This assumes a pin is used, which according to the WebAuthn wikipedia page is not generally the case:

The illustrated flow relies on PIN-based user verification, which, in terms of usability, is only a modest improvement over ordinary password authentication. In practice, the use of biometrics for user verification can improve the usability of WebAuthn.

The way I read this, a pin is even too much for the end-user and biometrics replace it for usability.

Can someone explain to me how using biometrics rather than a password/pin to protect from unauthorized access to your passkeys doesn’t violate the “something you have” and “something you know” principle of multi-factor authorization? Most of these implementations seem squarely geared at user convenience at the cost of actual security.

Why not just reply “Oh we have milk!”. Why is deleting messages the best course of action when you can just communicate that you were misinformed?

Agreed, and you know they have a record of these deleted texts internally for their own reasons.

Drinking just lowers inhibition so you say what is on your mind. While the results of such might not be desirable, it is what you thought in that moment.

I still drinking and I don’t like this feature, ya said what ya said. Also anyone who cares keeps records.

Agreed. You watch one video and the entire homepage changes.

Disclaimer: I have no experience with Bazzite. A quick web search shows that it’s a distro based on Fedora Atomic. That being said, if you did everything according to the documentation, this is probably a bug that should be raised with the developers.

The first line states /init: error while loading shared libraries: libsystemd-core-256.11.1-fc41.so: c. This is basically the issue, for whatever reason the shared library for systemd (which if being used, is basically the backbone to your systems startup) isn’t available. The next place I would look is whatever tool/command you use to upgrade/build your system, this might of spit out an error related to why this library could not be built or why it’s inaccessible on the next boot. If the solution isn’t obvious from those logs, I would report this to the distro developers as a ticket in their bug tracker.

As to look at the positives, you have discovered the beauty of immutable/atomic distros. You can just go back to the working version instead of cussing at your PC.

Centralization is a weakness. These services can be targeted by governments that want to limit communication. Free speech is a commodity, and servers host this free speech. If a hostile organization, such as a government, targets a channel of free speech such as those hosted on a platform that makes it easy to setup a mastodon instance, this become an easy target that will affect a large portion of users. If you are serious about freedom, you have the freedom to self-host your own platforms.

Edit: I realize my post doesn’t answer the question proposed, but it’s more of an argument against such services. I would argue self-hosting doesn’t rely on paying third-parties to host your software, but I guess this is in the eye of the hoster.

Hopefully we stop relying on these corporate journalist cause “journalism” is bought and sold at this point. Where are the independent journalist? I think we need to start looking towards a platform to fund people who seek the truth, cause every established modern outlet seems to be selling the same shit.

Surprise!

Our studies show this lower literacy-higher receptivity link is strongest for using AI tools in areas people associate with human traits, like providing emotional support or counselling.

This is really dangerous, as subjective matters can easily steer people in vulnerable positions to think and act a certain way. Depending on the training data and safe guards put in place, this could easily lead to AIs telling users to do horrible things to themselves or others.

When I say residential IP addresses, I mostly mean proxies using residential IPs, which allow scrappers to mask themselves as organic traffic.

Edit: Your point stands on there are a lot of services without these protections in place, but a lot of services are protective against scrapping.

I don’t think either are good, but it’s funny how it’s bad when the other guy is doing it.

Foreign propaganda bad. Native propaganda good.

Edit: To add on this, isn’t this capitalism? These people are being paid to do a job, shouldn’t that be celebrated? /s

The only way I can think of is require users to authenticate themselves, but this isn’t much of a hurdle.

To get into the details of it, what do you define as an AI bot? Are you worried about scrappers grabbing the contents of you website? What is the activities of an “AI Bot”. Are you worried about AI bots registering and using your platform?

The real answer is not even cloudflare will fully defend you from this. If anything cloudflare is just making sure they get paid for access to your website by AI scappers. As someone who has worked around bot protections (albeit in a different context than web scrapping), it’s a game of cat and mouse. If you or some company you hire are not actively working against automated access, you lose as the other side is active.

