Ajedi32

"A better version of password syncing" is exactly what Passkeys are and ought to be. Just like passwords, but unphishable, unguessable, not reusable across sites, not vulnerable to data breaches, and with better UX.

Stranding private keys in clone resistant secure enclaves has unacceptably bad UX for the average user, which is why very few implementations try to do that.

That's just wrong. I use android, my partner uses ios. If he creates the passkey in safari, it's not going to get synced over to my phone

It would, if the people implementing it weren't all so obsessed with pushing their own platform-specific solutions over enabling open standards. LastPass works fine on Android, iOS, Mac, and Windows, but each one of those platforms defaults to saving passkeys in their own platform-specific store unless you jump through hoops to specifically save them somewhere else.

Compared to multiple competing privately run systems, which you can opt out of even if you're in the minority? Yes.

Yeah this is basically my take as well.

The problem with not having eminent domain is that without it, for any project of sufficient size you'll end up with ~100+ land owners who each individually have veto power over the entire project. If 99 of them freely agree to sell, but 1 is really stubborn and refuses to sell at any price, the project is dead.

There's also a prisoner's dilemma problem. Maybe it's not a big deal paying one stubborn guy 100x fair market value for his property to allow the project to continue. But if enough people think they can get 100x what their property is worth if they just hold out a bit longer, that also kills the project.

Eminent domain solves all this by making it so the project only has to to clear a few bars the government has set for it, rather than the many bars ~100 individual landowners set for it. But in the process it also erodes property rights and kills the built-in protections the free market has to ensure such transactions are fair.

A 1.5x or 2x multiplier on the fair market value would help with that a lot and help ensure eminent domain is only used in cases where it's strictly needed.

Or alternately, I sort of like the idea of letting the landowners elect someone to represent them in negotiations with the project developer, and then having a chance to vote yes/no on the final cash offer. Then the final price would still be set by a market of sorts, but there'd be no prisoner's dilemma or individual spoilers. Not 100% sure if that would work better or not though; it is a bit more complicated and there are still some issues with it.

Devs can pretty easily implement this on their site using the BeforeInstallPromptEvent.prompt method.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web...

Though of course...

This is not supported on iOS.

It's not that hard to install. The website can just have a button you click to trigger an install prompt: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web...

But of course...

This is not supported on iOS.

Rights are not inherent properties of facts, they're concessions between people.

We're getting pretty deep into philosophical territory now, but I disagree. Human rights, to the extent they exist at all, are necessarily inherent properties of individuals.

E.g. If the majority decides people with dark skin are subhuman and therefore have no rights, the majority is most certainly not correct about that, because rights are not defined by the majority opinion. They are inherent.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence put it like this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

I concur with this perspective; rights are inherent and inalienable, and the purpose of democratic government is to secure those rights (which already exist), not to create them.

Unrestrained democracy, yes. Tyranny.

People need to understand that having a majority opinion does not inherently give you the right to impose that opinion on everyone else. Such impositions must be done with extreme hesitancy and restraint.

That's why many democratic countries have a constitution which prevents the government from restricting certain individual rights even in the face of popular opinion. But ultimately, the constitution is just a piece of paper. If people are determined to impose their will on others, it can only do so much.

It worked great for the last several hundred years. The problem is that as government keeps expanding to control more and more of our lives, every decision it makes it necessarily imposes on everyone, whether they agree with that decision or not.

E.g. In a country of 100M people, if 60% agree with a bill and it becomes law, the country has imposed that law on 40M people against their will. That's just as true in a dictatorship as it is in a democracy. The more areas of our lives government involves itself in, the bigger this problem becomes.

I can also vote out my government.

You can't. Not if you're in the minority. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

You what you as an individual most certainly can do is stop using Roblox. Not ideal, but way easier than moving to a new country.

I've seen cases where it was done well, but unless you're willing to invest great engineering effort into making sure it's done well, the built-in version (which already has had a lot of engineering effort put into it) is almost always going to be better.

Yes, for every time a bug like this is discovered and reported, there are probably hundreds of times when someone else just gave up or found a work around after much frustration.

