He's right. The very reason free markets don't exist is the same exact reason why communism doesn't work in practice. All markets collapse until there's a few dominant businesses (ie monopolies), just as how society naturally forms governing hierarchies. And this is easy to see how they're opposed. All you have to do is look at how there's only 4 types of governments based on how decision making power is distributed, and that democracy is actually closer to communism on that spectrum rather than dictatorships, and then see how monopolies behave quite like dictatorships.
That said, true dictatorships rarely work in practice but for different reasons as to why communism doesn't work. Which is why, when it comes to organizations, almost all are in fact oligarchies in practice, despite whatever they're called. This is known as the iron law of oligarchy. Notice the term: oligopoly? Go look at every industry and there's near always an oligopoly.
> I have noticed a lot of debt hysteria from people who don't seem to understand basic accounting. That is, one party's asset is another party's liability.
This is correct, but... let me ask you, would it concern you, if my asset is your liability? I mean, would it concern you if you had to pay for my house? How about everything it is I do? How would this not be a concern? If it is not, then why don't you publicly disclose your credit card?
Frankly, I wouldn't agree with the article, and call having different quality options at different prices, "price discrimination", even if consumers are discriminating based on price. That's just offering a selection of different products of varying quality and prices. No harm in that IMO.
It's more the reverse, wherein the service provider discriminates to charging people different amounts for the exact same good/service (not just different quality goods/services). IMO, this is more likely what people have a problem with.
Sounds like the work of mustering up instructions... like programming...
So how do these LLM's completely remove us from having to do this work of mustering up instructions? Seems to me someone still has to instruct LLMs on what to do, and that the only way this reality will cease to exist entirely, is if humanity stopped desiring computers to do what it is they want. I don't think that's happening anytime soon.
However, maybe fewer programmers will be needed, but then again, the same was said of Fortran and COBOL and look at where we are today, more programmers than ever...
> Sounds like the work of mustering up instructions... like programming...
Again, try Deep Research. You make a vague request, and it works with you to make it specific enough that it can deliver a product with some confidence that it will meet your requirements. Like a product manager, business analyst, requirements engineer, or whatever they call it these days.
I disagree with the notion that life isn't zero sum. It only looks this way using a definition that conflates wealth with value, or from a viewpoint far from the limits of nature that would otherwise make this kind of nature obvious. Arguably what we've done, is merely transformed wealth into other forms we valued more.
Certainly value isn't zero sum, as we can always change our minds and value something else more, but I don't think this is a good argument for life (or wealth) not being zero sum. Anything we create, takes energy or resources from elsewhere (zero sum). Every path you choose to go down in life, is a path you didn't go down (zero sum). Simply put - everything has a cost. Sure we may not value costs equally (not zero sum), but remove our arbitrary valuations for things from the equation, and it is zero sum.
It seems like your conflating the meaning of zero-sum. It's specific to limited contexts where one party's gain must come at an equal loss to another party. "Every path you choose to go down in life, is a path you didn't go down" has nothing to do with the concept of zero-sum.
Our entire civilization is built on non-zero-sum cooperation. Technology is the byproduct of non-zero-sum cooperation.
If you're going to try and argue against game theory, your going to have to bring a much better argument.
^^ Redefines meaning of life to be dollars, accuses opponent of redefining zero-sum.
Silicon Valley is built on the attention economy. That term is a euphemism for making people spend their waking hours on addictive crap, taking away from the useful sum total. That's my definition.
Silicon valley is built on transistors, and by extension computers and software. The media industry is built on the attention economy.
Competing for people's attention is a zero-sum game, but building technology that helps people be more productive and do new things they couldn't before is not zero-sum.
Are you accusing me of redefining the meaning of life to be dollars? If so, I completely deny that accusation as it doesn't remotely align with my beliefs or what I said in my comment.
A master password (e.g. to access a password manager) needs to be both remembered and stored somewhere (ie the password manager, not your brain). A secret heuristic doesn't and so is more secure by simply not also being stored somewhere outside your brain.
