[-] monko@lemmy.zip 14 points 3 months ago

Earth 2.0's soft launch was met with modest success, but some far-right critics claim the day 1 patch, which removed racism, bigotry, and hate based on identity, makes the game "unplayable."

[-] monko@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 months ago

Better the devil you know than the Jesus you don't

[-] monko@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 months ago

I wasn't really sure what you were talking about, so I looked them both up, and I think there's a really good chance your optician gave you Nazi-tinted lenses by mistake.

[-] monko@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 months ago

Mozel tov, may your love enemy forever crawl on his belly

[-] monko@lemmy.zip 13 points 4 months ago

No shame in that! It is actually pretty well-written, and it has some engaging points. I'm not "anti-rationalism" or anti-this-guy or anything like that. LessWrong did more for global altruism than I ever will.

I'm just pointing out that a person who has dedicated their entire public persona to an ideology (or lack of one) is probably not joking when they start evaluating romantic partners with supposedly objective percentages.

[-] monko@lemmy.zip 14 points 4 months ago

If they meet someone they want to date more than you, why would they keep you around? You're 75% less ideal. What are you bringing to the table, besides a lower average score for the polycule?

[-] monko@lemmy.zip 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yudkowsky is well-known for his work in AI. He occasionally makes jokes, but it's usually about AI (not relationships). I know that on his profile, it says something like "when I don't use punctuation, it's a joke," akin to Reddit's /s.

And yeah, he left off a period on the first post, though not the other two. But that said, he rarely makes multi-part jokes. It's pretty clear to me, having read his posts and articles for a while, that he means this.

To further clarify that this is a "rationalist" of the highest order, consider that he wrote a half-a-million-plus word fanfic of Harry Potter, but with Harry studying science instead of magic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality

[-] monko@lemmy.zip 32 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Glad this is being discussed. Having worked adjacent to the authentication market, I have mixed feelings about it, though.

There are a few problems with passkeys, but the biggest one is that no matter what, you will always need a fallback. Yes, Apple promises a cloud redundancy so you can still log in even if you lose every device.

But that's just Apple's ecosystem. Which, for what its worth, is still evolving. So the passkey itself is phishing-resistant, but humans still aren't. Fallbacks are always the weakest link, and the first target for bad actors. Email, or sometimes phone and SMS, are especially vulnerable.

Passkeys in their current iteration are "better" than passwords only in that they offload the fallback security to your email provider. Meanwhile, SIM swapping is relatively ready easy for a determined social engineer, and mobile carriers have minimal safeguards against it.

Usability? Great, better than knowledge-only authentication. Security? Not actually that much better as long as a parallel password, email, or SMS can be used as a recovery or fallback mechanism.

I'm not saying passkeys are bad, but I'm tired of the marketing overstating the security of the thing. Yes, it's much more user-friendly. No one can remember reasonably complex passwords for all 100 of their online accounts. But selling this to the average consumer as a dramatic security upgrade, especially when so many still run passwords in parallel or fall back to exploitable channels, is deceptive at best.

[-] monko@lemmy.zip 27 points 4 months ago

I also choose this guy's wife.

[-] monko@lemmy.zip 32 points 4 months ago

No, I know this dude's deal, he is 100% for real (or trying to get a reaction, but that's not satire on its own). His posts are often like this.

[-] monko@lemmy.zip 33 points 4 months ago

"Is this normal?"

No, it is not normal to state what percent-better-person you would leave your romantic partner for. It's cynical and narcissistic.

What if your partner is in an accident that changes how they look or live? Now that they're X% "less" than what you signed on for, you can just dip?

Like I get being upfront about stuff, but this is just transactional. It's not about your commitment to another person, it's about maximizing your return on investment.

[-] monko@lemmy.zip 17 points 5 months ago

Folding Ideas

view more: next ›

monko

joined 1 year ago