He / They

  • 28 Posts
  • 1.58K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle



  • I think that it just makes it super easy to condemn anyone you dislike. Anyone can be matched to one or more of the behavioral indicators for NPD, individually, because many of them are just regular human behaviors. Selfishness, callousness, anger, egotism, not taking criticism well, etc, are all normal things to experience, and everyone does them, so if you want to condemn someone you can just subjectively and selectively label instances of that behavior as being an indicator of NPD, ignoring any absent or incongruous patterns or criteria.












  • When it’s being employed properly, it’s absolutely an important tool, but the way they’re presented to most users, such as on-device biometric data stores (e.g. Apple’s secure enclave, or a TPM verification), aren’t the proper implementations. Nor is using biometrics as your primary auth method.

    It’s supposed to be “something you have and something you know and something you are”, not “have or know or are”.

    NIST standards for biometrics require the biometric data be stored on a secure remote server, and that the scanner device check against that during auth. Putting the biometric data on the device means that you’re losing a big part of your non-repudiation.

    And it’s even worse when you’re using a secondary factor (biometric) as your primary or only factor (e.g. a phone unlock), that grants access to your other factors like password store and OTP tokens.

    Biometrics are never supposed to be a single-factor auth method when used properly, but that’s how most people use them now, and it degrades their security.

    If your phone requires a passcode, a TOTP grant, and a biometric scan, by all means, please do employ biometrics, but if it’s going to be your only factor, DO NOT.

    Or, for simplicity to the average forum reader:

    Never use biometrics. It’s just not worth the tradeoffs.





  • When you are a member of a safe, advantaged group, and this choice is being made wholly voluntarily, I 100% agree (and am myself “childfree”).

    But telling a group that is under attack that they should not have kids is just furthering that group’s diminishment. Once Israel isn’t trying to wipe out Palestinians, and their survival isn’t at stake, and they can make that choice without duress, then it’s fair. Until then, this just seems to inherently create an argument that any group that is under threat should let itself die out rather than struggle on.

    Why would you have them in the first place when they aren’t likely to have an enjoyable life?

    Making a personal choice is one thing. Telling people that they shouldn’t, based on their socioeconomic situation, is entirely another. “Survival of the wealthiest” is not an ideology I can conclude to be moral.