I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.
Source unclear, often attributed to Richard Feynman.
I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.
Source unclear, often attributed to Richard Feynman.
That’s…such a non-issue. If that totally devastates someone, maybe they should work on their resilience or fortitude? Do we really need to pull out the world’s tiniest violin for every contingency?
Glad you understand it, though.
Where’s the innocent person?
While I get what you’re saying
You do? I don’t, because why should anyone give a fuck?
Elisp has a nice notation for maintainably composing regexes like any other programming expression.
Only language I’ve seen offer that.
So instead of "/\\*\\(?:[^*]\\|\\*[^/]\\)*\\*+/"
, the regular expression to match C block comments could be expressed (with inline comments)
(rx "/*" ; Initial /*
(zero-or-more
(or (not (any "*")) ; Either non-*,
(seq "*" ; or * followed by
(not (any "/"))))) ; non-/
(one-or-more "*") ; At least one star,
"/") ; and the final /
Passkeys or WebAuthn are an open web standard, and the implementation is flexible. An authenticator can be implemented in software, with a hardware system integrated into the client device, or off-device.
Exportability/portability of the passkey is up to the authenticator. Bitwarden already exports them, and other authenticators likely do, too.
WebAuthn relying parties (ie, web applications) make trust decisions by specifying characteristics of eligible authenticators & authentication responses & by checking data reported in the responses. Those decisions are left to the relying party’s discretion. I could imagine locked-down workplace environments allowing only company-approved configurations connect to internal systems.
WebAuthn has no bearing on whether an app runs on a custom platform: that’s entirely on the developer & platform capabilities to reveal customization.
Definitely, especially when the “damage” is meaningless, imaginary, clearly not even directed at them, and well within someone’s capacity to disregard & not take personally.
They really need to bring back the “Sticks and Stones” nursery rhyme: cultivating all this fragility & learned helplessness ain’t serving humanity.
The Mesopotamians had some cool myths extolling humanity’s ability to endure the gods’ multiple attempts to exterminate them with disease, pestilence, drought, great floods. I think people have some capacity to get over themselves & endure some ridicule not directed at them. Imagine if the Mesopotamians instead wrote legends of the gods exterminating or curtailing humanity with the slightest hint of ridicule directed elsewhere.
Beyond pathetic.