The Coleman bacon doesn't list ingredients. But the Applegate bacon lists celery powder because that is a source of nitrates. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celery_powder
I don't know much about either brand but there are good reasons to buy fancy bacon instead of Smithfield and Hormel, just because of the quality and ethics of the livestock inputs. But nitrites aren't one of those reasons.
Thank you for ABZÛ! My daughter has played it at least ten times. And when she wrote a letter to your team for a school project, you sent back a t-shirt and a soundtrack CD. We've listened to that CD for hours on road trips, it is a great soundtrack.
In my case, they took so long to announce the iPhone 12 Mini that I gave up waiting and bought an SE even though it was slower than I wanted and had a poor camera. Four months later they announced the Mini, but I wasn't willing to replace a four-month-old phone. Then they discontinued the Mini line after 13.
When I was ready to buy a new phone, there were no iPhone Mini models for sale. It took more than a year, but I finally found an iPhone 13 Mini in stock on the Apple Refurbished store. Now I'm hoping to keep this phone alive until they finally release another small iPhone.
I agree, I think the iPhone mini sales were deeply affected by the iPhone SE. I came back a few months ago looking for an iPhone mini and didn't see any either.
That link is about E-85. E-85 is 85% ethanol (actually 60%-85% depending on the season and the gas station). Ethanol has 30% less energy density than pure gasoline, so E-85 has 0.3*0.85=0.255 less energy density than pure gasoline. That is why E-85 gets 25% lower gas mileage.
"Standard" E-10 gasoline contains between 0% and 10% ethanol. E-15 is 15% ethanol. So E-15 has at most 4.5% less energy density than standard gasoline. You would not see a 25% decrease in gas mileage between standard gas and E-15.
I understand that passwordless auth is better UX. But it seems like a step backwards in security from two factor authentication. Why are all these major players pushing passwordless auth but not allowing a password in conjunction with a FIDO2 token? I feel like I’m missing some important detail.
The missing important details: for reasons I do not completely understand, FIDO uses very non-obvious definitions of the words password and PIN. To them a password is a text string provided to an online service for authentication purposes and a PIN is a text string provided to a physically near hardware device to authenticate to that hardware device, after which that hardware device can sign challenges that can be used to authenticate to an online service. When they talk about passwordless they are not precluding the use of a PIN. The PIN gets you your second factor without being stored on a bunch of different services, and with hardware assisted protection from exfiltration and brute force cracking.
Relying parties (aka online services using FIDO protocols) have a lot of freedom to define exactly how restrictive they want to be by making choices about which devices they accept. Through choosing which devices they accept they can choose to require any combination of token, PIN, biometric, and password.
>Relying parties (aka online services using FIDO protocols) have a lot of freedom to define exactly how restrictive they want to be by making choices about which devices they accept.
For anything consumer facing (vs employee/contractor facing), the expectation is that a relying party site accepts everything, or supports a set with a clear industry-defined set of limitations (e.g. must have gone through certification and achieved a certain level such that they meet our security regulations).
The set of limitations which you can set during an authentication request are pretty minimal, on purpose - so you will typically have more prompts and more user errors if you decide to try and limit consumer choice.
Other than that, the expectation is that you do not block end users if they e.g. are using one vendor or the other. You may still ask them to perform additional authentication steps, but the goal is that people do not get conflicting requirements across relying parties that leads them to have to carry a key ring of different vendor USB authenticators in order to be able to do their business.
Then don't provide the attestation. No sites I've used (Facebook, GitHub, login.gov, Google, and so on) require attestation. It's unfortunate that the WebAuthn standard requires it be possible for them to ask, but you can just say "No" and I do.
Once you use them as the gatekeeper for auth ans identity, it becomes that much harder to delete that Facebook or switch phone brands. Not to mention much deeper insight into your activity everywhere.
So does this system not require that I set a password for my account?
Everything I have read about this approach seems to imply that passwords are still used, only perhaps not as often.
For instance, there's this quote from the article:
"Bellovin and others say one potentially tricky scenario in this new passwordless authentication scheme is what happens when someone loses their mobile device, or their phone breaks and they can’t recall their iCloud password."
Yes, of course this protocol can't somehow prevent sites from having a password (as a last ditch backup, or for any other reason) but it's intended to be used without passwords and, if you choose and have a more capable device, even without usernames.
Well, I hope you're right that passwords are essentially remnants of previous authentication schemes and not something implicitly required by this new scheme.
I could see us ending up in a world where we need a password to access the device on which the key is stored and more passwords for account recovery and access to key backups.
Rather than saying "You are close to understanding, but keep going", it would be more helpful to explain why you think that disciplined empathy is no longer empathy.
I agree with the previous poster, but I'm curious to learn what you mean.
The vagueness of the Dao De Ching is not in the book, it is in reader.
It is not myself that creates the Dao, but I can thank you for creating the Dao!
When a superior person hears of the Tao,
She diligently puts it into practice.
When an average person hears of the Tao,
he believes half of it, and doubts the other half.
When a foolish person hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud at the very idea.
