YES. This exactly. I work across multiple devices, some of which are nonstandard/uncommon (Linux, Xiaomi China ROM, ...) and I've NEVER had passkeys work properly - yet everything constantly prompts me to add one. Even if they did work, I'd have to carry around hardware keys or register each computer separately. And the lack of backups if a device is lost/broken is definitely a larger concern for me than being phished of my TOTP keys.
My wife clicked through a Google dialog and suddenly was using a passkey. It absolutely happens, though IMO more to the non technical users. I know what those login dialogs and pop ups mean, and decline them.
(At least til I get around to setting up my new usb c yubikeys!)
Same as traditional physical keys, you don't have a single key, you have multiple ones precisely so that if you lose/break one, you are not stuck and can go to the local locksmith and get another one in minutes.
In fact it's even nicer since you can just re-use the backup key with no security loss by revoking the other one, and buying another key.
> Same as traditional physical keys, you don't have a single key, you have multiple ones [...]
I have multiple identical ones.
> [...] and can go to the local locksmith and get another one in minutes.
Can I go to the digital equivalent of a locksmith (like a backup software) and duplicate my passkey? Can I do that with only my passkey in hand (without having to do anything to the corresponding lock, or having to contact its issuer), like I recently did with a physical key?
Heh, in the security world, this shows how your traditional metal key is "something you know" (like a password) because it can be copied and many people can know it at once!
So if we are enforcing MFA requirements and allow this kind of clonable key, then we should really require some other factor that is not clonable.
That's the core silliness of this whole passkey mess, IMHO. So many turns of rhetoric and weird compromises, we have cargo cult security and no real understanding of what security level is in place.
Instead of the best of worlds, we can accidentally have the worst of worlds without realizing until it is too late and we're painted into one of those ugly corners.
> Heh, in the security world, this shows how your traditional metal key is "something you know" (like a password) because it can be copied and many people can know it at once!
If you have a photo of a traditional metal key, you can duplicate it. AFAIK, there's also a numeric representation of the height of each position on the key; if you know that number, you can duplicate the key. A traditional metal key is more like a password than most people think.
You don't need to ask permission to buy another key then register it to your self-hosted service.
In fact if you have the technical skills to make your own physical key and respect standards, e.g U2F, you don't even need to buy one and it will work with existing devices and services. I can recommend the Precursor for an interesting exploration of that from a verifiable software/hardware perspective.
As other comments already stated and have stated, money should never be the goal, it's the middle. Having money allows you to not worry about some of those topics, or having more time for them. If you don't have more it means you must worry about that. Having money means you don't: you don't have to worry about rent, health insurance, paying for experiences, food, etc. It's true, you don't need that much money, but still.
Past being a millionaire or so, making money is a clicker game. It's something you do just for the fun of seeing number go up. And just like a clicker game, past a certain point you're no longer making the money through your own efforts, but by acquiring assets that can make the money for you (like buying the grandmas that bake cookies for you, etc.), so the game becomes determining the right mix of assets that let you acquire more, that you can then plow into more assets for even bigger growth.
The super rich aren't making more money because they think more money will buy them correspondingly more happiness. It's a game to them played at massive real-world scales.
I don't know, self-reported happiness seems like an awfully unreliable metric. For one, I've noticed that projecting unhappiness is much more of a faux pas in rich circles. On its own this could account for much of this relationship.
Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, is on the record saying he is 'not often happy.' Somehow I doubt he'd give up half his wealth to double his happiness, though that's just a guess based on his other obvious character flaws ;)
Well, considering the SpaceX IPO, I think that him giving up the majority of his wealth early on to make SpaceX employees hilariously rich worked out well for them
My favorite book about this is "The Happiness Trap," because it makes the simple point that we didn't evolve to be happy all of the time. It makes a really good case for learning to live with the range of emotions and suggests ways of creating a contented/good/whatever life with what you've got.
I used to start the same place the author did with total blocks but kept overriding for real purposes then getting sidetracked. Identified the real problem as feeds which choose what to watch for me instead of me choosing. So I use custom apps and extensions to remove all the feeds but keep the search and messaging functionality (Feurstagram). Sometimes I catch myself opening the page out of habit but then realising I have literally nothing I actively want to watch/search for ...
The feeds and recommendation algorithms are the real time-eaters for me. The things I tried:
- chrome extensions: unhook, stayfocusd, news feed eradicator
- deleted youtube watch history and forbid to collect data for recommendations, which effectively disabled yt shorts
- grayscale display for my phone
- switching from news aggregators and social apps with recommendations to basic RSS feeds
But even I consume information now only from my carefully curated subscriptions I realized I still need to filter out most of the articles. E.g https://news.ycombinator.com/best has ~20 articles per day and this is only one RSS source. So, I just LLM-filter them.
the social credit score is a score that businesses and business owners have/will have that unites different systems for rating how trustworthy their businesses are to work with
I don't get everyone's complaints about the interface. I've been using it for years, once you learn where things are I can get what I need done. The learning curve (finding where functions are, the right tools for each job, etc.) wasn't much different from other software like Blender or Darktable (or even Davinci Resolve).
