Pownce?
"Twitter on steroids" [0]
8 karma · joined October 9, 2020
"Twitter on steroids" [0]
Unfortunately, that is so. But usually, that person's motivation is to feel understood, valued, respected, and safe within the reality / status quo they've come to understand is their best guess. When you realize their specific fears, it makes it easier to empathize and work with them on seeing from other perspectives, and that those perspectives don't threaten them, even though they are not innately familiar or intuitive initially... But that can be quite challenging.
I'm not sure what Giuliani's motivations are, but if they aren't emotional on a personal level, they aren't his own fears, which doesn't work the same way...
I think something to reiterate is that it never goes well when you tell the other person that you disagree with them. A person is not just one idea, they're made from thousands... You're merely disagreeing with one idea, and that should be made clear when you're speaking with them. Regarding the parent comment's terminology of "calling bs", that's a bit of a harsh way to put it, or approach it, if you're trying to reconcile a difference of opinion over a single idea, and not fundamentally pointing at another person and saying, "You are your one bad idea and I don't like either."
If I feel as though the online recipient of my messaging isn't receptive, there's really no need to contend in the first place. I don't have to change everyone's mind, nor is it really my place to do so ...
You really just want to make the other person feel "heard" and respected for their opinion, if that's the level at which they communicate.
Most people just want to feel some control over their lives, so telling them they're wrong and trying to reframe their reality might not ultimately be a positive, as long as their beliefs allow them to remain predictable and act within reason in their society.
What's their motivation? If it is to knowingly start and propagate lies, then you're obviously not going to get them to change. If it's to parrot falsities to feel control or look smart (what I believe PG is referring to as "conventional-minded"), figure out ways to subtly shift that without making it clear you're undermining them, if that's your motivation. It doesn't have to be all or nothing unless you're a cult leader or protecting a loved one from a con.
But then, hey, why is your reality the correct version of reality?
"Given the obfuscated nature and supply chain origination of in-browser attacks, traditional CSP-reliant approaches miss most of these types of attacks."
"Also, a lot of CSP policies don't limit WebSockets usage."
...But CSP is very aggressive with denying inline scripts.
Could be a browser plugin, or maybe an infected common JS package?
> Also from a theoritical point of view: it's a completely different communication channel, so if someone has somehow taken over the first channel (via some malware running on the email client/computer), then they still need to take over second channel.
...is a very good point. Although, (without any data to back up this claim), I would think most users with a compromised device have a fully compromised device.
Edit:
> Hoping for security by obscurity (i.e. the 2nd email is now a "secret") isn't great.
To clarify, that's not exactly the point. If the attacker discovers the value for the phone number or 2nd email (through a data breach), then it becomes targeted, which brings us back to the security of SMS vs email (the parent article).
Everyone has a 2nd email, personal + work or school.
You could argue that both emails are probably accessible from an email app on the phone, but if the phone is stolen, then that's no worse than SMS or ToTP apps also on the phone.
You could argue password reuse, but if the address used for 2FA is never exposed to the end user after being set+verified, then the attacker would have no way of knowing the victim's 2nd email address.
Unless the attack is targeted... But if the attack is targeted, then we're back to SMS being vulnerable.
So, what it comes down to is 2nd email as 2FA is more secure and more efficient than SMS out of the gate... (and much cheaper)...
And, if I use a very obscure and otherwise not used email (with its own security + strong password), even a targeted attack has no better chance than a ToTP app on an offline device, like an iPod touch.
So:
- 1st.) ToTP on offline device (most secure, most expensive, most difficult to learn, hard to use),
- 2nd.) 2nd email (can be most secure, cheapest, easiest to learn, easiest to use), and
- 3rd.) SMS (least secure, mid-expensive, mid-learnability, mid-usability).
Why didn't we all default to 2nd email then, instead of SMS as a paradigm? Actually, was used, and still used by Gmail from the beginning (even in conjunction with ToTP now)...
https://blog.timescale.com/blog/how-we-are-building-an-open-...