We all dreamed that living in the future was going to be so cool, but it actually just means worrying about which psuedonym to use when buying groceries.
"I never thought the leopards would eat MY face," sobs dude who contributed to the leopard-owned face eating industry.
There has never been a good argument for attempting to filter email addresses based on domain. Check address syntax on interactive forms purely to help users (did they fat finger something). Whatever well-formed address you've got, fire off emails and if they can receive them then it's a legit address. If you want to rate limit signups, then do so per-domain or per-mx, the same way you might limit incoming connections per-ip. That is the extent of guarantee that email provides you - trying to step over that demarc point is a control delusion.
Even outright throwaway domains like mailinator.com - if a user is giving you this type of address, it says more about your own requirement demanding an email address rather than the user themselves.
You've got a good point. Code generally needs to be read more than it is written. At the very least, you realize this as you try to revisit something you had done previously and are left scratching your head. Encapsulating the complexity in a custom DSL can be great for simplifying all the code you write in the DSL. But it also raises the stakes - if you ever have to revisit the DSL implementation the complexity is there lurking.
The TPM is tamper proof hardware that includes privileged crypto keys that are installed (generated) by the device manufacturer with their identity retained / cataloged. The asymmetry of these privileged keys are where the private/control concerns end up coming from. If these top-level keys were instead unknown to everybody except the device owner (including an enterprise), then there would be no way for a random third party attacker to know whether it was talking to a hardware RPM or a software emulation of one.
Being able to come up with compelling use cases for a technology does not redeem that technology from creating a terrible power imbalance that incentives will mean is inevitably abused. Whenever anyone hears "remote attestation", they should think of the already-pervasive Cloudflare CAPTCHA nagwalls, and then think of those becoming something you can only get past by buying a new computer running a proprietary locked-down OS and browser.
The only way to make remote attestation into a neutral technology is to prohibit privileged keys being loaded (and retained) by device manufacturers. This would make it impossible for arbitrary protocol counterparties to know if their attestation requests are being answered by hardware, or merely emulated in software. This approach is the only way to preserve computing freedom (ie the very concept of protocols that mediate between mutually-untrusting parties) in the presence of this technology.
Yes. But of course "healthier" is describing the health of brain worms. On the bright side, this probably indicates that the reactionaries' pushes to lower the intelligence of the population are reaching a point of diminishing returns, as they've now had to turn to parasites to continue the trend.
This article ended waaaay too abruptly. Reverse Centaurs and Canonization would seem to be orthogonal dynamics, and there was synthesis to be had between them.
Centaur + no Canonization -> personal infrastructure, MVPs. probably ever-accruing tech debt, but the scale is limited so it probably doesn't matter
Centaur + Canonization -> libre software, companies with empowered employees. The Canonization process is going to have some differences now that the goal now includes consumption by an LLM.
Reverse Centaur + no Canonization -> Ever accruing tech debt, eventually leading to a situation where nobody understands how the "magic box" works and everyone is powerless to fix it when it breaks down (tech debt accrues to a level where an LLM can no longer achieve the desired results)
Reverse Centaur + Canonization -> It's certainly possible to have an automated process that distills and compresses knowledge at one stage into a succinct representation that can be used down the line. The open question is whether a company could arrive at this with disempowered reverse centaurs, or whether they're doomed to the previous option
Enumerating those 4 quadrants, I don't think I'm even doing a good job capturing where I had thought the article was going to go. But I'm having a hard time getting it back now.
> There's nothing unproductive in calling out denying responsibility/culpability. Some would say it's practically mandatory.
I've been condemning the surveillance industry going on two decades now. Making that condemnation personal has felt pretty unproductive to me. Maybe there is now enough of a critical mass of people seeing the problems that personal condemnation might help move the needle these days, but many years of this not being true is still the perspective I am coming from.
Sure, that is what is written down. But as a necessary part of its operation, there is a whole lot of executive power being exercised as well, which the unitary executive theory says would fall under the authority of the president.
No, I'm not talking about my own life, but rather the scope of the original response - making it out as something simple you can just do, rather than an undertaking in both prep time and resource management.
> We eat food from a restaurant maybe...twice a month?
