LocalPCGuy

I have seen an exception to this with Microsoft Entra. I was not able to store and use the passkey in my password manager of choice, I had to save it in Microsoft Authenticator. I haven't tried again lately since that was for a previous job, and I didn't look into the underlying reason it failed, whether it was attestation of some sort or something else about how they set it up.

I'm generally pro-passkeys, but also acknowledge they are a hot mess for the average non-techy consumer. And there does seem to be room for the screws to tighten, and we definitely need to resist that.

Adding the kind of sharing it sounds like you are describing would just shift the attacks to that new attack surface. The attackers would basically try to trigger and intercept those shares.

If machines, browsers, phones etc are set up properly (yes, I know, big ask, especially with the confusion surrounding this, so I acknowledge the caveat), then the vast majority of passkey requests will go right into the preferred method (i.e. 1Password, Bitwarden, even Apple, browser of choice, etc). And most of those now will allow that passkey then to be used on a different device if signed in and synced.

I have found it to work pretty well with a password manager. I would suspect OS level passkeys would be much less "portable", especially across different manufacturer devices, like Mac/Windows, or even Windows/Android, etc. Which is why I waited to start using passkeys until I could use a password manager to store them, and I turned off all other passkey storages (same as I did for password storage before).

The spec is quite thorough and well thought out in this regard. Despite what it "sounds like" when described, it is very secure, even with a variety of implementations. What is far weaker is that most sites that offer passkeys also offer a multitude of fallback recovery options.

That QR code from a malicious website will not actually communicate with the malicious website with authentication from the correct origin, most QR code phishing scams do not actually use passkeys but rather fall back to trying to get the user's fallback login information (if any). By spec, if the domain does not perfectly match the domain where the passkey was originally created, the phone (or passkey provider) will fail to find a matching passkey. And the domain is derived, not provided by the QR code data (it's all in the spec).

Basically, it's very hard if not basically impossible to spoof a QR code to access the real passkey via a malicious site. (caveat, without already having compromised something like the user's DNS, maybe? Even then the site would likely fail the cryptographic checks.)

I have done exactly that. I've seen your bias re: psychology as a whole and it appears to color your research and information gathering. I hope, like I have been doing even if not apparent from my replies, that you are able to consider your viewpoints and whether they actually hold true.

Along those lines, I do appreciate this conversation. I do like questioning what I believe, and I had to steelman some of the views you put forth and then see where they then didn't hold up. I do that while being willing to change my own mind if that is where the evidence leads, but the research presented didn't hold up to scrutiny. So while I definitely disagree with you, I do so from a place of appreciation for pushing me to do more digging into this things and whether *I* should hold the beliefs that I do.

Your (and the authors of your paper) reliance on biomarkers are not how most psychiatric conditions are diagnosed. The fact you even ask about 5 vs 6 demonstrates a lack of understanding (or willful ignorance of) of how and why the diagnostic criteria are what they are.

Completely disagree with your conspiracy theory about the drugs. That's just laughable. Obviously need to prevent abuse, but there are both legitimate uses of and reasons to restrict general use of the drugs. Not to mention there are non-stimulant drugs as well, which kinda stomps on that argument.

Because others can say this much better and with better sources and citation than I can, both directly address many of the criticisms made in the essay shared and the faulty reasoning based on it.

International Consensus Statement on ADHD: https://www.russellbarkley.org/factsheets/Consensus2002.pdf

The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 Evidence-based conclusions about the disorder: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33549739/

I skimmed over that paper, and may do a deeper dive later, although doesn't really seem worth it. I thought it was going to be a scientific study, but it reads more like a essay from two authors with a specific viewpoint trying to convince others, via slanted/biased text, that other text and language is baising an entire industry and population? I find that questionable at best.

And while the authors made a lot of claims, and cited some other studies, they don't really, IMO, prove their point in any scientifically valid way, or even as a solid, well-formed argument. Add in that the authors are sociologists, not neuroscientists or psychiatrists/psychologists, and it makes me question both their claims and understanding of the topic.

I did catch that one of their main points (that you mentioned as well) boils down to not having a physical test or clear biomarker. But that applies to nearly all psychiatric conditions. Saying the absence of those kinds of tests is the same as the absence of a real condition ignores the research that has been done demonstrating functional impairment (including twin studies, some indications of genetic heritability). The paper presents a specific sociological viewpoint, and that isn't the current scientific consensus.

Like I said, probably not gonna convince you, just dropping this for others that might see the essay link and think it might actually provide validity when it does not. That essay does not really make significant arguments against ADHD.

It does present good warnings to be aware of pressures that would distort diagnosis and I do think there is good reason to be cautious about over diagnosing, or diagnosing by unqualified personnel, both of which do happen of course. But the article goes too far beyond that.

