Ha? This is even dangerous! You're basically yearning for an authoritarian regime. With simplistic argument and some false assumptions you conclude it's more efficient bcz it does not waste basically trial/error. However, this has been proven times after time that such "alternative political philosophy" will defeat its purpose and become highly corrupt. Furthermore, we're in a incomplete information game, evolution is a must, and you can not 'design' things apriori.
Western societies, at least when it comes to political philosophy, are far more efficient than their eastern counterparts if you meant it.
wholeheartedly agree, just it's not "getting better at representing what I thought". Instead, it's a tool of thought process, which is dynamic. These to interwoven in a dynamic relation and it's hard to separate them.
Many justify a long-term, sometimes subtle (even vague) concept that has been codified through years of education, culture, propaganda, and tangible massive on-the-ground benefits. That concept and the reason people on the east coast (Hans) support exploiting, manipulating, and projecting power on the west (Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, etc.) is determined by geopolitics. In one case, China's water resources and long-term economic stability depend on controlling the highlands in the west. The rest is just fabricated reasoning sugarcoating their strategy to cover this strategic vulnerability. A typical Han Chinese with roots in the developed east might not think in these terms transparently. Still, it has years of education and the harsh reality of its region to transform this into an assortment of (un)justified reasoning. They need it to control and secure their stability.
This has also been the case in many other regions, for example, the Middle East, where such harsh geopolitical realities have been codified in different nationalistic and sectarian fractions.
You know what is wrong with this statement? This is normalization: "Yes, it's bad, but you've done it too". Probably, the next is "This is part of development and we go through it..., as well!". Anyway, this sort of rationalization are one of the tricks that authoritarian regimes do and interestingly often then recruit western journalist white wash them and with a diverse assortment of such rationalizations, and much more delicate and elaborate.
> Probably, the next is "This is part of development and we go through it..., as well!".
The next should be "if we (in the US) think this is horrible, what are we doing to try to make it right with indigenous people in our own country, where we actually have influence over the state's policies?", not "whoops, guess if we acknowledge the US did that too it can't be that bad."
Agree but I'm not sure, if my comment understood correctly.
1. I didn't talk about should, I describe the problem with parent comment i.e. immorality of normalization. I have heard such justification before which goes to similar next step. That next step was what the normalizers might say.
2. It's from the point of white washers not the moral stand point that you depicts
3. As a proof, just check the comment in this section by @dirtyid which describe the 'next' I talked about:
> Behaving like a "savage" has very little to do with time but where countries are in their development.
~~(fun fact, I didn't saw it the first time and it was delightful seeing a proof in next step above)~~
Again, If it wasn't clear originally, What I liked to bring attention to is the white-washing (normalization) of tyrannies. It has been done for Nazis and it's currently being done in western journalists and lobbyist. Look at any sort of authoritarian atrocity and you'll see a white washer in NY or DC normalizing it.
Bitwarden is free for individuals and couples. So, it's free user-friendly (WAF!!) wise [0] in comparison to 1pass [1]. But much more important thing is the fact that bitwarden is open source and 1pass not. Closed source is deal-breaker for me.
"Crippled" is a big word. It does everything that KeePass would do, for example; it only falls short when it comes to sharing passwords among a group or family (you can send a secret via BW Send, but you cannot have a shared store unless you pay for Premium).
Yubikey and its likes are advanced features that the overwhelming majority of regular users will never need.
"Crippled" implies a degree of everyday suffering in the "cripple", or a downgrade from a previous state of health. The advanced features in Bitwarden were never free, in fact I think some of them were eventually added to free plans too. I honestly don't even want stuff like yubikey support, and could see that as feature bloat!
I don't expect everything to be free, I'm perfectly fine with the freemium model when the set of free features is reasonable - as, in my humble opinion, is the case with Bitwarden. So I wouldn't use a word like "crippled" when it's more like "normal for regular users vs enhanced for advanced needs".
I thought that it had all the same features, just not cloud sync. As far as I know the Yubikey is used for authenticating with their sync server. It doesn't actually help with the encryption
Bitwarden's free plan does have end-to-end encrypted cloud sync with no device limit. The free plan lacks TOTP support, but Bitwarden's $10/year plan does include TOTP support and is cheaper than 1Password's $35.88/year plan. Bitwarden is also open source, while 1Password is not.
I'm referring to Bitwarden Authenticator, which stores TOTP secrets and displays 6-digit codes like Google Authenticator does.[1] This feature requires a Bitwarden Premium account, with the $10/year plan being the cheapest option.[2] (Self-hosting through Vaultwarden is another option.[3])
This is separate from having TOTP 2FA on the Bitwarden account itself, which is available on the free plan.[4]
Well let me ask the much more obvious question, for something as important as protecting your passwords, why on earth would you go with a proprietary service where you have no idea about the security, that could take away your access at a whim without any recourse for you?