I'm right there too at this point in my life. But it's still absurd to suggest someone casually cook a number of dishes that would make a decent Thanksgiving dinner. "Skip the burrito and pack a sandwich" would be reasonable advice, but we have no idea how much OP is already doing that! Rather they merely brought up the price of a burrito for a benchmark about price inflation. Rather than accept the point about price inflation, people then shot the messenger with some fantasy of easy frugality.
> what are you going to do with all of the staples foods that can be used in so many other recipes
You've got guac/pico that want to go bad in a day, and rice/beans/protein that want to go bad in ~4 days. So many other recipes like... more burritos or a different Mexicanesque meal that tastes just like burritos?
What we consider an the branches are defined in the Constitution, but my point is they are not simply defined as the top-level in a hierarchy of organizations, but rather behaviorally based on what function is being performed.
You've just blindly asserted a whole bunch of things without laying out any sort of supporting arguments. What exactly makes the GAO not "part of the executive branch" ? My understanding is that "branches" are merely a framework used for describing government, not a prescriptive org chart. And how do the GAO's employees get paid, if not by a system that is now under the control of the autocratic Executive?
> But with those ingredients costing $20-25 you would be able to afford to make how many burritos?
It doesn't matter. The post I was responding to said that you could create a substitute for a burrito shop burrito with $4 and some work at home. Spending much more money and then amortizing it over multiple burritos is out of the scope of the original comment. It would be nonsensical to say that you can get a burrito for free by making three burritos and selling two, right?
There is obviously an underlying time-money tradeoff here, and my point is that focusing on burritos is the wrong place to start trying to optimize that for saving money.
(Although I do question why someone would go to Chipotle for anything other than "I'm on a road trip and need food". Their food is so bland it was the literal inspiration for the term premium mediocre. Support your local burrito shop!)
"cook almost every meal" is exactly the type of "expanding the scope" I was talking about. Cooking food yourself is a well-known way of saving money. Starting by trying to reproduce burrito shop burritos is not the way to get there.
> GAO is a Congressional agency, it does not fall under the Executive
I don't know that it's accurate to say such things any more, due to the unitary executive decree by the supreme council. The GAO is intrinsically motivated by law - both to carry out its purpose, and simply to pay its employees - and the supreme council has decreed that all execution of the law is subject to the whims of the president. If the president woke up from his afternoon nap and told GAO employees they weren't going to get paid unless they did a certain thing, it's certainly possible that the supreme council might walk back their earlier decree (although good luck with the payment infrastructure already being pwnt and all that). But it's also possible they might not, given how they've already approved other autocratic dynamics.
You're talking about meals that take 2 prepped ingredients (pork/veggies, pork/ramen, cereal/milk) versus something that takes on the order of 10 (tortilla, rice, beans, some kind of protein, cheese, pico, lettuce, guac, sour cream, hot sauce), many of them individually seasoned. That's exactly where the economies of scale come in!
Point out that prepping meals at home is a great way to save money, sure. It just falls flat when pushed in the context of burritos. I would posit that the majority of people who set out to save money by trying to make burritos at home do end up wasting a significant portion of the ingredients, and end up considering the experiment a failure. So I'd say if you're trying to encourage financial savvy, focusing on burritos actually hurts that goal.
The funny part is that I'm currently at the home-centric cook-for-multiple-people end of the spectrum. But burritos are just such a comically bad example of things to make at home to save money. Switch to pasta or basic sandwiches and then there is a point.
You're expanding the scope to a much larger process and pattern of behavior that has to be undertaken and managed. Sure it's doable, and you can save a bunch of money that way. But as a one line throwaway comment it's still nonsense.
Also freezing things or letting them sit in the fridge for weeks tends to change the texture. A main point of a burrito shop is the fresh ingredients.
This is what you said: "Make your burrito or bowl at home, and it'll cost $4 or less"
That statement implies you can straightforwardly save by substituting that one meal with a made at home meal. The reality is much more complicated, as shown by your backpedaling to making several burritos and other meals.
I could just as easily lob that economic literacy jab right back at you. For example, perhaps OP has a burrito once a week, to break up the monotony of eating a home made sandwich every other day. That would be savvy, right?
Do you enjoy eating just rice wrapped in a tortilla or something? Burritos are a harsh illustration of the economy of scale. Doing a quick tally with sale prices, and I'd think buying all the ingredients to make one single burrito would be upwards of $20-25, at least. Never mind the time to cook each ingredient that needs to be cooked. And most of these supplies and prep are going to last what, ~4 days before they spoil?