You seem to have your mind made up, so just gonna say that for anyone else reading this, this is not accurate or scientific information. Lacks an understanding of how the medication works, the differences in kinds of medications. The fact it used to be legal is not relevant. Misrepresents how ADHD is diagnosed, the criteria for it (by professionals), and even to a lesser extent the biomarkers statement.

The word you are looking for is Inattentive - when diagnosed they should state whether the diagnosis presents as Predominantly Inattentive, Predominantly Hyperactive/Impulsive, or Combination.

Correct. People with focus issues do not necessarily have ADHD. That requires meeting a defined set of diagnostic criteria, including that it has an impairing effect on an individual's life.

Also, just because it seems like a simple lack of focus to you externally, that does not mean the person does not have a disorder.

Not going to get into a back/forth due to the pseudo-conspiracy end, just stating that this is significantly inaccurate.

Those are some possible outcomes, yes, but it is not a black/white thing, and that is actually WHY it's important to work with a qualified doctor to monitor medication, effects, dosage and so on, and make adjustments as necessary.

Different medications work very differently as it relates to dopamine, uptake, production, etc. And there are also non-stimulant medications that may be effective for some folks.

Be careful and approach `HealthyGamerGG` with a bit of healthy skepticism. I have benefited from a number of his videos, but recently small things have lead to me growing concerned that as his reach/influence grows, the same motivations that existed early on mutate as with many influencers. Not suggesting anything negative per se, just recommending a variety of sources and validating his claims. For another source, Dr. Barkley's videos are very good.

Dr. Barkley does a great job presenting research and factual information in a way that is easy to understand and I've also found it very helpful personally. Was diagnosed in adulthood, so resources like this were great finds during my hyperfocus dive into gaining some measure of understanding of ADHD.

I agree and it would be great if we could do that and ideally there would be roles for people that are not able to maintain the strict structure and their contributions were valued even if different.

That said, I think we agree that accepting the treatment folks need to function in society as it exists is a step in the right direction.

To your point about life saving - untreated ADHD folks have a 2-3x mortality rate, generally due to accidental cause or risky behaviors. Studies have shown that medication can have a significant statistical decrease in the overall mortality rate. So while it's not a cut/dry as insulin, it is still "life saving" for many.

The reasons you cite are why it is a controlled substance, and why it should be taken under supervision of a doctor. But they aren't arguments against the drug itself or that it is in a different "category" of drug. It is a treatment, and like any treatment, the pros/cons should be discussed with medical professionals and appropriate decisions made for each individual.

And yes, sadly our society fails people who are different and our medical system fails people with regards to their medication all the time - that can happen with any medication though. And yes, consequences vary greatly depending on the medication.

I agree that ADHD is a serious condition for many people, and that it's overly romanticized and that isn't good when it comes to getting help for those that do need it.

To that point, I'm going push back on this language just a bit:

> you end up addicted and pretty much permanently require drugs to function well

That is negatively framing medication, which if taken properly as prescribed is no different than any other medication someone might take to help with a chronic health condition. It slightly encourages and leans into the idea that ADHD is "fixable" without medication and so taking medication is a problem (or due to a weakness, etc).

I'm not discounting the value of other forms of non-medical treatment, but in many case medication IS appropriate as part of the overall treatment that a person requires to manage their ADHD. We should not use language that stigmatizes treatment that should be between a person and their doctor.

If you don't think AI will include sponsors/ads/etc once someone comes out on top, well, I might have a bridge to sell you.

Seriously though, I'm not sure why Google evolving in this manner precludes them from having a profitable business model. Right now we're subsidizing the costs (probably just a bit) and having ongoing subscription revenue they can increase as needed (particularly in the "google won the race" scenario) will be key before they even have to consider layering advertising on top.

Features don't exist until Apple "invents" them /sarcasm

Every 5 years on average since the late 90s the industry has doubled in size. Add in natural attrition (and the other things you mentioned, ageism, management or other tech adjecent careers, etc.), and even accounting for a modest number of "second career devs" starting later in life rather than out of college, you still have an industry that skews younger simply by virtue of overall growth patterns.

I think that is significantly overlooked when people ask "where are the 50+ engineers?".

Amazon did re-enable downloads for books without DRM, in the same place in the Content Library. Not as good as it was before, but better than nothing.

While there was a lot of FUD in the media, there were also a lot of scenarios that were actually possible but were averted due to a LOT of work and attention ahead of time. It should be looked at, IMO, as a success of communication, warnings, and a lot of effort that nothing of major significance happened.

Unless you're forced into using certain tool (work, etc), start by standardizing on a single tool. That's one reason a lot of people like Obsidian, but there are plenty of similar tools, or you can just write markdown in your editor of choice. Then set of some sort of sync so you have it everywhere you are (mobile can be a bit tricky for some set-ups) and commit to using that method as much as possible for your notes.

