WendyTheWillow

You've said over and over again how you don't want to talk about the subject, yet you keep replying. I'm just making sure people understand this isn't the strategy of someone who knows what they're talking about, and you're cooperating magnificently.

Morality is what separates us from animals. The suggestion right and wrong don’t exist is the real tyranny. It's what evil people say to do evil things.

This isn’t a debate, this is me getting you to reveal how little weight you have behind what you believe.

This is useful because if anyone else reads this, they will get a pretty standard idea of how people who think like you can’t really justify their beliefs when challenged.

I do appreciate it, but I doubt you do. Easier to dismiss me and ignore any dissent, than it is to consider that you might actually be the bad guy here.

I told you this approach weakens your advocacy. Too bad you can’t listen.

That’s true, but it’s not what I said. It seems like you may need to reread what I wrote in order to respond to it, but then again it’s probably easier for you to pretend to misunderstand me than it is to actually address what I’ve written…

But you seem utterly incapable of justifying those beliefs to others...

Your beliefs are worthless to everyone else if you can't explain them, and no all you've done so far is declare what you believe to be correct, and have crumpled at the slightest sign of resistance. That demonstrates the weakness of your belief.

"Because I believe differently than you, there isn't much to discuss." is a terrible way to convince others of your belief.

You're presupposing your conclusion and seem completely closed to the idea that you may be wrong.

No, what I disagree with is his inconsistency, and also his manipulatability by the Russians, who allegedly told him a nuclear war would erupt if he didn't do what they said.

What's to stop someone else from otherwise manipulating him to not stop the asteroid, using similar threats or similar reasoning? Perhaps he finds a way to survive for a time off planet (or sufficiently deep underground), for example. He's the kind of unstable that might result in him not therefore caring how the rest of us fare.

A better comment would attempt to explain why is my point. Thus far, you've been insistent on refusing to explain yourself or being open to alternative views.

I couldn't disagree more strongly; you will screw this up if you roll your own. The only secure option is to push as much as possible outside of your infrastructure. The concerns that it won't be "auditable" or that you "give away the keys to your kingdom" are nonsense and implementation-specific. If it's important, then don't build your integration with those flaws. You will still have substantial control, so you can decide how "auditable" the auth actually is and what to do with users authed from one platform or another.

If you can avoid managing authn, you will be substantially better off. I don't think you can so easily do this for authz; however, it depends on what you're building.

That’s even worse! I would try to avoid a library with a function that fragile.

Where did I suggest such a thing?

And everything discussed is consent driven anyway. It’s not like a smart phone is mandated.

…the whole thread you’re replying to is about it not actually being necessary. To participate in this conversation you either accept that premise or disagree with it, passing it as a given is not really an option for the argument.

Or use a library that doesn’t modify the input…

The smell here is in the library, is the commenter's point. The solution would be to search for a better written library.

You can genuinely believe something insulting. And for what it's worth, I don't think you genuinely believe this. It's much more likely you're using a pathos appeal, as your logos argument has failed, which I'm telling you actually weakens your ability to execute your own goals, as it's entirely transparent.

That's your choice! But suggesting everyone operate on a substantially less convenient basis due to your specific desires for privacy seems... selfish.

I’m so far left wanting for an app that gives me a way to easily track and consume newly published work of a given topic. The existing apps are not great, and maybe this change will make it easier to provide better “reader” views, and possibly even tts (I like to listen+read).

What percent of users would agree with you, in your estimation?

I opt in to Apple’s work, whereas Beeper Mini was done on my behalf, which is the striking difference.

I actually read a whole book on the weaponization of human rights, and how some groups portray their cause as “noble” to get around the sticky questions such as motive and self-benefit. I’m not saying this exactly that, but there’s a lot of, “we’re doing this for you!” speech here that’s a bit out of line with the stakes of the problem…

You want to change your location in every app manually, even when your device has a GPS receiver installed?

The telescope in question was at one point the proposed Sentinel [0] (apparently now the NEO Surveyor [1]), and frankly, even for something like that, I simply don't trust Elon because of its purpose. SpaceX has a stench about it that calls into question everything they're involved in, so long as he's at the helm.

Besides, given the low weight of 1,300kg, NASA is perfectly capable of launching the NEO Surveyor on its own via the SLS [2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_Space_Telescope

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEO_Surveyor

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

People who got into tech because they're bad at human interaction will find no refuge working professionally. You're a burden to your company and your coworkers if you're in a role that requires coordination and you refuse to coordinate.

For roles that require little/no team coordination, it's acceptable to not work in the office most days. That isn't what a software developer job is, however, nor is it the vast majority of white-collar jobs generally.

Yes, you must commute. Yes, it takes time. But that's what the money is for. You wouldn't do this for free, so they compensate you for the inconvenience. The hour lost in a commute is infinitely made up for in the human interfacing that happens in person.

I'm in school full time, so no. The problem isn't that managers need to be able to check on employees, it's that everyone needs to be able to interact with one another face-to-face to optimally work, and when they can't, it's the people who manage them that actively suffer.

Maybe the tech will catch up to that, but it currently doesn't.

Electrons can't yet sufficiently replicate the full experience of being in person for teams that still intend on having both, and what the electrons can't cover will be covered by someone, and that tends to be on someone who has no say about their newly added burden.

For companies that were previously set up as in-person, it's the only way to operate successfully for any role that has any regular interaction.

It's more like the constant coordination of disparate people, keeping those people motivated and aligned, making sure they're getting full access to all of the resources that would be otherwise trivial to provide to people collectively in an office.

And there's zero reason to believe that driving to work killed anyone. That's like saying being born killed people. The causes of people's car accidents are what killed them, not the reason they were driving.

This has nothing to do with my situation; I'm currently a full time student.

My observation is in general, not about any specific situation. Remote work has costs, and your leaders have decided those costs are better than the in-person costs. That's fine, and in a fully-remote environment it can work, but pretending like it's strictly "better" is unjustified.

Sorry but ancient Egyptians absolutely had dedicated workspaces separate from their homes. Obviously these places were more proximate to their homes insofar as their transportation methods limited the reasonable distances their workplaces could be, and a lack of zoning laws meant the intermingling of habitation spaces alongside these artisanal craftsmen you're referring to.

Further, this doesn't even disagree with my claim; what you've said here doesn't in any way support the claim that the "default" way of working was at home, and only "recently" did work centralize. Quite the opposite; work has always been "remote" in some sense. Even just practically, few people literally had the luxury to live exactly in the place where they worked, down to the room, as a great deal of work actually took place outside of any "room".

Additionally, COVID did not prove anything except that we can temporarily mitigate losses by working apart. Since, it's become very clear that such work styles create undue burdens on the folks who don't work remotely in order to support those who do, unless a company is entirely dedicated to remote work, which nearly none are.

Oh well if it's formal, that suddenly makes it totally okay and therefore nobody is paying for you to do that in extra effort...

My point is that in situations like yours, there's always a loser, and they often don't get a choice. You're benefitting, but the people you have an agreement with have passed the cost of keeping you in the loop and productive onto someone else, and that someone else can't decide to end remote work for you if the burden it too high.