I think this is a minimization of the harmful nature of statements made by Donald Trump. We're not talking about not liking his political views. No, we're talking about dangerous encouragement of violence.
It's not just that YouTube and Twitter think Trump is mean.
What is your argument for that? That people will choose better passwords (unique and long) since they don't need to remember them?
The Achille's heel of password managers is if someone accesses your computer (physically or remotely) they can probably access all your accounts. <-- and I've seen this happen (not to me)
Yes. The huge huge huge majority of credential attacks are stuffing and phishing. Unique passwords prevent stuffing. We observe that everybody reuses passwords unless they use a password manager. Password managers with auto fill can also provide some defense against phishing since they won’t auto fill.
The Achilles heel you mention matters very little since it is a very rare threat model and it would be unreliable to assume that access ends at some point rather than that the adversary simply installed some persistent malware to read all future passwords.
I agree, but perhaps password managers aren't a one-size-fits-all solution. People in high risk situations (e.g., admin @ crypto companies) that are likely to be specifically targeted, might be better served without a password manager. But yes, if RDP, e.g., is left on and open then a keylogger could be installed anyways...
Admins at crypto companies should be getting security advice from their security gurus rather than from the web. It is reasonable to suggest that most people use a password manager. For the few people where this isn't good enough, they likely know who they are.
It's much more difficult to compromise someone's computer than it is to obtain/get one of their passwords thru phishing/guessing and then try the combination on a bunch of sites.
It's -vastly- better for casual users to have secure, single-use passwords instead of what most casual people do: have 1-2 insecure passwords with variations. Thus allowing any phisher to get access to everything anyways.
Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it is not an improvement.
This is not possible if your password manager itself requires a password. Unless you mean "password managers don't work because someone might know the master password" which is true, but realistically the alternative is just using the same weak password all over the web, which is way worse.
Thanks! It's Deno only I'm afraid. I'm interested in what would make it more useful for you as a Node project (so that I can gather info on the sorts of use cases that would be good).
Hi thanks for the response. My use case would be to execute relatively small snippets of shell code/one-liners as part of an asset management pipeline without having to "shell-out" and invoke an external process, mostly at deploy-time, in a portable fashion, such as rendering a static HTML file upon change of dependent data, or rendering an image/icon from a vector format representation, and similar tasks. Requirements for shell control constructs are modest, but piping and redirection should work, as well as limited shell var/macros expansion, and maybe if/then. In Node.js-land, there's the shelljs package which is both an API for (synchronous-only AFAICS) shell-like ops (as in "shelljs.ls('file.???')" and a (very limited) shell syntax parser that could call those funcs from a string ("ls file.???") like yours as far as I can understand, but I guess yours is already more capable then the one shelljs uses. Still, shelljs is used as a dependency by quite a number of high-profile packages.
Node.js is much more useful simply because everything in js-land (asset management tools, web server backends) runs on Node.js rather than deno :)
> execute relatively small snippets of shell code/one-liners as part of an asset management pipeline without having to "shell-out" and invoke an external process
This is indeed a small part of the value of my shell, though I wouldn't view it as the primary reason. I'm trying to make a nice experience for an interactive command line shell first, then will think about scripting use cases.
Blurring that line between shell + scripting is my intention, so it would be good to capture your case here at some point.
> Requirements for shell control constructs are modest, but piping and redirection should work, as well as limited shell var/macros expansion, and maybe if/then.
I'm struggling to understand one detail of your use case here. Is this a script (stored as some e.g. .js file), or something you'd be executing interactively? If the former, my shell does have as part of its library a suite of tools for executing shell commands (including piping + redirect) from within the Deno runtime. That would make something like the following possible:
The above is also strikingly similar to shelljs, but my solution differs in a key way: where shelljs is re-implementing many commands, I've developed logic for parsing and evaluating any shell-like "pipe-separated" commands.
In any case, the primary intention of my project is to create an interactive shell, not a scripting language. That said, it would be possible to tease out and reproduce my logic to parse and execute piped commands in Node.js, to allow for a slightly more capable "shelljs" clone.
Yes, as I looked into your code, I was even tempted (in thought only, eg subconsciously feasability-checking) to fork/rip your shell syntax parser and plug it into shelljs to replace theirs ;)
To clarify, in my use case, the native asset meta-format for declaring assets and their relationships has a "field" where you can put in an external command to prepare the asset (such as minifying, sass compilation). Like in a Makefile.
What is making you think that monopolies can only occur with government action? The first utility to service a region is a de-facto monopoly. I also gave two examples already of ways monopolies have occurred without government intervention: anti-competitive behavior and barriers to entry. Monopolies without government intervention are common enough that there’s a term for it: Natural Monopoly https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp
That article gives more examples of ways monopolies occur without government intervention, such as mergers and takeovers, and collusion and price fixing. All of these things have happened multiple times in the past, so history provides all the proof we need that lobbying or other government assistance is not required for monopolies to form.
Here's a question I have about these types of frustrating monopolies, and I'd love a point towards a book or something that can explain.
Let's say I have a bunch of money (or funding) for a big new internet provider that could easily outperform the existing provider. What makes it so hard to do it?
I hear complaints (and complain myself) about seemingly unfair pricing and slow speeds. The tech is there to make > 100mb internet, why isn't it more widespread? Surely consumers are willing to pay for a competitor that can provide it.
