john_strinlai

>They are in my password manager just like another password. So what's the point of having them because effectively, the passwords in the password manager and the passkey in the password manager offer the same UX to me?

same ux, different security properties.

>Except that at least I can memorize a password by heart just in case.

"just in case" should be a thought out recovery flow, rather than hoping that you remember the password of the account you need to access.

>just another password that you cannot even memorize

there's some issues with passkeys, but not being able to memorize them is a feature

agreed, but i dont think there are many (any?) product launch blogs that cover all the fine details and legal minutia of the product.

that all typically comes in pages of terms of service, purchase contracts, SLAs, conversations with your rep, knowledge base articles, and that sort of thing. not in the initial marketing post.

probably available by the "contact legal sales" link at the top of the post https://openai.com/business/contact-sales-legal/

i hope that someone can come up with something catchier than "thing-slop" or "slop-thing". the word has become basically meaningless from overuse.

worse, it was trained on reddit law comments

presumably that will remain true for the lawyers using the product

this used to bug me a lot more than it does now, perhaps because it doesn't really happen to me very often anymore. when it does, i just type "hi" back and then move on with my day.

indeed! my "common sense" is to always state the units you're working with, no matter how obvious you think it is.

at least, that was the concept was drilled into me throughout all my schooling. perhaps that has changed in the last few decades.

yes, i understand. i was asking specifically whether google has sms recovery flow, not how secure sms recovery flow is compared to other options.

i am not a paleontologist and there have been many extremely weird living creatures over the time earth has been around.

and as the sibling comment mentions, i am primed for science articles to be metric.

i know its the nytimes, so we can assume american units, but i find it sort of crazy that even throughout the body of the article it doesnt ever say "fahrenheit".

does google not offer a backup via sms? it's a common enough recovery flow elsewhere. (i dont use google stuff, so i am genuinely asking)

"Canada's entire GDP" and "exports" are very different.

>Alberta selling oil to USA is, by itself, like 20% of Canada's entire GDP.

wow, no, it's not "like 20%" at all. not even close.

the entire oil and natural gas industry was 3.8% of canada's GDP in 2025.

how did you even come up with that number?

>But precisely how does it accelerate if its instrument in the real world to do harm isn't already trained in the domain of doing so?

i am having a really hard time parsing what this sentence means, sorry.

>There was a tweet about someone going to visit a doomer Meetup

yes, any reasonable person immediately recognizes this is very silly, and probably shouldnt be used as a representative example of what normal people are saying.

>So if your starting axiom is that AI is going to kill us all in 10 year

its not. my point is that you keep saying ai isn't "needed" to wreak havoc. most people agree with that. but the rate at which havoc can be wrought is increased with ai. this is extremely evident already.

>no AI needed to wreak havoc

most argument i see aren't that ai is needed, but that it can accelerate.

in the right hands, ai is absolutely a force-multiplier. at least in cybersec.

..why?

a journalist that has spent years following a specific scene closely, interfacing with the important players, learning different viewpoints, etc. seems like a perfectly reasonable person to have an opinion.

especially if they come with a unique perspective of their own to the topic, like being a professor of history that can highlight interesting parallels to the past.

>We have been doing that all of recorded history and we are still here.

while i dont think our species will be wiped out because of it, it's a mistake to not recognize the difference in efficacy and scale that ai enables.

>What about AI makes that more risky?

24/7 tireless work, effort is scaled much easier than humans, no ethical qualms, unable to feel fear, cannot be jailed, no care for safety, etc.

you can press the "linear" button if you'd like.

but i think the primary point of the comment was to highlight the "Bitcoin has been declared dead 478 times" part

the potential cascading effects are nice, for sure, but it still leaves a bad taste

>New Jersey privacy law that provides for hefty fines against data brokers that publish personal information on state law enforcement officials

only for state law enforcement officials (and apparently their families)? and there's no equivalent protection for normal people? that's super fucking lame.

while the specific illustrative example they gave may be ass-pulled, the point the parent comment is making is valid.

the reason i brought up cost is because gambling addicts having a mental crisis are not typically sitting on piles of cash. a canadian gambling addict would be more willing to visit the ER than a us one because of the cost of the visit.

the pay vs. wait argument is a fun one, but im not super interested in hashing it out here

is the sense that it wont immediately bankrupt you, yes, they are different.

but my skimming of the study itself is that something else occurs (mental episode of some sort, such as anxiety attacks or suicide attempts, etc.) and gambling is noted as a primary or contributing factor in the billing code. it does not appear like someone wakes up, realizes they have an addiction to gambling, and then walks into the ER.

>I fail to empathise with gamblers [...] because I have never found gambling appealing as an activity.

that was a strange sentence to read! the whole point with empathy is being able to do it despite not sharing the same feelings or point of view. it's putting yourself in their shoes, and attempting to understand the things they would feel.

maybe you meant you can't "relate to" or "identify with" or something

it'd be cool if you expanded on that thought for the rest of us

same, but i'm not sure how that's related to my comment. workarounds or alternate articles without significant new information are typically posted within the same submission, not separate ones.

do the articles have significantly different information/coverage to warrant two submissions?

>As a Canadian, this feels like hopping on board a sinking ship.

i have to think that many people would consider the current situation with the usa is already a sinking (sunk?) ship.