What did we get?
lmmarsano
joined 11 months ago
It would probably take a constitutional amendment. The last of those to be proposed that got ratified was in 1971. Proposing it would take supermajorities in both chambers of congress or a supermajority of state legislatures. It would be unexpected for congress members to propose their own recalls, and the state legislatures approach has never been done before. While possible, challenging.
Lack of text or a link to (archived) source creates a usability issue: we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR.
Other issues when image lacks text alternative such as link
- usability: can't reflow text to varied screen sizes or vary presentation (size, contrast) or modality (audio, braille), we can't find by text content
- accessibility: some users can't read this due to misleading alt text, users can't adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments, systems can't read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- searchability: the "text" isn't indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if image breaks.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
As I wrote in a deeper comment, the post mistakes the concept of & philosophy behind inalienable rights with legal rights.
The Enlightenment Era thinkers who developed these ideas were entirely familiar with governments legally oppressing their people. The most common governments at the time were absolute monarchies justified by divine right.
To challenge unjust governments, they worked on a more rational definition for legitimate authority. They settled on the idea that governments exist for the people & have legitimate authority only when they protect the inalienable liberties & rights of all people. When a government lacks legitimacy, the people have a right to alter it to or replace it with a legitimate one.
So, while a government can suppress inalienable rights, no government can legitimately (ie, should) do so: that would be immoral (and a violation of natural law they claimed). It's moral & political philosophy concerning legitimacy.
Contrary to the post, people do have inalienable/universal/inherent rights: those inform us whether a government is legitimate. It's still up to the people to obtain legitimate government.
Are physical mail generally not under surveillance? If everyone suddently ditched electronic communications and start writing letters, would governments be able to surveil everyone? (Is it practial?)
All my passwords look like
@A#vVukh9c$3Kw4Cs8NP9xgazEuJ3JWEand are unique.
You're still transmitting the actual secret to the destination, so interception is a risk. Passkeys use asymmetric cryptography: no reusable secret is ever transmitted, only time-sensitive challenges that prove possession of the private key. Servers only store public keys, which aren't secret by design.
Passkeys have multifactor authentication built-in whereas passwords do not.
Passkeys can be more convenient than passwords. My password manager has my passkeys. At login, my password manager raises a passkey prompt that I simply confirm.
Isn't that the same thing? All my credentials & passkeys are in the cross-platform password manager available from all my devices & any web browser. Passkeys even have a cross-device flow, so we can just scan a QR code & use a phone to sign into anything.
Manually keying in a password just feels so boomer.
Do the crusts taste "earthy", ie, like dirt?