy). Products are posts. Sellers are users.
Stores aren't protected from being defederated. You can still search Google or whatever, still visit the site and buy stuff. It just will not be a unified search, just like how anything else works with ActivityPub.
The good stores would be run by admins who don't have an incentive to defederate from others. Stores don't make money or take a cut from sellers anyway. The sellers aren't in charge of the instance, just like an Etsy seller can't do anything about the fact that they have competitors on Etsy.
The need for decentralization is that the store / Amazon / Etsy is broken up but the search and interactions, reviews, etc. are unified.