Others beat me to the punch on saying this is just worse WebAuthN, but there are some specific flaws that boil down to saying that this whole thing is, at best, totally inconsiderate of real attack vectors such as phishing

Online Login: On supported platforms, log in with your ‘Sign’ rather than your email address. The service checks for a corresponding email in their database that produces the same hash with the chosen algorithm/options. Services can eventually replace emails with ‘Signs’ for regular users.

Enhanced Privacy: Limits the need to share email addresses, reducing spam and data breach risks.

Huh? What does this even mean? How can you avoid sharing your email and replace it with a sign, if they need to check it against their database of… Emails?

Real-Life Usage: In physical stores, use your QR-art ‘Sign’ when asked if you have an account/booked at table.

Ah excellent. Someone can just look at a security camera or just snap a photo over your shoulder and steal your sign then. Because your proposal sure doesn’t note any way that these are 1-time use only. And if they were, this sounds like an awfully inconvenient way of receiving a temporary number (which sites usually only ever do as a cheap/bad 2FA method/password resets)

Email Verification: Receive a unique link via email, confirming your email’s validity.

Oh boy, better make sure to not get phished! Or that the link is 1 time use! Or that you aren’t being victimized by a MITM attack and getting it intercepted immediately!

matrix-nio

Hey, I maintain a highly popular (if niche) FOSS library. Where the fuck is my big tech paycheck where they bribe me into integrating with their product?

/s Silly take IMO, relies on cherry-picking popular FOSS projects where you can see “the influence” of big tech, AND then No True Scotsman your way into saying that they’re not allowed to participate in the development/influence of FOSS because… checks notes they’re the ones funding the project/putting money in front of otherwise unpaid volunteers?

If you end up coming up with a better scheme for things that has the actual practical effect of compensating devs appropriately (yes, that means at current market rates or better) for their work, then please let us know so we can switch to doing that immediately. I will literally do anything you suggest if it would achieve that end.

No, it absolutely wasn’t, as can testify anyone who actually had to work with it: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/the-death-of-adobes-flash-is-lingering-not-sudden/

There are lots of good reasons to get rid of Flash. Browser makers say it’s a top sore spot for security, performance and shorter battery life.

https://tedium.co/2021/01/01/adobe-flash-demise-history/

Usability means a few things in this context—simplicity, ease of use, convention, and accessibility. Flash was none of those things. It took the blank-canvas approach to creativity—which was great for the artists and illustrators that originally made up its target audience, but morphed into numerous other forms that it wasn’t necessarily designed for. It fell into overuse and quickly became abused by others.

I do think it sped up the demise of Flash on the web considerably.

That’s unironically an innovation right there

Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. I think it’s a bit distasteful to armchair diagnose someone you don’t know, though

Thank you for actually attempting to answer the question instead of just spouting the knee-jerk reaction of “it’s bullshit”.

And yes, maybe it is bullshit. Maybe they’ll never end up actually offsetting their carbon footprint. Maybe they’ll think they are, but end up getting scammed out themselves. Last Week Tonight did a great piece on Carbon Offsets on that whole subject.

Yeah the headline is stupid bait.

They already built it. They’re trying to contribute the change upstream.

Which is technically “requesting higher core support”, but is a very obnoxious way to phrase it.

Yeah, considering how in-your-face this popup was, I can’t really take someone seriously when they just say that it was “opt-out”…

Like, I get it on a technicality. But c’mon.

Absolutely fucking me_irl

That’s only for a single service, not really what OP seems to be asking for

Fully agreed, hence the “most” :^)

I very rarely care for what most 62 year olds have to say about the capabilities about the theoretical limits of computation.

This isn’t much different.

Depending on whether this code is in a hotpath (and considering how “elementary” it is, I figure that’s a possibility), this could very well be a significant speed improvement.

Though I’d say that only excuses it if it’s truly an elementary function (and not one line as part of a larger function), as otherwise it’s unreadable garbage. But on its own it:

• has a clear purpose
• (presumably) isn’t reimplementing functionality
• is easily tested
• can be modified with no side effects (besides breaking your calendar, but that’s beside the point)

This honestly a very well-written article

It’s prefectly reasonable to say “I have that site bookmarked”.

Then go to “I should have that site bookmarked”.

“I’ll check on that one site I should have bookmarked”

Etc.

I think said lonely people would rather chat with a boring therapist than with assholes on the internet who don’t even make the slightest attempt to empathize

Unfortunately if you let Junior play in legacy code once, it’ll learn some nasty habits and make more of it from scratch, usually when you’re trying to sleep.

Source?

Same icon pack here!