The panels concept might be the most intuitive part of it, but Blender also has different panels and modes. And the tools being combined into few buttons is similar to CAD programs I've used.
Anyone enlighten me on actual usability problems (and not pedantry like "the spacing of these buttons is uneven"?) Perhaps I've gotten used to using unintuitive software.
> Anyone enlighten me on actual usability problems
The latest one I can recall is the canvas losing focus when you click anywhere outside it. So, to continue working after you interact with the layers panel e.g., you'll need to go through the extra step of reactivating the canvas.
Export and Save As should be the same menu item with an option in the dialog.
There are many many more but start with the app having the overbearing assumption that it thinks you want save to its file format rather than make an ad hoc edit.
That “overbearing assumption” is made by practically every other X-media editing app, for good reason — you can save your work and continue/revert stuff later. If all you’ve ever used is MS paint then I guess it’s an unexpected thing, but any other image/video editing app, digital audio workstation, 3D modeling software, etc… work exactly the same way. It would be unexpected to me if “save as” exported a flat file.
I guess the idea is you can do edits via non-destructive layer effects and compositing a stack of layers, where somewhere amongst the stack is your original unmolested data. Though that has not been my experience with Gimp - it's far more likely to want to to commit to a rasterizing decision far earlier than Photoshop would.
I don't care. 99% of my uses of an image editor are for ad hoc edits. I never want to clutter my disk with project files on the off-chance I want to preserve layers or whatnot. I have zfs snapshots and cloud backups should I want to revert but the odds I want to revert an ad hoc image edit are approximately nil - I can never recall needing to do so.
I don't use Gimp as a 3D modeling software or a digital audio workstation. I use it to add text to a family photo. The primary storage medium is jpeg. I don't want or need anything else.
The real issues with Gimp start when you try to work with selections, transforms, cuts, crops and so on. Photoshop muscle memory doesn't transfer and it is so incredibly clunky.
> I use it to add text to a family photo. The primary storage medium is jpeg. I don't want or need anything else.
So you open your photo, add your text, press Ctrl+E, choose a filename or press Enter to overwrite your old version, and press Enter to accept the default jpeg settings.
I guess it could save a couple of keypresses by auto-overwriting your original file without asking, or not asking about jpeg settings. But it doesn't seem like an outrageous workflow, considering that other people will want those options.
I do feel the same way as you about Photoshop muscle memory, having got quite good at it in the '90s and never really having caught up in Gimp.
I can empathize. I don't really care about the save vs export thing, as I have adapted to that and just go directly to export in the menu.
But, as a long time but infrequent user, I really dislike the changes towards "non-destructive" UX that just seems to spawn endless layers and other forms of pixel buffer limbo that confuse me. Lately, it feels like I'm being slow walked by a passive-aggressive tool that wants to waste my time and mental energy.
I wish there was a "novice" or "casual" user setting option to go back to a much simpler UX, where I am operating immediately on the selected layer. Where a pasted object can be dragged but anchors as soon as I touch something else, etc. Where filters preview but then "apply" immediately. Where undo can revert some recent changes but otherwise the effects accumulate destructively into the current layer.
A naive user may never have to learn about layers, but they are still there when desired. I don't want a layer spawning on their own. I'll make the new layer before I start changing things, and I'll think deliberately how I want that layer filled. Then, I'll resume actions that immediately mutate it.
1) When you apply a filter, there's a "Merge filter" checkbox. If you check it, filters will be merged down immediately like in 2.10. The setting is remembered, though currently the unique Color filters are remembered separately from the generic ones.
2) If you go to Edit -> Keyboard Shortcuts and search for "Paste as Floating Selection", you can bind Ctrl + V to it so that you get the 2.10 floating selection behavior.
I still think the original behavior where it just saves as whatever extension was entered as the name was one of the more enlightened ways to operate.
I sort of get their point. The "Only one of these formats(the one you have never heard of) will save all aspects of your work, every other one will lose things, pick wisely." school of interface design is a massive footgun. But I like interfaces that get out of your way and just let you do things.
