FireBeyond

Where it gets worse is about a month ago he literally sat giving an interview at the WH where someone asked about insider trading and he said "My kids are insider trading all the time now".

Not even denying it, admitting it and proud of it.

It’s not great with Car Play. For amusements sake my partners name in my contacts is My Love <3 (first name “My”).

Siri in CarPlay just swallows the name. “New text message from [pause]. Would you like to…”

I was going to say “to be fair”, but it’s still ridiculous but my understanding is that the 130 one was wireless only and the higher one and new one are Ethernet too (not that a NIC adds that cost…)

There was something that implied that it was using CarPlay somewhere in the stack.

I find it frustrating that I can’t drive HomeKit externally. I have a large home ecosystem, something in the order of 100 devices, from lights to outlets to motion sensors to security and locks to the garage door, some native and some bridged via HomeBridge. I have a bunch of scenes and automations.

But I have, for example, a couple of Brilliant smart wall panels (one gang sized little panels with lighting and other controls) that I have to duplicate because despite the Brilliant being able to expose devices as a bridge to HomeKit I can’t say “Run this Scene” because Apple doesn’t allow external integrations to do so.

> no one supported exporting passkeys at the time and I believe the only ones who supported passkey sharing of any kind was Apple

What exactly is the practical difference between "sharing" a key and "exporting" it?

As it is, Apple's Passwords app as of today absolutely allows importing and exporting of Passkeys ("Transfer to another app").

> I believe person who commented on that GitHub PR was trying to explain that instead of implementing export to plaintext file on disk, it would be a better idea to implement the Credential Exchange Protocol, which was almost finished at the time.

This is a very diplomatic presentation.

This was in Tim's very first reply:

> To be very honest here, you risk having KeePassXC blocked by relying parties (similar to #10406).

> I've already heard rumblings that KeepassXC is likely to be featured in a few industry presentations that highlight security challenges with passkey providers, the need for functional and security certification, and the lack of identifying passkey provider attestation (which would allow RPs to block you, and something that I have previously rallied against but rethinking as of late because of these situations).

> Asking you to put basic protections in place and collaborate with the ecosystem/industry is hardly "anti-user-choice mentality".

"Sure would be a shame if the industry had to block your tool from our standard."

> which would have allowed for attackers to convince non-technical users to export all their passkeys and then send them to an attacker.

I mean, if you can convince a user to do that, there's not much more needed to say "and you can set a password on the encrypted export so it's all secure!" and get an encrypted export too.

> Fast forward to today... and it looks like there's movement towards doing exactly that:

Oh, it only took 2 1/2 years. Most of which was waiting on the FIDO Alliance to actually define a standard:

> > I don't quite understand why requiring file protection/encryption can't be a temporary minimum bar here.

> There are hundreds of encryption options to choose from. Sure, we can choose AES-256-GCM. To what end? If no other product implements that encryption option, then exporting becomes worthless for portability.

> Define the standard first (just pick one or two), then publish it. There is no need to spend time debating the choice, plenty of great options to choose from.

Indeed, at the time:

> This is out of scope for the protocol and data format. Neither -and to use the working names here- CREEP (CREdential Exchange Protocol) nor CEF (Credential Exchange Format) should make any determinations about how the importer, exporter, or platform should store their keys, but we'll say that it should be secure.

But Tim didn't mention any such thing. As to this claim:

> it would be a better idea to implement the Credential Exchange Protocol, which was almost finished at the time

"was almost finished"?

CXP is still in "Working Draft" status as of today, where it has been for 2 years.

CXF (the format) is a "proposed standard" as of today.

There was a member of the FIDO Consortium in a Keepass PR comment section implying that they would blacklist Keepass as a "responsible party" if they didn't remove sharing/export functionality that Google, Apple and others had at the same time.

These bodies need industry involvement/support (I've worked in similar WGs at both Red Hat and Microsoft), but it's very easy to engage in behavior that could easily be ladder-pulling.

> Yandex Cloud wasn't providing their services to any military companies per my knowledge

1) or government organizations?

2) why would you have any knowledge of who Yandex's customers are?

What? Citation needed. I would say that BLM has been in a long tail for years now.

But if you want to claim you were being barraged by BLM up until several days ago but now nothing at all? I'm ... "skeptical".

> Email OTPs, notably, aren't 2FA by definition, since your Email address might be only password-protected

What? 2FA is something I have, something I know. I know my password for your web app, and I have access to a separate account. It's not a recursive 2FA, "it's only 2FA if one of the factors has its own 2FA".

Oh, that's good. They've moved on from threatening password managers of their ability to be considered a trusted app if they offer that functionality, like they did to KeePass. "We'd hate to have to blacklist KeePass".