1) laying fiber (either trenched or on utility poles) will likely be your biggest expense, it requires a huge, huge investment to be able to put infrastructure through a significant area. Think about feet of conduit a several-person crew can drive per day whether by trenching/trenchless methods - it's not that many. Microtrenching promised to significantly reduce this cost but Google Fiber's experiment with it went famously poorly.
2) ROWs to run cable will need to be negotiated either with the municipality (if laying underground) which can come with a lot of difficult restrictions on work quality, traffic disruption, etc, or with the electrical utility in the case of utility poles in an area with a typical franchise agreement, in which case the utilities are often uninterested in the project and will just generally make your life difficult through slow consideration of engineering proposals, requiring extensive up-front engineering work, etc. In a small town I had some involvement in the electric utility demanded over $1mm up front for engineering surveys on pole attachment - this for a market of ~8k people, and before any actual attachment fees. Completely blew the budget of the potential broadband provider which had planned a total of $3-4mm in up-front.
3) After running infrastructure, providing drops to each house is a fairly costly and disruptive up-front operation per customer (may even be trenching their front yard), which discourages customers signing up with your service when the incumbent providers already have house drops in place. You will also either have to eat this cost or pass it to the customer as an install fee or a term agreement, all of those options are bad in different ways.
4) IPv4 exhaustion has hit new ISPs hard and you are going to have to do CG-NAT. ISPs like to think customers don't care but in practice this is indeed a headache.
I looked up microtrenching and it looks like they're basically stopping traffic and pointing an angle grinder straight down. Directional boring machines are out there, why aren't we running a bunch of those 24/7? Do they need a lot of supervision?
While the range of directional trenching is limited, requiring regular access points, the bigger issue is setup. Surveys and tests need to be done to determine if the area is suitable for directional trenching, and it only works well in certain circumstances. It's definitely heavily used in telecom installation but not a panacea.
Microtrenching is extremely simple and fast, but so far I don't know that anyone has nailed durability. Google's Louisville install used microtrenching and was an absolute debacle with the sealant constantly failing and the cables ending up laying on the surface of the pavement. Google ended up shutting down service in Louisville and the cost of repairing the failed microtrenching may have been a big reason why. Certainly get them a lot of bad press and ill will from their customer base.
My internet provider uses another bigger telco's network for the "last mile" connection and they have cheaper prices as a result.
Now, if they were to run their own fiber and install their own equipment in telephone poles, that would mean a significant investment. Would they be able to recoup their investment while staying cheaper than competitors? Maybe in denser places (appartment complex come to mind) but in suburban areas, this is doubtful.
The pursuit of sustainable living and the pursuit of a multi-planetary existence are parallel endeavours, not serial ones. Perhaps the view from Mars will instil a renewed perspective on our dependence on Earth, and teach us lessons on ecological management via terraforming.
I would argue that achieving self-sustainability on Mars forces the issue, even. The problem we’ve had on Earth is that because the costs of being wasteful, polluting, etc are externalized, which makes such behavior “cheap” in the short term — on Earth, the environment is constantly handing out loans that we rarely if ever repay.
That’s not an option on settlements beyond Earth’s surface. There, you’re forced to live with every decision you make almost immediately, so if you’re wasteful or stupid it’s promptly going to bite you in the ass and potentially threaten the lives of everybody involved. You’re not given the option of fixing things later, you have to do the correct thing now, and I think that’s the type of environment it’s going to take for humanity to change its ways.
> The pursuit of sustainable living and the pursuit of a multi-planetary existence are parallel endeavours, not serial ones.
I agree that they’re parallel because the reality is that they’re both happening right now. I’m pointing out that there’s a huge risk in not figuring out A before B, which is that we’ll just be transporting our problems to a new planet (and if they succeed, then whoever controls Mars will be able to use their monopoly to exacerbate problems on Earth). Granted, the rocket sure is shiny, though... funny how that trick never fails ;)
> Perhaps the view from Mars will instil a renewed perspective on our dependence on Earth, and teach us lessons on ecological management via terraforming.
Or perhaps you’re in the equivalent of an “early internet” optimism phase around Mars exploration.
We have all the resources we need here. The research around mutualistic living (renewables, land use, food waste, etc) is making that clear. If we’re glorifying hard problems, then the real hard problem is figuring out how to get humanity to share our already abundant resources equitably and peacefully.
Once we solve that problem we will be ready for Mars.
And to be clear I share the dream of exploring the stars. But I can’t in good faith support that dream until we shift from a parasitic to a mutualistic relationship.
For me, no formal metric can capture what I get out of buying books at an independent book shop. I feel like I'm trading with an old currency, only the books I own and buy are a reflection of my own character, or even soul.
When I lend or trade a book with a friend, it's a transaction using those same fragments of our souls and we grow slightly closer. We now have a shared experience in those books and each understand each other's view of the world a little better.
Reading might be a largely solitary experience, but the passing of a book from one pair of hands to another achieves a communication far beyond reading a review or even a personal recommendation. Somehow the mass of the book itself carries with it a greater weight to the recommendation.
In my opinion, this is simply an over-extended metaphor. Programming ultimately is not carpentry, and custom tooling is justifiable in many more cases.
It's not just that YouTube and Twitter think Trump is mean.