2FA most commonly thwarts server-side compromised passwords. An API can leak credentials and an attacker still can’t access the account without the 2FA app, regardless of which app that is. The threat vector it does open you up to are a) a compromised device or b) someone with access to your master password, secret key and email account. Those are both much harder to do and you’re probably screwed in either case unless you use a ubikey or similar device.
How is it possible to have compromised password but not compromised the second factor? I don't understand the theory of leaking not enough factors. What is stopping webmasters from using 100FA?
> How is it possible to have compromised password but not compromised the second factor?
Server-side (assuming weak password storage or weak in-transit encryption) or phishing (more advanced phishers may get the codes too but only single instance of the code, not the base key).
> What is stopping webmasters from using 100FA?
The users would hunt them down and beat them mercilessly?
Anecdotally a lot of families we see in my social circle can be reliably split between single income and dual income households. We see the single income folks far more than we see the dual income folks, which tracks with this article. If I come home from work and my wife says “Sarah and family are coming for dinner tonight”, I know that my wife has tidied up the house, coordinated food and all I have to do is pour some drinks and maybe cook something on the grill (that has already been purchased and prep’d). If no one has done that? Far less likely I would see that same family that night.
Being stay at home parent is extremely isolating. It is most lonely thing one can do. You spend ovwrwhelming majority of the day completely alone. No collegues to bump into you and talking with you. If the stay at home parent does not actively organizes meetups, they are completely alone until partner comes home ... after he talked with people at work.
Kind of depends on how much you have to call with others. But yes, if you do not have calls and do not need to coordinate, wfh can end up being isolating too.
Some did out of mental health necessity. Some did not and were profoundly lonely and unhappy (my case). And some did indeed ended up having that period to be super happy.
My point is that it is profoundly unsocial way of life for the parent at home. The party even twice a week do not really make up for being completely alone with nothing challenging to do whole day. You can easily end up loosing social skills and those parties end up unfulfilling.
If you go to work and then someone else organizes a party once in a while, it is cool effortless way to keep friends. But, if the stay at home person is extroverted, there is very little social about their lifestyle.
This is a global trend that seems to follow the general decline of parenthood in almost every country. The more hostile our culture becomes to parenting the more it will decline. While it’s a personal choice to have children, there is a societal threat to declining birth rates. We would do much better to be supporting parents and encouraging family formation.
Why is this a threat to any rich country? There are millions upon millions of people who would do anything for an opportunity to come to the United States, and we don't let them in. If we ever need more people, we can turn the dial however we choose.
(This is not an argument against supporting parents. I just don't understand the concern around birth rates.)
Same thing happening all around the world, even poor countries threatened by population collapse.
Even if you can convince educated, relatively younger population of poorer countries to come and work for you, integration is a real issue. As an expat who lives in a rich country, I can say that; it's not easy.
But if most of the native population turn into seniors, especially if they start to feel like a minority(age/ethnicity/cultural gap), I think that would be very annoying for them.
The world is overpopulated, population collapse is a good thing. Except for the economy. Which also happens to be a good thing considering how far we're into overshoot.
Not enough people to take care of seniors? That's not really a problem. The problem is it pays better to do other work that's useless or downright destructive to society, like trying to show users more ads to get them to consume more.
Blood-and-soil types get a little antsy when you suggest letting in... people with perhaps a more tan complexion, let's say. They tend to dress it up with other language, though.
Agreed. I was happy for decline of world population but seeing the rise of anti-envirmentalism makes me think that child-free people might be more inclined to be selfish. After me, the deluge!
Edit: to be clear, I see possibility of selfishness as a side-effect of being childfree, not a corelation.
How about being a dick makes you less inclined to have children? I’m inclined to believe selfish people are less inclined to have children (there will be ‘some’ that see them as a trophy, but fewer than the ones that don’t want them at all).
I have a kid, and I'm very sad about the state of the world my daughter going to live. I was relatively lucky, she is not. If I didn't have her, I'm sure I would care much much less about stuff I failed to change for the better, it would be much easier to say "f.k it, that's natural order of things, history repeats itself", give up and live my life fast and lose.
Selfish or otherwise unpleasant people can be found in any demographic: childless people, people with children, people over 1.80m, people under 1.80m, etc.
Some demographics certainly have higher ratios of unpleasant people. In some demographics it's even close to 100% (e.g. neo-Nazis).
It's entirely unclear to me if the rates are different for people without children. If they are, then you really need to do better than this kind of armchair analysis that you've posted here.
If you think that simply having children makes one selfless, I recommend talking to like... 80% of the people with parents for five minutes about their childhoods.
No, there's an _economic_ threat to declining births (and also a demographic threat makes certain classes of people... well, let's just say "itchy"), but that is an entirely artificial problem that we could solve, if it wouldn't hit NBC Universal on the pocketbook.
I think that also depends on the story. You saw far different reporting on Covid from the two sources. Some of the stuff coming out of the right was crazy but some ended up being the truth and the left leaning sources clearly had their marching orders dialed in and even cast things that were eventually proven true to be “lies” at the time.
Crazy that ended up true? And what “lies”? In the country where I was back then (Hungary), it was quite different, but that’s also because abuse there was and there is still no opposition. COVID was just simply mishandled, and full of corruption, just as usual.
Mechanics in Ancient Greece meant the study of mechanical physics. So essentially scientists. If your focus is on the material world (material here being ‘matter’ not consumer goods) then you necessarily see science as a higher aim than virtue.
But you do need to factor in geography.
Solar cells in space can be “always on and operating at peak efficiency” directly over the places that need the power, significantly reducing the need to build long distance transmission lines.