There's already been a few media outlets (and not just the obvious way right pseudo-media) who have started using it, eager to stay in his good book.

It's like the FIDO(?) Working Group and passkeys. "Don't you try to offer exporting or sharing passkeys between devices or we'll revoke your ability to be a trusted origin for relying parties", meanwhile "Oh, Apple wants to offer this via AirDrop? Step right up." Rules for the big boys, not for you.

Pulp Fiction?

There's many problems here. But scream bloody murder about propaganda and then push this on people:

> If Hamas, the democratically elected government of Gaza, has a problem with that then it can surrender.

The last election in Gaza was over two decades ago.

Hamas seized and have kept control of Gaza. Coincidentally, they are the only people with weapons in Gaza.

> Unfortunately, that philosophy has been lost to time, and people in coastal cities in California seem to feel perfectly comfortable lecturing ranch hands in Montana what to do and how to live their lives.

The rural folk in Wyoming and Montana get far more say relative to their populace on how Californians should live than vice versa.

It's not urban versus rural. That... is just another variation of having more vote proportional to your land. Land doesn't vote, people do. But in the US, land also votes some, which seems ironic given a nation founded in part on getting away from rights largely embued by how much land you own.

Except it was illegal, so it wasn't a loophole. It was something technically doable, not legally.

You can get married in multiple states - though some states may share, most don't share marriage registration. Nothing will stop you. But you're still breaking the law of bigamy.

There's the "in between" of "behind the pharmacy counter", requires you to interact with a tech if not a pharmacist to ask/answer some questions before dispensing, but at point of sale.

(CPR instructor, paramedic, instructor) - all outcomes are better with CAB. Circulation first, or only.

Two main reasons: 1: blood can remain somewhat perfused with oxygen for about 8 minutes - but needs to circulate, 2: as a rough rule of thumb, your chance of survival goes down about 10% for every minute that you need compressions but aren't getting them.

> Even knowing CPR...you feel helpless until they show up. And once they do, ask immediately if they need you. If not...get out of the way.

As a paramedic, the first thing we did on scene if we didn't arrive with the cavalry (our standard dispatch for CPR was 2 BLS units, i.e. 4-8 EMTs, an ALS unit, i.e. 1-2 paramedics) is "Hey, keep going, we'll coach you, while we get set up", because if you're doing solid compressions, great, that means we can do the things you can't (get vascular access, establish an advanced airway, rhythm, etc.)

> The fire department put together a reunion with the dispatcher, me, my gf, the firefighters that arrived first and did the whole thing, and the EMT team, because they say it’s not often someone survives full cardiac arrest outside a hospital.

Witnessed and early compressions saved her life.

Depending on where you are in the country, even then, your chances of survival vary greatly based on where you are. NY? 11%. Detroit? 7%.

Want to survive? Have your out of hospital arrest witnessed, early compressions and defib, and have it happen in Rochester County MN, King County WA, Pierce County WA or Thurston County WA, where the numbers are in the 40s generally, and those four counties typically are the top 4, though in varying order year to year.

In many cases, what happens is that your normal sinus rhythm degenerates into a shockable rhythm (VF/VT, with an AED, paramedics may manually shock other rhythms), and then, from there, into other worse rhythms (PEA - pulseless electrical activity, asystole) which are generally much harder to come back from. Even with multiple shocks, or ROSC (return of spontaneous circulation), re-arrest is very common, because we've only really "rebooted" the heart, not solved the underlying problem, which is why the other factor in cardiac arrest survival of those origins is "door to balloon time" (i.e. from arrival in the ED to a stent being placed in the cath lab).

Stented within an hour is excellent - the current "gold standard" is still <90m, though most leading hospitals are (and should, it's already more the case in Europe) pushing for D2B of <60m.

My honest, and objective as possible opinion is that this post is actively dangerous. Doing CPR at 60 compressions / minute is not resuscitating anybody. And if your patient has pulmonary edema, ICP etc., if they were breathing or at any hope of resuscitation... not any more.

I know the author is a physician, and I am/was merely a paramedic - but everything in that post was debunked 20+ years ago as not improving outcomes (or worse), leading me to think that was when they retired... or last did CE.

Although I suspect you also know this, just given the use of "ROSC".

Also, in most places, calling 911 for a cardiac arrest will result in the dispatcher staying on the phone with you and doing telephonic CPR coaching (dispatchers typically work in pairs - one is talking to you on the phone, and the other has the phone in one earpiece, but the other is radio, so they're dispatching units while listening, and doing call-taking notes between them.

Conceptually, yes. And I know I jumped into a few places, and responded, though I did attempt to supply sources.

There's a few people in this thread shouting loudly about it because, in contrast to many things here, this is something that if you do, in contrary to the content in the linked blog post, you absolutely could actively kill someone.

