I think the way it was handled is pretty reasonable considering it's a public facing statement. Putting your name down on an authoritative statement is an important commitment internally, but a name put down for any reason on a public statement is a magnet for a firehose of questions, controversy, and potentially harrassment.
I'm not sure why you think that's what I'm talking about, because I never brought that up. In fact I agree with that point. The apparatus will never report a failure because it has an incentive not to. The whole system is built and described in a way to make failure seem impossible because confidence is necessary for it to work. But when numbers and reality don't match, reality wins.
What do you mean "there's no failing for a country with a sovereign currency"? There are many, many examples of countries failing. Some of them had sovereign currencies. Sure they can't "run out of money" if they can print more. Along with many more examples of being able to adjust internal values and metrics. This is a very different thing from not being able to fail.
Do you believe they do nothing or know they do nothing? The number of times a manufacturers website told me one thing and the actual hardware told me something different is quite high.
Sure I can support that. The difficulty as always comes with the grey area in defining "great". There are truly reprehensible people in the world, but they're the exception not the norm. I see you did address that in your comment with "in general" so I was a bit strong in my wording, but I do believe the in general case covers >99.99% of people.
It's absolutely a valid and serious answer? You asked for reasons, omitting two options, and they gave you a list of points for and against not including those two options. That's a good response, you don't need to agree with it, but I don't see how you can call it not serious?
It's also with nothing that this article's title was either directly ripped from or just so happens to be identical to a YouTube video about the "party ball" in the video game super smash Bros[1].
There's lots of good criticism of the actual article to expand on here, calling someone a white supremacist because they used an incredibly common title format does not add to that.
Being able to revoke individual credentials is definitely a benefit. I'm not convinced about the transitivity, what's stopping one access from authorizing more? I suppose that would be asy to flag in an audit? Either way it's not really resisting the phishing, that's moreso resisting abuse once the credentials are gathered in any way.
That's a particular scheme that might be fooled, but what's stopping someone from making a version of the same scheme that redirects to a prompt on the real site which authorizes them as a new user? I'll admit web technologies aren't my area of expertise but I have little doubt it's possible based on my interactions so far. E.g. discord allowing me to log in to a new device by scanning a QR code with my phone and clicking OK.
Ultimately the point of phishing is to attack the user instead of the technology. If the user has any control over access to their account, phishing is largely unaffected.
I don't understand what is meant by phishing-resistant. There always need to be systems to authorize new devices or allow users to re-prove themselves if they loose the primary proof. Is the idea that scammers would have difficulty adapting phishes to access these resources? If "hello this is Jeff Bezos what is your password" works why wouldn't "hello this is Jeff Bezos please click authorise a new device so I can transfer you 1000$"
I respect the rigor here, but I can't imagine "scary scream like noise was used to spook people" is a novel idea to anyone. The main interesting point to me is that it was categorized as both manmade and non manmade. If you wanted a scream you could just make one yourself. So I suppose the utility of the instrument is that the scream sounds human like but obviously isn't, adding some fear of the unknown into the mix?
Depends how it's applied and what's sourcing it. 3v does basically nothing to dry skin, but would be quite bad on wires implanted in your chest across your heart.
I think the missing piece in your puzzle is adding the "time" to space-time. A particle moving through time is "falling" in the time dimension. The curvature of the 4d space makes this movement through time also move through space due to the warping effect of a gravity well.
If 20 mins of informations can legitimately be condensed into 20 seconds, it sounds like the original wasn't worth reading in the first place. Could have skipped the llm entirely.
The thing most people find ostentatious about the "mobbaroque" examples is that gold is used to add gold to the work. As a physical demonstration of wealth, i.e. "I can afford so much gold it's all over my artwork". The reason people find the Byzantine halos less ostentatious is that gold is used symbolically in lesser quantities to represent something else which is perceived as valuable.
If you're worried about three letter agencies you're really out of luck. Tampering at the factory is the least of your problems. The more tinfoil conspiracies include backdoors in processor hypervisors and possibly in silicon itself. Or possibly even backdoors in common crypto algorithms, like the defaults we use for elliptic curves. If you want paranoia levels of protection from everything you're going to need to break out VHDL and write your own cpu to run your bespoke crypto algorithms on.