You can do that without an extension. There's a bunch of different protocols that let you, for example, use your phone as the authenticator.You can log in with your phone on a computer you've never used before by scanning a QR code and credentials never leave your device.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 1476
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 1476
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
My passkeys are tied to my phone, which I use via the browser and OS. I keep them in my password manager running on the phone. My password manager supports the open spec for securely migrating credentials between vendors.
It may be difficult to believe but they want you to use them because they're legitimately significantly better.
Users are silly. They blame Microsoft for bad passwords. They blame Google for forgotten passwords. They blame Facebook when they click on a phishing link. They blame apple when apple "lets" someone who they gave their password to see their pictures. They blame apple when they don't let the user in just because they forgot their password and every recovery mechanism.
Everyone involved has a significant issue with passwords because they cost them user satisfaction, credibility, or money directly. The reason cross vendor transfer has been slow is because everyone wants to be the leader, since if everyone follows your lead you get to make it work better with your stuff.
That ones because users like choice. They need to look up who you are to know how you've chosen to authenticate. At least, that's how it started. Some could be doing it because the big kids are, but that's why the big kids do.And they support choice because businesses want to use their login infrastructure and refuse to share. So you enter "user@businessOrUniversity.com.edu" and it forwards you to your institutional login.
They inevitably didn't write it for that reason. They wrote it to say the field is invalid until the user changes it to be valid after someone landed on the page holding the enter key down and instantly locked themselves out after submitting the form 50 times in 3 seconds.Unless you know otherwise, it's easy to think that "form interaction" is the same as "form changed", and one of those is much easier to check.
I'm unsure what you mean about passkeys. I don't think I've heard anyone mention significant concessions to os makers and I'm pretty tuned in on the topic.
Depends on the system. The thing where your password manager is managing your passkeys? That's a single factor unless it's doing something tricky that none of them do.When it's the tpm or a Bluetooth connection to your phone? That's actually two factors, and great.
They are! And it's one of the nice things to know in times like this.
There's a town in eastern Canada where sometimes pufflings get lost on their inaugural flight. The entire town goes out during the season to round them up, take them to a rehab facility to make sure they aren't hurt.
In the morning, the families take the healthy pufflings to a cliff and hurl them into the sea.
This sounds awful until you recall that puffins are aquatic birds who live on cliffs, so it's really just the first step towards breakfast for them.
Girl is a child. Woman is an adult. Young woman if it's vaguely in between.
Female if you're doing medicine or science.
The girl lost her doll. The woman paid her taxes. The young women got dropped off at the movies. The female puffin lays one egg per season and shares the burden of caring for the puffling equally with their mate.
That's not bullying, that's enforcing social mores.
There's hardware required to shunt the display out the USB port and since it's not a super in demand feature they usually don't implement it. As such the software for looking nice while doing it isn't as developed.
But yes, it's been in developer settings for years, and was usable if your hardware supported it.
Yes. And now it's native in all android! Samsung helped make it!
It's good when things get better.
So, not agreeing with the premise but: this article is from 2014, written by a legit historian, and is specifically not discussing the short term.Their premise is effectively that war consolidates power and minimizes violence at scale inside the unified territory afterwards. Further, the things nations do to be ready for conflict, like build roads, administrative statates and all the social structures that accompany a standing army facilitate trade and prosperity.
It's less that he's arguing for war, and more just ... Describing the historical consequences of war in aggregate.
It was certainly only titled the way it was because he was publishing a book and this is more eye catching.
The official story is that it's mobile general surveillance to deter crime.
They're very open that it's a surveillance system that watches everyone and records everything.
They're a little less open about how open they are with police or exactly how much they can correlate everything with other data. Most people don't have an intuitive feel for how easy it is to piece together a lot about their lives from some small measurements when tied to everyone else's, so they just stop at being annoyed by the lights and sometimes fucking commercials.
I mean, I'm here so my politics are predictably best described as "complicated", but you can elevator pitch it as "human rights; morality and utility are different; context is everything". France does more to improve the human condition than north Korea, so I much prefer France, although some of their actions are also not great.I do know the type you're talking about. Quite frustrating indeed.
