GamingChairModel

Could be any number of things:

• A law firm might have offered to give legal advice for what to do in response to the cease and desist, but won't agree to represent them in a lawsuit (at least at rates that Nitter can afford).
• A law firm might have given legal advice about one particular issue, but it didn't comprehensively cover all the legal issues raised by the cease and desist (maybe they gave a legal opinion on the federal law issue but not the Texas law issue).
• A law firm may have agreed to represent them for a particular price but there was a misunderstanding about how to read the pricing sheet and Nitter can't actually afford to retain that firm.
• Someone may have lied about being a licensed lawyer and law firm.
• A law firm may have given advice and then rescinded that advice after the second cease and desist letter.
• Law firm may have given advice based on erroneous understanding of the facts, and either backed out of representation or modified its advice upon learning the new facts.

Does it?

Reuters is reporting that Anthropic's Investor Day event a few days ago, where they showed their audited Q3 financials to investors, caused institutional investors to shift their sentiment and that they are being pushed to lower their IPO valuation target down from $2 trillion to $1.5 trillion.

Coreweave is down almost 20% this week. Nebius is down more than 15%.

Investor sentiment is shakier than it was a month ago. And for hype-fueled valuations, investor sentiment is a two-way street.

Plus their key founders/executives already left the company to go work for Google in 2024, in an acquihire where Google licenses the technology, hires the key personnel, and leaves the company a shell of its former self.

I wouldn't assume too much from this company, because it's not actually reflective of the broader trends in the industry.

What passkeys can't overcome is people dismissing the popups asking if they want to switch to passkeys or create them.

I think it'd actually be pretty easy. Just ask:

Trust this device, with biometrics?

Most people will say yes on their Apple/Samsung/Google devices.

It's been like 25 years since the security world basically moved on from assuming that users could be trusted to act securely. We gotta design processes and protocols that keep things secure even with people who have bad habits.

I can secure my email, but every email I send or receive touches at least one other mailbox I don't control, of some other user. Same with text messages, social media posts, etc. The digital world we use has a billion overlapping people, some with escalated privileges as employees or admins or mods or whatever. We can't make them perfect, so we should design systems that work well even with imperfect people.

I think you're mixing up compromise of an account with compromise of the data associated with that account.

If a particular piece of data is accessible to people of a dozen accounts, compromise of any of those accounts potentially compromises the data. That's a legitimate concern for people who want certain data secured, whether other accounts with access are also secure. In some cases, it may be best to have an authentication policy that provides a baseline level of protection even for the most clueless users, rather than a system where you're able to secure your own account.

They don't need to. It just works to log them in when they're using one of their own trusted devices. Being able to unlock their phone gives them full access to the services (apps, websites) that are authenticated to that device.

TOTP tokens are often distributed as QR codes, where you can store in more than one place, store/copy/transfer in plaintext between people or places. Compromise of that token gives permanent access to all TOTP codes generated.

I'm not a fan of how most TOTP apps and implementations actually work right now.

I have a secure password manager, offline, nowhere shared, even the passwords are encrypted.

How can the service provider tell, though?

The point of passkeys is to create an authentication flow that is easier for users to keep secure. The question, then, becomes whether a service provider should make user authentication decisions based on the worst case scenario, best case scenario, or average case scenario. Passkeys are a reasonable way to make sure almost all of your users have secure login credentials, even if the best of the best users would have just as secure login credentials with traditional passphrases.

Apple mainstreamed tech tribalism

I assure you, from car brands to shoe brands to soda brands, brand tribalism by consumers has always been with us. On the tech side, we saw it with console wars of every generation, PC/accessory brand tribalism, even OS/software tribalism. TVs, radios, portable music players, AV equipment of all types, etc. When cell phones came on the scene, you had significant brand rivalries there, even before smartphones. (You see remnants in this when people get nostalgic about Nokias or Blackberries or Razrs).

plagiarism

outright theft

It frustrates me to see that people are suddenly protective of some kind of intellectual property right of people to control creations after they've been created.

I'm pretty skeptical of AI and have my doubts that it will be a net good, but I'm definitely not gonna suddenly be pro-copyright as part of that fight. Copyright has traditionally been used to entrench corporate interests, and strengthening those protections isn't going to suddenly win a fight against some kind of AI dystopia.

Chip industry, both potato and RAM