> Because much like privacy, password security shouldn't always be only a premium option.
So then who foots the bill? Password managers are the duct tape used to protect a user because we don't inherently trust application providers.
> proprietary code is a deal break for lots of people
Sort of. First, "lots of people" seems like "lots of people" because we're on HN. The wider population doesn't care whether your application is proprietary or not - they just want something that works. Apple's wall garden is proof of this. Second, you can still charge for a product and it be open source. An application being open source simply provides an audit log of the code and allows for "wisdom of the crowd" when it comes to bug and security issues. So yes I agree that having a password manager be openly auditable is a great feature, but I (and many others) likely would rather have the features of strong UX and known tenure (OSS tools get abandoned all of the time) then we would having an auditable source code.
Bitwarden does charge for certain features like TOTP support, organizations, and enterprise features. They manage to have subscription income while remaining open source, whereas 1Password chooses to keep its code closed source.
If you are saying that Bitwarden is worse because it offers a free plan, I disagree. It's nice that Bitwarden offers a security-audited* password manager to those who can't afford a subscription, who aren't ready to pay for one, or who don't have the means to make payments online. Unlike 1Password, Bitwarden is not pressured to deliver high returns to venture capital firms, and Bitwarden can focus on providing its product to its users at superior price points.
> Unlike 1Password, Bitwarden is not pressured to deliver high returns to venture capital firms, and Bitwarden can focus on providing its product to its users at superior price points
Well said - and this is the important part of the 'non-proprietary' argument of mine (above) - right now I consider 1Password's real customers being their shareholders/investors, not its users - the users are just another tool they use to bring value to their real customers (investors,etc.).
> If you are saying that Bitwarden is worse because it offers a free plan, I disagree.
For the record, I'm not. The overall discussion was that charging for a product was somehow bad. Bitwarden does charge for their product, just at higher tier levels. My bigger point is that you do want a provider that is going to stay solvent so charging money (which Bitwarden also does) is not some perverse way of satisfying customers.
The current scientific publication model is only benefits the gatekeepers in publishing industry. It directly goes to the packet of publishing industry by ripping off the tax-payers twice with a steep price. Nowadays research institution pay high fees both for paywall and open-access. No matter you access or publish you some how give tax-payers money to these publishing industries. It has been shown the steep price is also un-justified as peer-review are done freely (for credit, not money) by science worker themselves and there are plenty of open-review and open-science projects which prove the price is not justified.
It might worth it to repeat part of my comment in [1]:
> The current business model as a whole is a legacy institution based on earlier monopoly by a charlatan named Maxwell [2]. He basically lured scientist by shiny hotels+extra packages to build the initial reputation and then monopolize the entire industry for decades. You can find a good review of this scheme from below YouTube video[3].
I think it BCZ actually doesn't stem from happiness or even lack of it (say hello to functioning unhappy parents). Children give strong "purpose" and hijack the dopamine circuitry which is the real driver behind human drive, evolutionary speaking (yes they also hijack some other circuitry as well, but the real drive is the dopamine system). TLDR, you're right, it works on another dimension which is even more fundamental than happiness dimension. The dopamine circuitry stems from lizard brain and quite old, evolutionary speaking.
Just a note, the Triune brain theory, implied by you saying "lizard brain", is not actually part of scientific consensus. It was incredibly popular (even being cited by Carl Sagan) and still retains a lot of popularity among the public, but it seems it is no longer regarded as factual.
> "The preponderance of the cerebral cortex (which, with its supporting structures, makes up approximately 80 percent of the brain's total volume) is actually a recent development in the course of evolution. The cortex contains the physical structures responsible for most of what we call ''brainwork": cognition, mental imagery, the highly sophisticated processing of visual information, and the ability to produce and understand language. But underneath this layer reside many other specialized structures that are essential for movement, consciousness, sexuality, the action of our five senses, and more—all equally valuable to human existence. Indeed, in strictly biological terms, these structures can claim priority over the cerebral cortex. In the growth of the individual embryo, as well as in evolutionary history, the brain develops roughly from the base of the skull up and outward. The human brain actually has its beginnings, in the four-week-old embryo, as a simple series of bulges at one end of the neural tube."
Despite what that paper says, the lizard analogy goes to this, and I agree it's loose, outdated and misleading one but doesn't change the argument we're discussing here.
Western societies, at least when it comes to political philosophy, are far more efficient than their eastern counterparts if you meant it.