I wouldn't say that I've known this, but this does seem like a very small leap of logic considering that metals have long been known to be able to cold weld when in space. When to chunks of identical metal and cut apart in space, or cut apart on earth and then carefully etched to remove oxidation once in space, when put back together, they become one object again. When there is no oxidative barrier, the lattice just rejoins together. This story seems like it is the same effect. And my non-scientific guess is that at the nanoscale level, oxygen would take time to get there, so basically cold welding can happen at a nano scale before oxygen is able to get into the small area.

That is code for, "it doesn't lie well". Meaning it doesn't misrepresent capabilities or features and doesn't hide faults. Sounds to me like LLM's are functioning exactly the way consumers would like them to work. But this brings to mind an interesting concept. With human sales or support who lie or misrepresent, in consumer centered cases, it should be possible to force companies to cough up their LLM training modules and prove they are lying in court!!!!

You need to realize that both sides are corrupt and always have been. They just have different end goals. Both sides like what they see Trump doing, that is the only explanation why nothing is being done to close all of those loopholes.

Clarification, on what I said above. The title says never use biometrics. That was meant to say never use biometrics ALONE.

Biometrics can be forced by police. Passwords cannot. The only time biometrics should ever be used is somewhat as a 2nd factor but better as a 3rd factor for systems that support it. Each one protects against different vectors of abuse. Passwords are known but can be shared. Biometrics can be forced but cannot easily be shared. Physical tokens can be forced or stolen. Many other so called 2nd and 3rd factor authentication mechanisms are utilized because they allow companies to uniquely identify you as a person, so those should be avoided. Phone based codes for instance allows them to tie what is usually just a random username or account to a real physical human identity. Zero trust should always be the goal.

Password, biometrics, and tokens together equal someone that knows something,has something, and that that actual person is present but it does so in a way that does not necessarily have to tie a real human identity to that account. Even the biometrics without significant additional information cannot be tied to a real humans name, address, phone number etc. But I also believe that only password should be a requirement. The rest should always be up to the user. There are legitimate use cases where people NEED to allow other family members access to their accounts. That is 100% the decision of the owner of the account, not the company providing the account.

The really sad part is that the fact that everyone isn't scrambling to close these loopholes proves that everyone, Democrats included, like what they are seeing and want to use it themselves. Unless something extreme happens, this will be the new normal for both parties. All of these protections turned out to be just best practice guidelines, but none of it had any teeth and that made it ripe for someone like Trump to come in and actually push it to the limits. This needs to stop and stop immediately, but no politicians are actually moving to do it. Only lip service that other side is using this badly. CLOSE THE DAMN HOLES with laws that have teeth.

Most importantly the user was king of everything. There was not a single line of code in early operating systems to artificially prevent you from doing anything you could dream of. As long as you skills were up to the task and you had enough memory and processing power you could do whatever you wanted. Yes, there were an infinite number of things they COULDN'T do, but none of those things were because they were artificially crippled so that functionality could be sold back to you, or nothing that reported what you did to anyone. This was the golden age of computing and it needs to return to that. Truly fuck all of this phone home, DRM, artificially crippled feature sets because those features interfere with a business model. Many of these things really do need to be enshrined in law as consumer protections.

I want a browser that is coded exclusively with the users interests in mind and that explicitly means BREAKING standards in some cases. Crazy ideas like reporting yes to the existence every plugin, font, or anything else that can be fingerprinted. If they are required by the site and actually are not there despite saying they are, let it fail in way that is reported to user and choose to actually go get that thing if they choose to. Masquerade as another browser so that advertisers or site operators can't ban the browser. Enable modes that dont send anything back to site if you choose to not allow mouse or keyboard tracking in live streams. Tailor it exclusively for users and their privacy. Screw anyone and everyone else.

