It's not the "where" but the "that you link" which is ironic: referring to it by the https:// scheme turns it into a link (a fundamental aspect of www); a scheme like ssh:// or git:// would avoid this.
Presumably that's to keep hardware sales up, e-waste be damned. You won't notice it taking 8 times longer when you have 8 times as many cores, or whatever.
No I think it's a consequence of so much of the industry abandoning caring about the craft in favor of just shipping whatever garbage checks off their Jira tickets. This is the same attitude that leads to vibe coding. It's the idea that the code doesn't matter and the only thing of any importance is the business attached to the product.
It's stupid and shortsighted, but the entire industry seems pretty damned nearsighted these days.
The problem is that there are more of those, than those who care. And when money pours in, it’s a lost fight. When there is wealth, it’s beneficial for you in the short term to just grab from it as much as possible, than to improve things, if you’re not good in your job. And hell, most people are not especially good.
There are still pockets, where if you don’t push it, you loose. But you need to search for it. Average developers won’t ever work at such places. They won’t ever encounter them, because almost no developer jobs needs that.
Btw, you can make such positions in every company. I did it, several times. And it’s very beneficial even salary wise.
But it's still just as slow on current hardware. Windows 11 has that latency everywhere and it grinds my gears. At my workplace I got a very recent beefy machine and every click in explorer, start menu, etc. feels like walking through mud.
You would know which one is the desired one because only the desired one would be in pairing mode at that moment. Obviously a collision (if I can say that word) is possible, but unlikely enough for most purposes.
Not being able to ignore the speech/writing/transmission of a passenger is reasonable. Not being able to ignore the speech/writing/transmission of the manufacturer of a device on the plane is unreasonable.
Wifi SSID? Passenger speech, since those are typically changed by the user. Bluetooth GAP/GATT device name? Manufacturer speech, since those are often not changeable by the user.
Right, those other people (well, their devices) are asking you (well, your device) what your (device's) name is. You're not telling them until they ask. They need to leave you alone!
You have a point, but as a musician and programmer, I'm far more fond of AI generating things of a "no wrong answers" nature than things that are ostensibly correct.
Music does have certain notions of correctness (e.g., [0]) but with a very forgiving "know the rules, then break the rules" aspect. Code has bugs or it doesn't, and it's probably easier to debug human-written code (certainly easier to grok every line of a human-written PR, IMHO).
The real problem is with the domains that aren't at the far ends of this spectrum.
It also puts a throbbing highlight (for a few seconds) on whichever channel is associated with the notification whose gear icon you used as a shortcut into the channel list. At least for Pixel phones.
I find it to be a poor default that sensitive data is shown on the lock screen. I change that setting as a first order of business whenever I'm setting up a new phone.
If someone texts me something that's not interesting to those MITMs but is sensitive to mom catching a glance while my phone is on the table, that's a problem this toggle creates/destroys. Threat models vary.
I recently got an unsolicited OTP email from Microsoft, which led me to fear that someone had entered my password, but no: I eventually was able to confirm that the arrival of an OTP does not, in fact, require that someone enter anything beyond my email address. This is rather insane (I should not be having a blood pressure event due to Microsoft) but on the other hand I do understand the passwordless concept which is just a password-reset flow sans password-change. Perhaps a nice middle ground would be if the OTP email explicitly stated that my password was not entered.
This also happened to me about a week ago and I had the same reaction/discovery process you did. OT but I wonder if there was a recent ramp up in these attacks. It was done against an email I do not regularly use that was attached to my account as an alternate and haveibeenpwned confirmed was in a data breach back in 2020.
I had been thinking someone with a similar address made a typo. But now I'm thinking Microsoft already considers this a known incident depending on whether a bazillion attempts were made in a detectable manner. I hope a successful launch at least demands a botnet and random delays/backoff.
Some providers (looking at you, Intuit) don't seem to understand TWO factor authentication and will allow someone to bypass your password if they can intercept the SMS or email, and treat it as a normal login.
4. Someone says "take the password reset flow, trigger it automatically when a user tries to log in and has only given their email, hide the password field during login, and after the email is validated drop the user back to their previous journey instead of having them set a new password"
5. You see #4 as #3 failing, but when #3 was never applied it's not quite that. Aside: making #3 mandatory would be smart.
It's Intuit's normal login flow. Enter username and it then says enter password or click here and we'll text/e-mail you a code. Ironically, if you use a password it will often text you a 2FA code.
reply