Just think of your point that they are using residential IP addresses. How do they get these addresses? They provide addons/extensions for browsers that offer some service (generally free VPNs) in exchange for access to your PC and therefore your internet in the contract you agree to. The same can be used by any addon, and if the addon has permissions to read any website they can scrape those websites using legit users for whatever purposes they want. The recent exposure of the Honey scam highlights this, as it’s very easy to get users to install addons by selling users they might save a small amount of money (or make money for other programs). There will be users who are compromised by addons/extensions or even just viruses that will be able to extract the data you are trying to protect.

I didn’t vote for Elon, Bezos, or Zuckerberg. I don’t even use any of their products. How did I get to choose?

While the Democrats smized and handed us over “peacefully” for pogroms, territorial grabs, limitless pollution, genocides and domestic terror in the name of their sacred oligarchic democracy

By Democrats I assume you mean the current Democrats leadership. They handed us over peacefully as most of them won’t be affected by the issues that will inevitably be created and didn’t want to create a standard of being held liable for their actions. Also is a oligarchic democracy really a democracy?

Personally speaking, going forward all we can do is try to do the best we can in the given situation. Help those around you, as you clearly stated you have, and keep those close to you and your neighbors safe. Those who stayed in Germany and protected those who were under attack by the Nazi party were the bravest and most impactful in my opinion.

I do agree that human nature is a huge problem. For a utopian government, I do think that is fairly impossible at the moment. As you have said we will need some novel idea or technology, or human nature will have to evolve in some way (that could take a very long time though).

As for citizens advocating for themselves, you seem to be thinking of peaceful ways to have a government that avoids becoming corrupt. While ideal, as we know humans are far from that and why eventually corruption turns to revolt if the needs of citizens are not met. I am not saying this will solve the issue either. As far as I can tell it just renews the cycle at best, or continues the corruption under a new group at worst. I only say this as technically this is a way citizens will eventually advocate for their rights if the government becomes too corrupt.

As for the desires of laws for each individual citizen, this is essentially impossible as only very small groups will have ideals and values that are homogeneous. In a populace large enough, human nature will lead to conflicting ideas on which laws should exist and how governments should run. In democracies, this plays into the hands of people or organizations with nefarious political goals. These groups can exploit human nature to get citizens to focus emotionally on a small subset of policies and laws. This tactic can be very powerful in places that don’t regulate this kind of propaganda, such as the United States.

I would argue this form of political propaganda being pushed by powerful groups that don’t represent the majority of citizens, towards citizens in other groups is one of the main cause of citizens being politically inactive. This creates biases and causes a lot of people to make decisions based on issues whose prevalence is artificially amplified. While that issue may be very important and should be advocated for, this should not be left to powerful groups or organizations that are not representative of the citizens. This also creates a ton of noise, making other issues that may directly affect or be advocated for by a large portion of the population to be obscured. All of this leads to information overload, fatigue, and complacency which leads to ignoring politics and possibly being politically inactive. I say possibly because people will still vote because it’s their civic duty but will be uninformed which can be even more dangerous than not participating in politics. This also turns politics into a sport based on what the current political “hot topic” is, which a lot of people don’t want to participate in and turns them away from being active politically.

In my opinion, the best solution to get citizens politically active is the need to make politics less biased and present legislation and policies in a fairer fashion. This will not get every citizen involved, but it will encourage more unbiased and informed decisions which will further fight corruption. Politically active citizens can look at legislation and policy proposals and make the sometimes difficult decision of which is the best choice in the present moment. This should also help with “political fatigue” which can cause citizens to not participate. Of course some people will never vote (unless forced to by law), but the best we can do is try to make the process simpler and use less of peoples time and resources.

All this being said, it will still be an uphill battle for democracies such as the United States to undo the influence of powerful groups in politics, and make their democracies fairer and more representative of the people. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but to do so peacefully will take a ton of perseverance, hard work, and most likely a bit of luck.