If he didn’t laugh,
it wouldn’t be the Tao.
If you notice, much philosophy - generally defined, including religion - is vague. Much great art is vague. It may turn out that, unlike technical manuals, there is no value in spelling out everything. Either the reader engages or not and if they do, they don't need it spelled out - they create it in their own neural pathways, in their own mind, which is far more valuable than reading it. And if they don't, it doesn't matter anyway. It's not a new idea:
From the Christian Gospels (Mark 4)
Jesus tells the parable of the sower, ending, ""He who has ears, let him hear." And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, / and may indeed hear but not understand, / lest they should turn and be forgiven.'" And he said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.""
From the Quran:
As for the unbelievers, alike it is to them / whether thou hast warned them or hast not warned them, / they do not believe. / God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, / and on their eyes is a covering, / and there awaits them a mighty chastisement.
The controversial and difficult question is why these medieval thinkers chose the allegorical form, and whether the text can be understood without its allegorical form. Avicenna tells us that what he purports to do by allegory is to convey one message to the "many" in sensible imagery they can understand, while conveying a different message to the philosophically minded few .... Neoplatonic and Christian writers ... [cited] the importance of not 'casting one's pearls before swine' ...
I'd argue that you're conflating philosophy and religion, and that unlike what you're suggesting by that conflation, much of philosophy isn't vague - it's careful and well thought out. Here's a random passage from Decarte's Meditations:
I have always considered that the two questions respecting God and
the Soul were the chief of those that ought to be demonstrated by
philosophical rather than theological argument. For although it is quite
enough for us faithful ones to accept by means of faith the fact that the
human soul does not perish with the body, and that God exists, it
certainly does not seem possible ever to persuade infidels of any
religion, indeed, we may almost say, of any moral virtue, unless, to
begin with, we prove these two facts by means of the natural reason.
What about this is vague? He's clearly laying out his goals and how he intends to do it. If you want to say that religion, as a particulary subset of philosophical thought, is often vague, then sure, but a lot of philosophy is very intentional and focused. It's setting out a goal and working towards achieving said goal, not trying to write in a manner that will appeal to everyone.
You are claiming that the writing in modern Western philosopy is known for clarity? Also, those aren't Decartes' words, which were in Latin (or French?).
A wolf behaves differently than another wolf. Yet they are both wolves. Even the same wolf expresses differently in different contexts or in arbitrarily similar contexts at different times. Yet he never stops being a wolf. Even a wolf in a cage is a wolf.
To say otherwise is to say there is no such thing as wolf or that there is a single platonic wolf and all other wolves are inauthentic. Either of these may be true, but I doubt there is much practical advice in this idea for learning to deal with a lack of boundaries created by empathetic confusion.
> To say otherwise is to say there is no such thing as wolf
I am not saying otherwise. There is no such thing as a wolf.
Yet there is.
Our language is a tool we use to categorize an infinite reality. Like you said, there are an infinite amount of wolves, but we reduce them using language. There is nothing wrong with this until we start thinking our language is the reality.
So where is the border between wolf and dog? If A wolf is nice too a human do we suddenly call it a dog? Does not the very distinction of a wolf and a dog rely, not on the species, but on the human? Does a dog think still think it is a wolf? Is a dog just a wolf that tricks us so it can get free food and shelter?
We do the same thing with empathy. By defining it with language we reduce it and confine it which it cannot be reduced or confined. Like everything else, empathy is infinite and unlimited in its expression.
As someone who learned photography with film in an old Nikon but hasn't kept up, how is it possible to get two extra stops from a RAW file? And why does it need to be done in post processing instead of the camera just recording the image with the sensor's full dynamic range in the first place?
It manifests as extra detail hidden in the shadow or highlights, which is only exposed when you start messing with color curves or drag shadow or exposure controls way up.
I asked a very similar question in another comment thread recently and the answer I got was that camera's awareness of the scene isn't nearly good enough when it comes to adjusting its own sensitivity curves, and that our eyes and brain are much better at postprocessing the raw data then the camera is.
One example is that cameras don't know what time of day it is (or rather, they could know but often choose not to care) and so auto-exposure/auto-white balance try to turn everything into noon daytime. So if you wanted your picture to look like the actual color cast and brightness you're seeing, it's up to you to remember what it looked like.
Of course, phones aren't necessarily good at this either.
In a privately-held company, you usually can't sell your stock without approval (from the board, a shareholder vote, or some other mechanism). That generally makes it quite difficult to sell.
Dividends are the main source of value from stock in a company that doesn't plan to sell. But dividends are also determined by the board. In a closely-held company, the majority owners may also be the board, and they may prefer to leave the profits in the company or take them out a different way.
"Worthless" is an extreme characterization, but the value you receive from owning a minority amount of private stock is much less predictable and controllable than publicly-traded stock.
Exactly this, there is no liquidity available for this stock ie it has no monetary value because you’re not allowed to sell it and it will never be sold. I think at one point a tiny dividend was paid, once, but it became clear the profits are intended for the principal owners. Which really is conceptually fine as long as that is clear up front.
