I don't agree with the conclusion put forward in the article. I'm reminded of my time trying to get into Urbit many years ago or DAPs. That certainly require me to think differently about things but that didn't make me, or many other people, want them. It might be a necessary pre-condition for stickiness but it certainly isn't equivalent. Barriers to adoption lock people out and, once they have been overcome, lock people in.
I've done a number of text-based slide presentations with `marp` and I've been pleased with the results. Mostly it's just plain markdown slides but if you want to get into the weeds with HTML and have a 2-column slide or something you can do it. https://marp.app/
If I'm understanding the parent comment correctly: a fact may have political implications but it doesn't depend on politics. In other words reality is independent of our interpretation of it (i.e. philosophical realism). The rub of course being that coming to know facts about most things is a highly social process filtered through interpretation and biases. Everything can be political if it needs to be decided upon by a group.
EDIT: I have avoided using "truth" here because it's a more general term than "fact" which has the connotation of being in reference to something concrete.
I'm glad to see more sites giving visibility to long-lasting products. This reminds me of https://buymeonce.com/ but I like the community driven aspect of this. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it.
2FA isn't double checking to make sure you meant to log in. It's verifying that you are the person logging in. Alert fatigue is a real issue as you point out and we need to make sure to not overwhelm users which is one major benefit of federated authentication.
The problem with taking an "undo" philosophy here is that it's very hard (impossible?) to undo the transfer of information which is what attackers are after in many breaches.
One of the issues ignored here is the nature of cascading failures that happen during a breach due to password reuse. If a user is compromised through an active credential forwarding attack like the one described the user's account could be compromised on that service. Afterward, however, when the user's credentials are re-used by the attacker to access other accounts that attack is made significantly nosier and ineffective as the user would get an SMS for other services using 2FA.
TL;DR getting a text message every time someone logs in as you is going mean you're much more aware of what's happening with your accounts. Having that text message contain credentials means if it wasn't you logging in (and hence you weren't expecting an SMS) then the login fails.
EDIT: Password managers are great and I'm all for promoting them probably more than 2FA even. The difference between a password manager and 2FA is that a password manager does literally nothing given that your password is known. In that same situation 2FA still does do something and so this appears to be a false dichotomy.
The core message of this article is that it's possible for even large groups of people to be wrong about things and that those people won't think they're wrong (they're wrong about being wrong). The author summarizes this mechanism as: these people are so accustomed to being "right" by appealing to consensus that they can't imagine being wrong.
This argument seems to generalize not just to large groups but also to small ones. The problem I see is that in the case of large groups the author calls this "privilege" and in the case of small groups he doesn't. Since the size of the group doesn't really effect the nature of group orthodoxy and adherence the argument seems to collapse to "large groups are privileged."
I agree that large groups are privileged but to claim that part of privilege is not being able to conceive of your group as being wrong seems tangential and potentially just incorrect.
Perhaps the author is assuming that people in small groups more frequently encounter other groups which
(1) they disagree with
(2) they eventually determine are right
but it isn't obvious to me that (2) would be more likely to occur in a small group than in a large group. There have been fanatical large groups and small ones which do not tolerate deviation on certain points.
It's about whether a member of the group will ever have to encounter or understand views that are unorthodox in that group.
If not, they assume they can't be wrong. It's the "way things are" which nobody disputes.
This creates a mental blindness where they can't possibly imagine someone wanting to say something in good faith that was against this "way things are", to them it would be like saying the Earth has no moon or that cats can fly. Why would you claim that? What's wrong with you?
Backblaze does do more than "just store data" but that is their core business and operational concern. Just glancing through this it's easy to see that just retaining data at scale is difficult and expensive.
> By making this decision [to raise prices] now, we are ensuring we can continue to offer unlimited backup and keep improving our Computer Backup service.
I'm doubtful that this organization could generate enough passive income through an endowment to sustain itself. They do have a chart on endowment growth relative to storage growth. I wonder if they've hit the point where the endowment return is greater than their total expenses yet.
A one-time-payment like this would seem more possible if there were any restrictions on who's data to back up and how much. You can't just look at the interest of a one-time payment and say "yup that pays for storage on those bytes indefinitely" because for every byte of storage someone paid for there might be many more that are used for free.
