The more the behemoth of bureaucracy and total control will grind and (o)press the societies to atomized individuals, the more lone wolfs will crop up.
Passkeys deployment reminds me of a cartel agreement among FAANG without the actual coordination. It's too good of a new tech frontier not to colonize.
This is one reason why cluster bombs are banned (albeit that's ignored) and why anti-personnel mines should be banned (there's the Ottawa treaty but the bigger forces like the US, Russia, China, India and Pakistan have not signed it). As an alternative the US's ATACMS rockets have a variant with tungsten shrapnel, which has been used against Russian force gatherings and transport columns like a giant shotgun blast but without the leftover unexploded ordnance.
I had an engineer friend in an eastern European country who had a contract with their army to build automated equipment to dismantle artillery shells from WWI still in stock at their armories. So, yeah, we still haven't cleaned up from WWI.
The beauty of this spec is that it defines a set of basic components to build multilateral federations between various types of entities (without a need to rely on Web PKI + of course, the types of these entities are limited by the imagination only). Regardless of what's going to happen and what isn't going to happen to existing SAML multilateral federations, I think this this specification might begin to be adopted for various other use cases.
It's worth mentioning, the spec was also written by people who aren't new to anything from that, they were already deeply involved in SAML multilateral federations.
I believe they will eventually. But first, the spec needs to be finalized (in progress), implemented in all the libraries that need to support it (some in progress, some unaware this is coming), and deployed by all federation managers and members worldwide (planning in progress). I'm excited for OpenID multilateral federation, but it's going to coexist alongside SAML for an excruciatingly long time. Probably not as long as IPv4 or Python 2, but the better part of a decade seems plausible.
As other people have said, boxes and lines is another way of representing order, or sequential steps. You can also do that in text.
But you're right that there are other ways. Scratch is an example. But most programming languages are relatively close to math notation, and that appears to be convenient for us.
If you want to see a programming language that works entirely differently, yet still has a graphical representation alternative in boxes and lines, look at CSound. It's an (old) language for generating sound, but its representation is different.
Lines of code are essentially doing the same thing as boxes and arrows. It's just a different representation of the same idea. You can see pretty direct translations in programming languages like Scratch, Unreal Blueprints, and Godot 3's visual scripting. As well as logical implementations in tools like Davinci Resolve Fusion.
I think most programmers find this logic easier to type out than to "draw" in a graph, but it's conceptually the same thing.
No the text is the abstraction. Or perhaps neither is the abstraction and they are just equivalent concepts like how uno is the same thing as one. Uno is spanish, one is English… there is no hierarchy where one concept is an abstraction over the other.
The main point of my post is to suggest that there are other equivalent concepts between text and box/line.
I think we are operating on different definitions of abstractions/concepts, here. My guess is you are trying to invoke a very specific meaning of "abstraction" in another context.
To note, most text is a symbolic representation of spoken words and words are abstractions of any number of things. Both physical things such as "running" and less physical things such as "thinking." (Yes, legographic texts exist, such that they may not be representing spoken words, but I fail to see how that changes things here?)
Abstractions go over things. An abstraction is something fundamentally layered on top of another thing. Two things cannot be abstractions of each other. If you encounter such a concept and you still think they are both abstractions then it is you who is not making sense.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about I’m sorry I can’t help you. Truly I’m really sorry and I apologize that I can’t help you. Thanks you reading. Good bye.
