It took one obvious, obnoxious, and well infiltrated new music AI slop in the my recommended new music feed to finally turn me completely sour on Spotify. I was a prelaunch US user who had brand loyalty built in from the start. I even met Daniel Ek during the big early hype. Its gone. It has been the listen of last resort for awhile, and I used it for discovery of new releases. It's dead to me now

Avoiding copy and paste is the key for me to keeping my syntax memory.

Can you explain this more, I don't understand Google authenticator completely? Could a bad actor spoof a 2FA as they can with an email, and capture your input?

The attacker would just ask you for the TOTP code and forward that to Google.

In practice it's maybe slightly harder, because they'd have to convince a user to enter their google 2fa code into a site that isn't obviously google?

I'd imagine a convincing enough modal would do the trick though, in a lot of cases.

> convince a user to enter their google 2fa code into a site that isn't obviously google?

if the BAD site itself looks legit, and has convinced a user to do the initial login in the first place, they won't hesitate to lie and say that this 2-factor code is part of their partnership with google etc, and tells you to trust it.

A normal user doesn't understand what is a 2factor code, how it works, and such. They will easily trust the phisher's site, if the phisher first breaks the user and set them up to trust the site in the beginning.

What google does is to send a notification to the user's phone telling them someone tried to access their account if this happened (or any new login to any new device you previously haven't done so on). It's a warning that require some attention, and depending on your state of mind and alertness, you might not suspect that your account is stolen even with this warning. But it is better than nothing, as the location of the login is shown to you, which should be _your own location_ (and not some weird place like cypress!).

What I don't understand is how the site will send the 2FA code request to the bad actors phone, instead of the real users phone? Is this not part of what makes it more secure than a text or email? Wouldn't the bad actor need to be logged into the authenticator as the user your trying to hack?

> how the site will send the 2FA code request to the bad actors phone, instead of the real users phone?

the 2FA code in this case is in the email, not via an app. This email is triggered by BAD on their end, but it is sent by GOOD.

If the 2fa is _only_ via the authenticator app, then the BAD will need to convince the user to type in that 2fa code from the app into the BAD site (which is harder, as nobody else does this, so it should raise suspicions from the user at least).

If we are talking about TOTP, there is a time limit to that, which makes it harder, yeah.

Not much harder. The state of the art of phishing right now is proxy based setups like evilginx which pass along credentials in real time. Then you just save the session cookie or change/add the 2fa mechanisms so you can get in whenever you want with the stolen credentials.

I have started using —ahem— em dashes more regularly so people think I am as smart —well clever at least— as AI.

I'd like to do a study whether there's a correlation between liking emdashes and disliking curly brace languages.

I find emdashes hard to parse and I don't like them without extra spacing.

The punctuation in English feels kinda sucky (and implicit variables suck) compared to some programming languages.

It's not just about using well placed em dashes — it's about creating a sense of awe and enlightenment.

I agree. I could drop using em-dashes. I feel though like the narrative feels broken up. It stops and starts too frequently.

This is Spinal Tap.

I think the term for this would be "poser", the not cool sub segment of the cool kids.

That doesn't make the scientists posers unless they are pretending to be something they aren't. Poser has a specific meaning.

It always fascinated me that particular behaviors, like herding, can be so ingrained to a particular breed of dog. The dog is no longer in a setting where this is crucial to their survival, yet the urge exists. I do wonder for how many generations the behaviors would last, assuming the dominant genes were not surpressed. That is of course assuming genes are the factor that drives it. It's almost as if environment has little to do with the behavior in this case, other than having opportunity to exhibit the behavior.

I was flabbergasted when I learned that herding dogs have the instinct to bite behind the legs, even of humans. It is a pressure tactic to make the herded animal go in a certain direction.

To me this is an (unpopular) argument against the tabula rasa theory of humans.

If such a complex behaviour can be congenital, who knows what behaviours are congenital in humans.

Tabula rasa theory is not close to plausible with the scientific evidence we have, unfortunately.

Why is that unfortunate?

Edit: Just to clear, my comment was genuine curiosity, especially as true tabula rasa seems to mean we would lose benefits such as the ability to learn spoken language. The racist/xenophobic comments by a poster below is unscientific nonsense and not what I was trying to introduce.

They probably think it would be nice if people weren't born with negative behavioral pre-dispositions

One reason is because it will forever be an argument against equality by some who feel superior. Because some might believe they have the right to take decisions for others based on their perceived superiority, even if differences are incomprehensively multidimensional and humans who usually think of themselves as superior they lack terribly at other dimensions.

What kind of equality? Before the law, opportunity or outcome?

No, more basic than that - if there’s no “tabula rasa” (and people have inborn behavioral traits), then hate groups will use those traits (no matter how poorly proven or unlikely to be found across an entire group) to justify their belief system.

bite behind leg doesn't sound so complex.

bite behind leg if multiple animals going towards X but animal A goes towards Y and biting will make A go towards X would be complex.

bite behind leg is simple and crude and by placing dog in right context produces complex and useful results.