I'm frequently astonished by how terrible and buggy modern software can get away with being and still survive. Working around bugs to accomplish what I need to accomplish is so normal to me now that I sometimes don't even notice how terrible the software is until I see someone less technically skilled than me try to use it.

Usually in OSM there are several different ways to map things, to varying levels of detail. (E.g. As you discovered, you can just tag a road as having sidewalks, or trace out the actual sidewalks themselves.) Generally, as long as the information you're adding is accurate, you're helping. Changing tagging schemes later is a lot easier than re-discovering that information from scratch. If you're really concerned, usually the wiki has good information on what is currently considered best practice.

Incidentally, I think for crossings StreetComplete now only asks about the actual crossing nodes, so no more duplicate quests.

Sort of. It was added in 2023. (https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/pull/5373)

Yeah a lot of these features exist, they're just very fragmented, which given that the OSM community is already pretty small makes it almost impossible for them to reach the critical mass necessary to actually be useful.

You can go look up pretty much any tiny, hole-in-the-wall restaurant on Google Maps and there'll be dozens of user-contributed pictures of the interior, the menu, etc, but on OSM you'll be lucky if the opening hours are accurate.

I'm not sure there's a good solution to this, but certainly more OSM front ends exposing the data and contribution tools to end users helps.

Usually if I need to add a footpath I use the "Create new track recording" feature to trace out the path with GPS, then come back to it later on desktop. Adding paths is pretty awkward to do on mobile, especially since there's no satellite overlay.

StreetComplete lets you place trash cans and benches too (among other things) using the "Things" overlay. IMO Every Door has a much more complicated UI, though it's also more of a full featured editor than StreetComplete. (Though still less so than something like Vespucci.)

there continued to be people who decided what got built

The distinguishing feature of capitalism is that the people who decide what gets built are private individuals in competition with each other, and incentivised by profit to meet the demands of consumers.

In communism the people who decide what gets built are part of a single central authority with no competitors and no profit motive. That system doesn't work, which is why it collapsed.

I'd quibble with that. Capitalism is a choice, market dynamics are not. E.g. The Soviet Union successfully outlawed capitalism, and in response market dynamics made their country collapse.

Okay, if that's what you meant then I don't think it's pertinent to this specific situation, since false advertising laws passed by the legislature already exist. They just need to be enforced.

Speaking more generally beyond the context of this specific situation, I agree representative democracy moves slower than other systems of government, but I personally don't think that's sufficient justification for ceding control of the legislative process to an unelected oligarchy. I think the overturning of cheveron was good push back against that trend.

What exactly is the problem with the IETF publishing a standard that's theoretically weaker than another standard? They're not forcing anyone to use it, right?

The overturning of the Chevron doctrine removed the ability of the government to do many kinds of proactive enforcement.

How does stopping agencies from making up their own interpretation of laws do anything to prevent proactive enforcement? (Do you just mean they're now more limited in their ability to make up new laws and proactively enforce those? I'm pretty sure prohibitions on false advertising are actual laws.)

Wouldn't that fall under existing false advertising laws, if you're putting fake/altered images in the listing?

I think it's unreasonable to post anything on a public forum and then expect to be able to control who reads it and for what purpose.

The vast, vast, majority of AI training data is not books. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more text on HN alone than every book in the history of mankind (most of which are also no longer copyrighted).

No, public data is not generally written by "experts expecting compensation".

By the way, I don't expect you to pay me for this comment. You can just read it for free. You're welcome.

So now I have to get permission from the government to browse the web? And they can revoke that permission at any time? And we need a great firewall to block citizens from communicating with foreign websites that don't comply with this scheme?

This idea is worse than facial scanning, by a lot.

(Better idea is OS level parental controls combined with government-mandated content tags to let the OS know what content is child-safe.)

The same system that blocks kids from downloading the Pornhub app would also block them from downloading the "Chrome but without parental controls" app.

There are a lot of things to like about the web as an application platform. The security model is a big one for me. There aren't many other application platforms out there where you can just download random apps off the internet and run them with zero worries they'll screw up your system. Plus the web is an open standard, works on desktop and mobile, and has multiple competing independent open source implementations.

I think the intended use case is for things like "give my music player access to my music library" or "open a project directory in this IDE", which wouldn't work well if every app were confined to its own directory.