And I just had a bright idea, "forget the save dialog, just use the export dialog for everything" but it turns out the export dialog will not let you save to .xcf My disappointment is immeasurable. Why not gimp team? You dashed my last hope for a single unified interface. Somebody had to go out of their way to take that out.
how does the save/export distinction result in extra clicks? they are in the same menu right below each other. pick the right one. if you don't know you may pick the wrong one the first time, but after that you know. i find it faster than having to choose the format i want from a "save as" dialog
You just reminded me of a great feature that I think I first noticed in The Gimp: you don't have to search through the list of file types when exporting (I almost typed "saving"!), just type the extension in the file name and it'll save in that format! Love that part.
It's when I want to close the image or the application - the extra click to confirm that, yes, I am aware this image was not "saved" and that I could be losing data. I admit I have not looked into whether I can disable that extra notification.
The learning curve certainly is a lot steeper than Photoshop or similar tools, and the GUI is very much counter intuitive compared to other graphics tools. Add that it lacked tons of nondestructive editing, smart objects etc. The poping out of different panels also get annoying super quick.
> Anyone enlighten me on actual usability problems
I wasn't able to use the "move" tool to move a semi-transparent layer, it kept on switching my selection to the layer below it and moving that. That violated my expectation.
The solution was to use a modifier key, but it took me a while to find it.
It is also in the tool options control pane ( Pick layer or guide | move the selected layers).
Not going to say your expectation is wrong, I too almost always want the tool to operate on the selected layer rather than whatever layer has the pixels. But moving the layer with the pixels is not a bad default, it makes single click quick layer alignment moves possible.
Also, salutes, sort of unrelated, but your post made me look into quick selection based editing, And there are some good operations I have never used in there including alt to move the selection and ctrl + alt to move what is in the selection.
I'm a fairly casual / infrequent user, but they've already addressed most of the things I found infuriating in the past.
The big remaining thing I can think of is the "layer boundary" thing, which (it seems to me) is very confusing for new users and inconvenient for all users.
I also have a vibes-based feeling that when I used to use Photoshop twenty-five years ago I was a lot more productive than I'm able to be in GIMP, but I can't be sure if that's just because I used to do more graphic stuff back then and I've never picked it up to the same degree. I find myself having to hunt for things in menus a lot, but that might be a me problem. Photoshop also took a while to get used to.
Edit: I basically agree with the people complaining about Save and Export being unexpectedly separate, although also it's not that hard to press Ctrl+E instead of Ctrl+S.
>"I don't get everyone's complaints about the interface. I've been using it for years..."
That's the problem, you have a bias because you've already learned the tribal knowledge. Having to learn it from scratch, GIMP's UI is sorely lacking. While it does have the tools, the organization of them is all over the place.
I have used Photosohop for almost 20 years, and then Affinity, Krita, and Gimp here and there.
In my opinion, it's a bit of both. At first I thought I was just used to Photoshop and I had to just accept losing productivity to make the switch.
But there something about Gimp UX that I can't get over, even though I can't really explain what is it. Of course fighting the muscle memory for all the features is a pain, but there's more. I can't find logic in the shortcuts, the menu organisation... I have not struggled as much for Krita or Affinity when I tried it.
Are you sure that the problem isn't just that you have learned a different tribal knowledge (e.g. Photoshop) and now expect every image application to work that way?
For decades, the tools panels floated separately from the image window, and the authors resolutely refused to put them in a single window.
Then one day, they did it. They put the tools on the same window as the image, as Deluxe Paint did in 1985. FINALLY.
... but at the same time, they introduced the absolute bollocks that is "if you hit save we're going to spam you indefinitely into using our format".
In any other tool, if you _open_ a file (e.g. a PNG, JPEG, or in say LibreOffice's case, a CSV or XLSX), and then hit "save", it can nag you once that you're not using the tool's preferred file format, and _may_ be missing some important feature that only its preferred format supports... but you should just be able to click "fuck that, save it as the format I loaded it as" and not hear that again.
Not GIMP. It fucking well refuses to let you save as the format you opened. You have to cancel your "save" of the file you opened, and instead "export" to the file you opened... at which point it warns you you'll overwrite THE FILE YOU WANT TO SAVE. And after you've done that, and try to close the image, it'll warn you you haven't saved THE FUCKING FILE IT JUST FORCED YOU TO USE "EXPORT" TO SAVE because you didn't save it in its preferred format ABSOLUTELY GO FUCK YOURSELF, GIMP, I AM NOT GOING TO SAVE AS XCF A JPEG I AM CROPPING AND WILL NEVER EVER EDIT AGAIN
This is why I completely gave up on GIMP and will never open it again. I would like to line up all the GIMP authors in a row, and run down the line slapping them all in the face with a wet trout.