Most of the point of my comments was purely to say that that type of hawkish mindset exists, initially for the purpose of clarifying things for the original comments question.Beyond that, I just don't feel I have reason to doubt his words on the subject, including beyond the speech.They're consistent with his actions, not particularly uncommon, and stubborn in the face of reason since it views the reasonable opinion as specifically weak.
I can't speak for the veracity of the claim that it was intentional itself, since I don't have the information.
... What are you even talking about anymore?Nothing I said has anything to do with the world not being as it seems or being controlled by a small group of people.Acknowledging that some public figures have expressed the belief that we've been insufficiently aggressive in wars and foreign policy over the past decades is hardly conspiratorial thinking.
Shill is still a skilled job
What does that even mean in this context?
I didn't ask you to prove anything. You were reassured that the people in Afghanistan being in charge here meant there was someone who would cut off any of the idiocy certain types of people think make a good war. I wondered why, given the administrations rhetoric, their willingness to fire people who might push back, who they've put in charge, and what those people have done.
What specific conspiratorial world view do you think I'm going to express?I think some people think we could have won in Vietnam or Afghanistan if we just hadn't "held back". They're not secretive about that opinion. I think those people have political power right now because I see no reason not to believe them when they say so and they seem to be behaving in line with that belief.
I'm unsure why you think him having no relevant experience makes him less likely to hold a profoundly awful opinion. If he had experience I'd be more likely to think it was just talk, but given the lack of experience, being a talking head, and the company he keeps I see no reason to think he's secretly holding different opinions.
There's no precedent at all. Precedent implies that it happened, which it didn't.Something being thought of and dismissed is just not evidence for that thing being done.
It's not like it was even that original of an idea. There had been two plane hijackings by cubans in the past year. Proposing "what if a third went wrong" is hardly a masterclasses in outside the box thinking.
We've done other false flag operations. Other terrible things to domestic civilians.Using that time we didn't actually do anything as an example is just odd.
Personally, I think people like it just because it has a cooler name. "Mongoose" just doesn't have the same ring.
I mean, they're already replaced people with people like I was describing. That's not a hypothetical.
"he" referred to hegseth, who you seemed to be assuming probably didn't believe the rhetoric he was using.
No one asked you to prove a negative. You expressed that the war being waged by the people who were in Afghanistan was a reassurance that they cared about the optics of brutality. I asked why you think that, given the things that happened in Afghanistan. "Things they've done" aren't somehow irrelevant anecdotes.
We're talking about the distinction between people who think civilian casualties are justifiable as opposed to those who think it's a tool.
Sure. Unless they were fired for being "woke" and replaced by people who think bombing Iran will help usher in Armageddon and the second coming of Christ.
What has he done to make you think he deserves the benefit of the doubt? What in this administration makes you remain confident that somewhere deep down there's a responsible adult who'll calm things down? They bragged about letting Elon musk fire all those people.
Why do you think the people who ran Afghanistan wouldn't bomb a school? They bombed weddings. Hospitals. Shot children.
You say that, but also... They specifically said this wasn't going to be a "politically correct war" with "rules of engagement".
This is the generational turning point America has waited for since 1979 and since the rudderless wars of hubris
No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win
Remember that while sensible people know optics matter, there are people who think the problem with Vietnam was that we were too soft on them, and too soft on domestic political dissident.Those are the people currently in power. They are not competent military thinkers. They view strength the same way the people who were blindsided by our loss in Vietnam viewed it. We can't lose because we have more weapons. If the enemy is still fighting it's because we haven't bombed hard enough. Anyone who wants to hold back is weak.
Spiders @lemmy.world Friendly little jumper helping me with the black flys
There are secure ways to transfer the key that preserve the properties that make it useful as two factors in one.
Basically, the device will only release the key in an encrypted fashion readable by another device able to make the same guarantees, after the user has used that device to authenticate to the first device using the key being transferred.A backup works the same way.