TehPers

Yep, bias exists everywhere. There’s no avoiding it. Reddit does have the benefit that biases tend to change from sub to sub though. Lemmy instances that I’ve seen (not defederated ones) tend to hold the same FOSS bias, but the intensity of it varies from instance to instance.

This is one of the reasons I like what Beehaw does. Your options are upvote, no vote, and report. Anything worthy of a downvote is worthy of a report.

Agreed, feels like the vast majority of people here are FOSS enthusiasts, which isn’t a bad thing necessarily if you align with them, but definitely a bias and could put off people who genuinely don’t care about FOSS or tech in general.

although it uses your biometric data, it’s still a single factor of authentication

Speaking from my experience, I use my phone for biometric authentication. At least from my point of view, I see that as two factors (what I have and what I am) since the biometric authentication only works on my phone.

I am not sure I understood you here. What do you mean by “instead of having each service do their own thing”? Each website using their own method of delivering OTPs?

Basically having multiple places where codes may be generated. This way you can use one location to get OTPs instead of having them delivered via SMS or generated by a different app/service. It ends up being easier and more convenient for the end user (which of course increases adoption).

I guess this has more to do with services adopting OTP generators than sending them via SMS though.

From the perspective of OTPs it makes much more sense to use a separate application (Like Google Authenticator or Aegis Authenticator), preferably on a separate device, to generate the OTPs.

If logging into the password manager to get the password is sufficiently secure (locked behind MFA), then I don’t see the benefit of using a separate OTP generator (aside from maybe if your password manager has a data breach or something, which should be a non-issue except it clearly isn’t thanks to LastPass…)

I’m starting to wonder if phones (or other auth-specific devices) should just become dedicated authentication devices and passwords should just be phased out entirely tbh. Passwords have always had issues because their static nature means if someone learns your password without your knowledge, that method of authentication becomes worthless. The main concern would be what happens when you lose your phone I suppose.

Many password managers use a biometric factor to sign in (your fingerprint, for example, using some kind of auth app if needed). This basically moves the MFA aspect to one service (your password manager) instead of having each service do their own thing. It also comes with the benefits of password managers - each password can be unique, high entropy, and locked behind MFA.

There are a disproportionately large number of people who get one pretty demo and think LLMs are the solution to everything. Even for translations, I’d be interested to see how accurate the major models are in real world scenarios. We’ve been struggling hard to find any practical usage of LLMs that doesn’t require the user to be able to verify the output themselves.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using HTML/XML-ish format for describing a UI (although having a standardized presentation format that all “viewers/browsers” follow exactly the same way would be nice), I’m just sad that websites have become described as UIs rather than as well-structured documents.

Tauri is also a more recent option, which uses the native webview. Not sure if it’s suitable for production yet though.

It’s a bit of a shame that HTML went from describing documents to describing UIs. I do miss the days of simple websites, although I’m not old enough to remember the old old internet.

Odd, my google search just has a bunch of Lemmy/Mastodon results. Surely I’m doing something wrong, do I need to disable SafeSearch?

It’s only invalid if it generated errors.

I understand this line of thinking, but unless they specify what “flavor” of JSON they accept, I think it’s safe to assume they only accept what’s in spec. What I find weird is that they immediately contradict the spec with their example by writing JavaScript. Should the content-type then be application/javascript? They can easily document the parameters outside the request body instead of adding comments.

Also, yes, I know I’m being pedantic, but if I’m applying for a job, it’s a two way application. They need to give me reason to trust that they’re worth working for. Making up rules along the way when referencing a commonly known spec doesn’t give me much confidence.

Is it just me, or does their sample request use invalid JSON? The keys should be in quotes, comments aren’t in spec (but commonly supported), and trailing commas are invalid as well (but commonly supported).