You may want to do as described and link to Slack messages (etc), but just remember any external link should be treated as ephemeral. You may not have access to the Slack anymore, for example. That may mean you don't need that note either, or it may mean you lost access to a node on your knowledge graph, you have to determine whether that matters.

By starting now, at least everything going forward is captured in a way you can both own and utilize it. Then it may be a bit of a pain and some manual work to get existing notes into your tool of choice, but you can determine what needs to be in there from other tools as you go forward.

Bit sad that the DevTools Accessibility Inspector was one of the "superfluous" items, at least without a "if you're not a dev" type of disclaimer. If you do any web development, seems like a worthwhile item and I'm happy it is surfaced by default to help promote it's use.

Obviously, no issues with non-devs who would never use it disabling it.

This is a great reminder that I need to re-incorporate exercise into my routines, thanks! It fell out a little while back, and it has a very positive effect overall.

Resist the urge to over-complicate things. With ADHD, it's really easy to hyperfocus and end up building a "beautiful" system that doesn't work at all for you. Then you give up and start all over. So instead, pick small things that you can incorporate into routines, which are a saving grace especially with ADHD - just include enough space for a bit of flexibility so it doesn't get stale/boring.

For instance, I have a morning routine which ensures I'm "presentable"/etc. When I start work I immediately create the day's note, go to the previous day and review, copy over any ongoing tasks, etc. My day note is the same thing every day: Things I did, Things I need to do, Meeting notes (important meeting notes get extracted to their own file), Random notes. Then setting in to work. Evenings are bit more flexible and the weekends tend to be the wild west, bit of a reset so I don't feel "trapped" in a cycle, etc.

I do struggle with weekly/monthly or longer intermittent routines. Even stuff like doing bills (automated as much as possible), re-ordering prescriptions, etc. So it's always a process.

Last thing so as not to go too long - not everyone runs into this, but in case you've gotten down on yourself at times and now realize it might be ADHD, give your self a break / forgive yourself. Same thing going forward. Not an excuse, not continuing to seek improvement, but realizing that when you stumble, there is a reason and it may not be something you can actually control. Reflect on what you could do to prevent it in the future, but do it without self-blame or criticism. Be kind to yourself, in other words.

FWIW, I do aim for inbox-zero for email, and similar for chat apps (Slack/Teams). Otherwise it piles up and gets overwhelming. I'm referring more to things like - "only the exact thing you're currently working on open" part. I agree systems are needed. For me it's Obsidian for notes, inbox zero, and OneTab extension to allow me to remove tabs without fear of "losing" them completely. I've learned that it's also a trap to over-complicate my system, even something like Todoist which is fairly minimal was semi-problematic, although I may come back to it - just using manual TODO checklists in Obsidian with a small table that pulls them all into a single dashboard file for reference.

The author found something that works for them, but for some folks who have working memory issues (i.e. ADHD), using visual cues as reminders is one of the top tips in ways to address the issue. This can seem messy to some, but for those that need it, it is a lifeline. As a contrast to the author, if I put something in a drawer, it might be months before I remember it, even if it was something that absolutely needed to be dealt with (and yes, there will often be consequences of having not done the thing, and this has to be balanced against leaving everything out which isn't good either). Electronically, if I close Slack/Teams, I might go hours before remembering to open it and check in - maybe great for focus, not so great for team work.

I've found that for me, spreading things out and having visual cues allows my brain to relax and focus on the task at hand, because I know I don't have to use a memory slot to remember to do something that I don't have a visual cue for, because every so often I see that cue and know it isn't going anywhere until I have time to deal with it. Almost the exact opposite of the anxiety the author describes. (And before it's suggested, yes, I also take notes and put important tasks there, but it isn't as helpful for my brain to let something go compared to having a visual cue.)

Thanks for pulling/including those quotes

> Claude is an LLM. It can't keep slaves or torture people.

Yet... I would push back and argue that with advances in parallel with robotics and autonomous vehicles, both of those things are distinct near future possibilities. And even without the physical capability, the capacity to blackmail has already been seen, and could be used as a form of coercion/slavery. This is one of the arguable scenarios for how an AI can enlist humans to do work they may not ordinarily want to do to enhance AI beyond human control (again, near future speculation).

And we know torture does not have to be physical to be effective.

I do think the way we currently interact probably does not enable these kinds of behaviors, but as we allow more and more agentic and autonomous interactions, it likely would be good to consider the ramifications and whether (or not) safeguards are needed.

Note: I'm not claiming they have not considered these kinds of thing either or that they are taking them for granted, I do not know, I hope so!