sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
No bio...
User ID: 636
Not sure I buy this. Lack of cryptography doesn't even need to make password based authentication impossible.
Firstly, to compromise a system, even one that's not encrypted, you must be able to execute arbitrary commands. A system that's locked down and limited to a few hardened interfaces with the rest of the world is naturally robust to this. You can try pulling out the memory and read/manipulate it directly, but there are low tech (put the components behind steel plate) and high tech mitigations that don't rely on cryptography. And if you're in a position to circumvent those, you can probably just replace the controller of whatever system you're trying to compromise with your own controller anyway.
Secondly, P=NP would make reversing hashes doable, but when you're trying to break into a system you (usually) don't have the password hash you're trying to guess. So you're stuck trying to guess it (unless you can read it from memory, see point 1), and that's going to take forever regardless of P vs NP.
Passport cards are not offered by the states.
I agree that passport card holders can prove that they are citizens.
However, this has nothing to do with the fact that most people do not carry passport cards with them and so cannot use them to prove their citizenship if stopped on the street.
Okay, sure, if you live in one of the five states that issue EDLs and you opt to receive one, you got me there.
I don't really think it's that difficult, it's just that zero effort has been put into it. I know a guy who has repeatedly found that someone has signed up to receive benefits using his SSN. He's never even received so much as a letter in the mail to inform him that his benefits are being used.
Even people on work visas have SSNs.
The way around the issue is that the cop takes your DL back to the squad car and looks you up in the state database of drivers' licenses. There's no analogous database of citizens.
We should keep in mind that it's basically impossible to roll back government programs rolled out in the name of national security (such as the TSA or the patriot act) and it would be a real shame to turn the US into a state where citizens have to carry their papers and present them on demand to agents of the state.
That proves that you were a citizen (or a legal alien) when it was issued, it doesn't mean you are one now.
That's good for white people but some of my best (citizen) friends are not white and I'd be pretty upset if they got harassed by ICE. It seems that such harassment would be fully within the law.
It's not the illegals that I'm talking about, it's the legals. Are you saying that I, as a citizen, can be detained by ICE if I get stopped, given that I don't carry around my certificate or naturalization or my passport?
ICE has the power to arrest you if you cannot prove you're in the country legally.
Like, on the spot? Nobody carries around proof of citizenship.
I'd expect big box stores to be much less likely to employ illegal immigrants. Home Depot has an HR department and a legal department. Bob's Hardware has neither.
I see plenty of zoomers working cash registers in my area. Fully one third of people in my county are Asian or Indian.
While true, I don't think there was ever a time when an employer would tell you how you could be a better candidate. If nothing else it's probably covered in spooky liabilities, at least if you are a lawyer.
the hard truth is just that everyone is TRYING to capture the top 20% performers across the board, so anyone not in the top 20% performance bracket for any given category is going to be left out, and very confused as to what their real options are.
It's a actually not that bad. I can't find the original article (which I read at least ten years ago), but it's easily shown that if every company hires the ""top 20%"" of their applicant pool then much more than the top 20% of the actual labor force in that sector is employed.
Isn't this a circular argument? Semiskilled labor has gotten more expensive because nobody wants to train to be a bricklayer when nobody needs bricks laid. Or do explain the cost of semiskilled labor another way?
Talk about a case of the Mondays.
My model is that if your movement is genuinely shunned, it disappears.
It disappears if everyone shuns it, sometimes. Sometimes you become Vincent van Gough, shunned during your life and a darling afterwards. If you're only shunned by the academy, though, you can still get ahead by striking out for yourself - most people are not as doctrinaire as old academic artists, and wealthy patrons are free to fund the things they like even if the professors tut-tut at them.
the Paris case was similar and they got a special exhibit put on for them by the emperor.
The emperor himself didn't like any of their works and only acquiesced to let them be exhibited during the Paris Salon over the objections of the Salon's jury (rather different from putting on a special exhibit for them) due to the weight of public opinion.
this doesn’t look like the academy shunning defectors so much as defectors coordinating to shun the traditional academy.
It's a case of defectors being told they have no place in the academy, and leaving to start their own thing. Same as it ever was.
You are avoiding the question of why this is no longer an option. How much harder can defectors be shunned than when they had to leave the mainstream artistic edifice entirely to follow their vision?
Artistic defectors have been shunned for hundreds of years. Off the top of my head, the Vienna Secession and the Exhibit of Rejects both consisted of artists with heterodox styles that couldn't find a place in the academy and had to strike out on their own.
Your first point is good and sounds reasonable.
Your second point is not clear to me. What is it that caused artists in the modern era to rebel against the tastes of their patrons? Why is it that these rebellious artists, rather than toiling in obscurity, actually became commercial successes with ample patronage?
It seems to me that the only explanation must be that they are not, in fact, rebelling against the tastes of their patrons, and it is actually the taste of the patrons that has changed. This is kind of kicking the can down the road, because we can ask why the taste of patrons changed in the first place - but I'm comfortable saying that peoples' tastes change over time for some exogenous reasons, and sometimes they change for the worse.
There isn't an inherent reason that public transportation has to be a mobile insane asylum. If we're fantasizing about tearing out stroads, we can throw that into the bargain too.
People don't use that term, but that doesn't mean that people like them. The problem is when people have to spend significant amounts of time looking at the visual equivalent of, as you say, a factory interior, whenever they need to commute or go to the store.
Right, but there's a high correlation between the types of people who tend to prefer man-made beauty to natural beauty, and the types of people who tend to become artists. So their own aesthetic preferences get amplified and displayed to the public.
To what extent is this itself a modern phenomenon? Plenty of historical artists were obsessed with natural, including human, forms (e.g. da Vinci, Michelangelo, Durer). I could believe that the obsession with man made beauty is a "preversion" of the modern artistic class, but I don't see a reason why it should be so, or even why the members of the academy should have been replaced by those who don't care about natural beauty in the first place.

Inverse hollow Earth is the best one because, as a simple coordinate transformation, it's 100% correct.
More options
Context Copy link