Depends on the implementation. For example with 1Password it is not stored anywhere unencrypted, it is derived with a slow password hash and mixed with a secret key (this part is stored) to unlock your vaults. You can't access your vault without both.
You asked what the difference was. Simply put, you can't hack what does not exist. LastPass also stores passwords encrypted and was hacked.
In other words, no matter of how well 1Password handles the storing of your master password (encrypted/decentralized or what not), the fact that it does is inherently less secure than something that doesn't store anything at all, such as the case with a secret heuristic.
LastPass didn't properly implement E2EE and because they used a weak password hash which affected low entropy passwords.
> In other words, no matter of how well 1Password handles the storing of your master password (encrypted/decentralized or what not), the fact that it does is inherently less secure than something that doesn't store anything at all, such as the case with a secret heuristic.
When I say 1P stores your master password encrypted, it usually does it as an item in the vault. You can easily remove it from the vault and therefore doesn't store it anymore, and you can have the same security as your secret heuristic. Storing it in your vault is of negligible concern.
If your master password is not stored anywhere, there is no way for 1P to know what your master password is - and so no way to validate what the correct password is to access your vault. Even if 1P doesn't store the master password on local disk, their servers, on a hard device, encrypted, unencrypted, or does it completely algorithmically or whatever... it is in fact stored somewhere outside your brain, and therefore more hackable than something that isn't stored anywhere other than your brain.
It is used ephemerally to unlock your vaults. It isn't stored anywhere. You're really clutching at straws here.
Given a sample set of passwords derived from a secret heuristic, it could be reversed. The secret heuristic isn't completely safe either. Moreover because it lives in your brain the algorithm is inherently low entropy and the resulting passwords will be as well. Furthermore the old adage applies, don’t roll your own crypto.
Your the one that's grasping at straws and doesn't understand that 1P needs to store something in order to validate or generate your master password. The fact that this does happen, makes it less secure in comparison to not storing anything, as you can't hack something which does not exist.
> Given a sample set of passwords derived from a secret heuristic, it could be reversed. The secret heuristic isn't completely safe either.
Sure but this isn't the argument being made. As an analogy, not using any E2E is inherently less secure than using some E2E encryption, but using E2E encryption doesn't automatically mean you're more secure. Simply put, you had asked "What's the difference between a master password and a secret heuristic?" And that difference is a master password (or ways to generate it) must be stored outside your brain, and doing this is inherently less secure than not doing this.
I already told you what it needs to store and it isn’t the master password. No master password needs to be “validated” even when authenticating to 1P servers. You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of cryptography. Anyways this is all explained in the 1Password security whitepaper.
No I understand dual key encryption, and like I said, there is still something stored (the key as well as the passwords in the vault). What you do not understand is how this is inherently less secure than not storing anything at all.
To give you a concrete example, 1Password doesn't guarantee you from say, being compromised by a keylogger, and someone stealing your master password (never mind the key which is in fact stored). A secret heuristic doesn't necessarily face such risks. Sure that doesn't automatically mean a secret heuristic guarantees you better security, but that's not the argument.
Sure I’ll cede that storing nothing is safer. Yes an _authenticator_ is stored implicit in the MAC of the ciphertext holding the vault key, so in a way a key stretched version of the master password is validated. So with both a secret key and vault key wrapped ciphertext you can launch an offline attack.
But the keylogger or malware argument is a lazy one tbh, not only does it affect your secret heuristic as any input password is affected, basically no software can be guaranteed to be safe from malware or keylogger except maybe that running in something like a Secure Enclave or if your OS supports secure entry on certain fields (1P on Mac does this). If you’re in that position you got bigger things to worry about anyway.
But anyways it all depends on implementation as I said. 1P also supports passkey unlock eradicating the need for the master password (secret key stays), so you can still have the security you desire, particularly if you use a FIDO2 security key like a yubikey.