Search should not be done in the ADDRESS bar. The address bar should be JUST the address and it should not hide any portion of the fully qualified domain name that you are connecting to. It also should never take any action (such as streaming your typing in real time) and not send anything until you hit enter or click to continue. Doing so is a security risk and too many times, search bars that grab focus unexpectedly get passwords or other sensitive data entered into them if you are distracted. Same for hiding any portion of the FQDN. NO cnn.com is not the same as www.cnn.com, yes there might be are redirect but the domain name only is not the server you are connecting to and that is what the address bar is supposed to showing... the SERVER, not just the domain.

I think the same thing. Running linux in windows is like setting up a hospital operating room in the middle of a landfill.

I have/had 122 sites running on ESXi free and using a scripted management solution that kept me from having to use vcenter. I am in the process of migrating all sites to Proxmox and so far LOVING proxmox over vmware esxi. Superior in nearly every way especially for someone using scripting to manage the locations like I do. Dropping vmware like hotcakes and will find some way to urinate and defecate on them before I drop the last one. Screw broadcom. I hope they burn to the ground.

Biometrics in most cases are too easy to have forced on you. Law enforcement in certain cases have been authorized to force people to use biometrics, as in physically forcing them the provide fingerprints or face scans. Never. I will use things in my head only. I will share my accounts with whoever I trust and any biometric system that I use will be used in a way that uniquely identifies an account to the system without necessarily tying that account to a real human identity.

I won't even commit to that. I will forever treat ads like they are in a newspaper. They will guess whether I see them and I will do everything in my power to avoid them. I take every possible step to ensure that any data that travels from the internet to me is explicitly by my request only with everything else being blocked. Same for outbound data. Everything is pre-whitelisted or it doesnt work and that is true for me not just in one place like the browser itself, but it is layered across multiple systems that I manage, both at work and at home. Gateway, email, browser, operating system. Layered protections are what are needed.

EVERYONE who is above board can survive without crime. And in a post above I talk about hurricane Katrina that proves your post wrong anyway. People can be in bad situations but still have been taught in childhood that stealing from someone is never an option while others, not so much. No one is 100% locked out, it just becomes much more difficult. Society should not be held hostage to other peoples failings. Also, I want to clarify that I am only talking about GOVERNMENT aid that doesn't stop when people keep doing bad things. I think help should be much more personal and local where people get invested in the person they are trying to help, that also allows monitoring and verifying they are not continuing the self destructive behavior. If they are still in the midst of self destructive behavior, they shouldn't be getting anything from anyone. But as for the past crimes, it is more just a flattened career arc. Once that has happened, the best you can hope for is that your children learn from your mistakes. It's still possible to make it, just much much more difficult because everyone who is a potential employer has, and should have the right to know what type of risk they are taking on someone with a record. Some people will choose not to take the risk and that is 100% their right to be aware, and right to choose that risk and the public should not be tasked with supplementing income in those cases because of their bad life choices.

Absolutely. People still in the midst of self destruction don't deserve help. They must get on the straight and narrow first. I don't think that government aid is every the correct path. I think aid to someone should be much more personal and local. I think someone should make an investment in someone to watch and help, but also to stop that aid if the aid is being abused. Government aid does not do this. it just keeps on dumping the aid in where people expect it and abuse it to keep doing the same old things that got them in that position.

There is a bit of religious quality to that but that is not the reason. Its just a broad expression of anything self destructive should disqualify you from getting help at the public's expense

That is pretty much the very definition of a life lesson. Something that both sticks with you for life once you learn it or sticks with you for life if you ignore it.

That lesson absolutely is for me and mine as well as everyone else. It is one of the biggest lessons that I told my kids. I tell both of them if they screw up and do bad things, I will be the first one to turn them in to make sure they get their due. I don't want it to happen to them, but if they make bad life decisions I want them to pay for it.

Not pulling up the ladders, I want everyone to be able to make it. But no one should make it anyone else's expense. At least not a force one. I want everyone to learn the life lessons, to not make the mistakes and to pull their own weight in society.