Which isn't to say everything you've said isn't valid either: look like the calm reasoned person, not the screaming lunatic. But I can also see why some people are "for the love of anything, please please please don't do this".

See my post. Using a passive leg raise does shift venous blood from both the legs and the splanchnic bed toward the central circulation, but this was generally a thing for hypovolemic shock (hence the comparison to transfusion, which otherwise seems odd to measure for a non-traumatic cardiac arrest), but generally discredited, even for that, 20+ years ago.

Most arrest patients are primary arrhythmic or hypoxic - there's not a volume issue.

Defib. Compressions. 911. No more, no less.

Is your patient conscious, pulsatile with suspected non-traumatic hypovolemia or vasovagal syncope? Then try a PLR. If not, or you stare blankly at those words, don't.

(Retired paramedic of 14 years.)

Sorry, that blows my mind more. This advice is twenty plus years out of date. It had been large discredited before I even began as a lowly EMT in the early 2000s. It doesn't help. It's actually more likely to do more harm than good. And I realize I'm a retired paramedic arguing with a physician, but at the very least:

Doing compressions at 60/minute is not going to resuscitate your patient if they are in cardiac arrest. Ever.

https://cpr.heart.org/en/resuscitation-science/cpr-and-ecc-g...

> 3. For adults in cardiac arrest, it is reasonable for rescuers to perform chest compressions at a rate of 100 to 120/min.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8152146/ "Clinical outcomes and safety of passive leg raising in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial":

> In this trial, PLR during CPR did not improve survival to hospital discharge

Sorry, dang, but while not litigating this - the advice in this post is outdated, and factually inaccurate, and entirely likely to cause actual harm when performed by a layperson.

And it has been discredited, long ago (at least 20 years now). It doesn't work. See my sibling post.

Not a physician. Paramedic with 14 years experience, teaching, and a Masters in Biomed Sci. Though it's a few years rusty, so forgive a little hiccup if there is.

There is so much wrong with this post, that I actually flagged it.

> (on the chest, hard, 60 times a minute)

What? You need about 100-120 times per minute to have any hope of building up any vascular pressure to perfuse tissue. You lose that within seconds of stopping compressions and it takes time to build up.

This is absolutely not what you should be doing. The physiology works, but generally on people with a pulse. And generally not for anything therapeutic but diagnostic (it's mostly used to assess fluid responsiveness).

> By doing so you increase blood return to the central circulation — the heart and lungs, where it's needed to restore spontaneous heartbeat — from the periphery, where it's irrelevant for survival in a circulatory crisis.

This is not basic physiology, it's inaccurate in many ways. Much arrest, regardless of cause, is an electrical issue, hence defibrillation as one of the two markers towards potential survival "early access to defib and effective chest compressions". (Also, think of defib as rebooting the heart, not jump-starting it). Getting blood to the cardiac muscle (better hope there's no tamponade) is doing very little in itself to restart the heart - I can push oxygenated blood around your body all day with excellent compressions but it's not kicking you out of asystole.

> The best part is that you can't do any harm.

I mean, it absolutely can. For one, laypeople are notoriously "not great" at diagnosing cardiac arrest in all but the most obvious cases, in which case survival odds are poor. That's why we tell people to begin compressions if the patient is unresponsive. It's hard enough to teach new EMTs to reliably find a weak/thready carotid pulse or the absence thereof.

Better hope your patient doesn't have spinal injuries. Better hope your patient doesn't have pulmonary edema, better hope your patient isn't having a stroke or other issues around intracranial pressure.

Stop fucking around with urban legends and debunked theories (once upon a time, for hypovolemic shock, a variation of this was used) and get on the chest. Shitty chest compressions are better than none.

This is so ... problematic and simplistic, and doesn't actually solve the problem.

RFK Jr spent a bunch of time lambasting how less American children needed to go to university these days and focus on getting a job, buying a home, starting a family (hah).

Somewhere in amongst those posts, his wife posted some selfies of them at their kids' Harvard graduation.

They very much want the Eloi and the Morlock, and are counting on law enforcement/military/ICE to keep the Morlock in check. "My kids need to go to college, yours need to learn how to fix their cars and build them new homes."

This is such a weird phrasing.

"We prefer to tax our residents".

No, blue states generally prefer:

- better educational outcomes (8 of the top 10 states are blue)

- healthcare access (10 of 10)

- lower crime (7 of 10)

- better rehab outcomes and resulting lower incarceration (10 of 10)

- wellbeing/QOL/happiness (7 of 10)

- average income (9 of 10)

Look, I'm sure tax is theft or something, or people need to get back to debating what the right type of barbed wire is to put on a fence to keep out the roving migrant caravans that show up in the news three months before every election and who all turn around in the days following. But yeah, interesting that that's what you take out of it.