If anyone from GIMP is listening:
* User opens a non-native format, e.g. JPEG
* User hits "Save"
* Present user with a dialog like so:
This image may contain content that cannot be saved in the currently selected file format "JPEG"
Use the default XCF file format to be sure the image is saved correctly
[x] Ask when not saving in XCF or default format
[Use JPEG format] [Use XCF format]
* User can turn off this nag globally by deselecting "Ask when not saving in XCF or default format"
* If user selects "Use JPEG format", future saves of this file will not nag again
It should attempt to save in the same file format originally used for single-layer or otherwise simple edits, and only use XCF if needed to retain the extra information that cannot be otherwise preserved.
Sleep is Lindy... obesity and constant wakefulness are not.
The sad fact is that people will be pressured into taking this.
E: Lindy was probably the wrong term. But still, it's like Chesterton's fence. We are far from fully understanding human biology... and deleting sleep will lead to unknown effects. All power to those who try, I guess.
it seems however some things that are not excluded are just one step removed from biological entities, hence
>comedians do not have a fixed amount of comedic material to spread over TV appearances, but rather, the more appearances they make, the more future appearances they are predicted to make
sure, but earlier it says that it does not apply to humans because the Lindy effect would imply that a 100 year old would have more life left than an 11 year old, which is counterintuitive, but the example given above would imply George Burns had more television appearances left to do at the age of 99 than Macaulay Culkin at the age of 9, which is just a layer of abstraction laid over the biological age property.
It’s some shit a guy called Taleb came up with. It’s a useful indicator because someone quoting Taleb unironically is someone who can’t tell that Taleb is a midwit.
I get the vibe, but I wouldn't say shocked, merely disappointed. The Black Swan's point would fit on the book's cover even if printed in the font used for the author's name, the work felt to me like 99% was just garrulous "look at me aren't I smart" padding.
Two things you'll always find someone to defend with vigor are sleep and death. A lot of humans seem to despise living in general. It's fascinating to see.
Well... Sleep and death are natural. I'm not convinced you see people "defend" death so much as (rightly) acknowledging the inevitability of it.
The latter half of your comment is rather smug, but I wouldn't look down on people who have peacefully accepted reality. Time is fleeting and we are but flowers in a field—briefly brightly bloomed and then withered.
> I wouldn't look down on people who have peacefully accepted reality
Throughout human history, all progress was achieved by people who refused to "peacefully accept reality". But I hope you also get to reap the benefits and correct your depressing mindset some day.
I'm filled with joy and it has nothing to do with my "mindset", I appreciate your concern though!
While it is tempting view all of human progress as some heroic feat of raging against the machine, it seems much more likely to me that progress came from accepting reality, and then working within the bounds of physics.
Sleep is less surprising for me to see people defend than death, to the extent that I'm not sure if I myself have or not done so.
I mean, I can directly feel the benefit of a good sleep that refreshes me in the morning, whereas there's those who have passed on whom I miss.
If I didn't need sleep, really didn't, I wouldn't seek to re-invent it; but of the two it is old age that I'd actively pay money to hold back, if treatments for both existed at the same cost per extra hour of consciousness in my lifetime.
Obviously, every single one of us needs sleep to survive. But it's a biological chore, not some sacred ritual to be celebrated. Reducing the amount of sleep that we need is worth researching. What is surprising to me is the knee-jerk reaction I see whenever the idea of looking into this is brought up.
> likely result would be employers forcing people to take the drug
How so? You can just... refuse? And do you prefer sleeping to working? Doing a job that you hate for 8h and sleeping for 8h is much worse than doing a job that you love for 16h. Something to think about.
In addition to what Qem said, some people don't have much control over their job opportunities, take whatever they can get, and in those roles do whatever they're ordered to do.
Amazon piss bottles come to mind.
Even without malice or orders, sometimes every actor in the economy can be locally motivated in a way that ends up the same. Boss gives you 40 hours, but rent is too high for a 40-hour week? Guess you're taking two jobs now.
It would be like doping in some elite sports, say road race cycling in Lance Armstrong era. Nobody would be coerced by force, but some people would start taking it, making less sleep time the new normal. With time business would adjust to expect and require it, and other people would be forced to take the drug just to not become unemployable in a market with a upshifted baseline. I think this is already happening in education, with ADHD medications. Children are likely being overdiagnosed, because in a environment with many medicated children, just displaying normal child behaviour starts looking odd, pathology-like.
> Doing a job that you hate for 8h and sleeping for 8h is much worse than doing a job that you love for 16h.
Some jobs just suck but somebody still has to do them.
I don't know much about the specifics of CPU architecture apart from the existence of assembly and different modes. Either way the explanation was still entertaining and interesting. smiiiiiiii
Wow, really clean design. I'm surprised that you could get hold of original hardware. Not sure how much of it is commodity industrial equipment Vs bespoke buttons, etc.
reply