Sounds like a variant of the "nothing to hide" argument which, IMO, isn't particularly logical.
809 karma · joined January 20, 2020
From the article:
>Last year a cargo ship carrying 4,000 luxury cars caught fire and sank off the Azores. Lithium-ion batteries in the cars caught fire and firefighters needed specialist equipment to put out the fire.
Most interesting thing I've read all week.
Unless there is a plan to allow attesters that are independent bodies then this is absolutely a threat to the open internet, or what's left of it.
The biggest dead canary for me is the lack of calling this out explicitly by Google or Apple. We're left to assume that Google is hand-wavingly saying "don't worry we can take care of that" when the private companies already monopolizing parts of the Internet are the absolute last people we want handling attestation.
Doubt.
But open to examples. However I suspect they'll all be subject to ifs and buts and paper cuts.
But a site showing adverts for those hats would be okay? It seems backwards.
I'm assuming they stuck with four to make them memorable by actually humans. Even then I have my moments where I type in an adjective form instead of a noun for a particular word/variant.
My only gripe with this approach is that my specific password is a bit awkward to type. I tend to pick passwords at least partly based on "keyboard feel" and it's annoying that there's one word that has a lot of repetition of colocated letters.
Other than that it's a fantastic model and hugely preferred over routine password resets.
Companies aren't looking for hypergrowth until they are. And that's when prices rise.
I think it's venerable to address the elephant in the room but then, in a room full of VC-funded startups, neeto _is_ the elephant in that it's intentionally straying from the public-company-or-bust path laid out in front of most tech startups.
Great article though!
I always suspected the reason was purely profit-driven so it's good to hear it confirmed.
I know I'm getting cynical as I age, but the idea that regulation was the only thing in the way of it seemed laughable given recent history.
>This policy has created a lot of extra work, headaches, and overhead for more senior programers that have to support it. By my best estimate, less than 2% of our code is written by non-programmer programmers. Despite all this, I’m very glad we did it.
Does the author hold some resentment for senior engineers or something?
I wonder if other areas of the org were opened up to this behaviour whether the response would be the same. How about having the accountants doing some experiment design or have data analysts balancing the books?
It's an interesting idea and social experiment but somewhere in their organisation, someone is bearing the brunt of it (engineers by the sound of it), and that's a cultural deficiency caused by bad leadership.
I would like to have heard more about how that deficiency might be solved but the post seems hell bent on driving home a narrow, feel good, "anyone can do it!" message rather than exploring the idea meaningfully.
> I try to write what seems real. By now, I have no cause to fear how I will be judged, which makes it much easier for me.
This thread is 50% "this software is garbage" and 5p% "why was this posted here".
Seems a low hanging fruit for the scythe of moderation to me.