It still requires solving the symbol grounding problem. How does DNA code for the brain's network weights that correspond to things like the definitions [non-prey target], [goal location], [incentive], [coerce] and [back of leg], or some other suitable set of concepts?

I would say from reading the description it doesn't have to do all that, because it sounds like the dog is biting indiscriminately at backs of legs of any reasonable large animal, since it is also biting at the backs of human legs. So I think it doesn't really do any non-prey target reasoning, it just does target size X has back of leg, also I don't know based on description that it does incentive - what is the incentive of biting the back of human legs?

Birds building elaborate nests is something I can't wrap my head around. How do you encode that in DNA, and have a (comparatively tiny) brain execute such complex social behavior?!

There are insects with much much smaller brains than birds, that also exhibit quite complex nest building behavior.

To me it sounds complex enough to bite behind the leg, not leg in general, and not the leg of a chair for example.

I do not think a dog has to solve partial differential equations for me to be impressed and think that complex behaviours can be innate.

> The dog is no longer in a setting where this is crucial to their survival

It is crucial to their survival. That's how they made it to this day in these numbers.

Dogs, in the US, are no longer an asset to use as a tool, such as herding, but merely a companion in the vast majority of cases. Agreed they became what they were in order to be useful enough to feed and care for, but different traits may be desired as a pure companion.

Reproduction and evolutionary success in breeding conditions are not the same thing as survival. No breeder kills off dogs with unwanted characteristics, they just don’t breed them.

> No breeder kills dogs […]

I sadly have to disagree as history tells us a different story, e.g.

"Back in the day, puppies without a ridge were either euthanized or culled at birth." https://healthyhomemadedogtreats.com/ridgeless-rhodesian-rid...

I learned that when I met such a dog the first time some years ago and the owner told me about this. And I would not bet that it actually is "history" nowadays.

Evolutionary success is survival for genes.

Yes they do. Farmers will kill dogs who attack/bite sheep & cattle without much hesitation.

Idk if the "herding behaviour" is a useful way to think of this. Imagine that we didn't speak the same language, you went for a swim in the ocean and I would go after you and dragged you back to shore while shouting (in my own language) "Oh my, that is so dangerous. Do you even know how many people drown like that? Stop this lunacy at once". Would you describe my behaviour as "herding"? Would you talk about generations, and dominant genes? Or would you just say "this person has some fear for my safety (well grounded or baseless) and seems to care enough about me to save me from the danger he perceives, while I can't convince him that it is fine because we don't speak the same language."

This sort of "herding behavior" isn't just noticeable when you go out to swim, but any time 1+ people are apart from each other. You can spot these dogs extremely easily when you have a bunch of young children playing together, and you can see the family dog paying attention and as soon as one strays away from the group, the dog will start engaging and carefully nudge the stray kid back to the group.

There is no inherent danger in those situations, yet the dogs prefer if everyone was together in a group. If that's not "herding", I might just not understand what herding really is.

What do you describe sounds like herding behaviour, yes. When I say it is not a good description for "this" I mean the behavioural difference between Arthur and Lenny. Maybe you read it as if I don't believe in herding in general? That would be indeed silly on my part.

How does the dog infer that swimming in an ocean is dangerous?

Gets a face full of water and it stings its nose. Looses footing as it gets deep and doesn't like it. Hears the distant waves roaring and doesn't like it. Sees its human breath differently and move differently and doesn't like it. Looks at its owner and sees them getting small (just a bobbing head on the water) and doesn't like it.

Can be so many things.

How do you infer swimming in an ocean is dangerous?

You don't know anyone who drowned?

No, is that common where you're from?

This analogy might work in a universe where dogs speak foreign languages in which they learn about concepts like danger, persuasion, and language itself. Sounds fun.

> in which they learn about concepts like danger, persuasion, and language itself.

Dogs definitely know about the concept of "danger". Roaring fire, a raised stick, or loud noises. These are all things which doesn't cause immediate pain but they react to avoid them. It seems from the story Lenny includes in the things he want to avoid the ocean while Arthur doesn't. That sounds more like an individual difference than a genetic predisposition.

You don't need to speak a foreign language to have this concept.

I don't know what is your definition of "persuasion". If it involves the behaviour of standing in someone's way and bothering them until they turn back then we can agree that Lenny seems to have the concept despite not having a language.

We had an Old English Sheepdog called Bob who let kids climb trees but only up to a certain height. If you went higher Bob grabbed your ankle and gently pulled you back to the height he previously "let you". Otherwise you could do whatever you wanted to do on the tree and he didn't care. Otherwise never herded anyone ever.

My point is not the language. More that if a chinese coast guard would drag you out of the sea you wouldn't be saying "yeah the chinese have a strong herding reflex". You would say "this person doesn't want me to swim", or "this person thinks I'm in danger and I can't communicate that I'm not".

The behavior you're describing is instinctual. Difficult to relate to because we only see tiny remnants of instinctual behavior in humans. But I'd venture to guess that acting on instinct does not require any understanding of abstract concepts (or indeed the language in which such concepts would exist).

Herding behaviour is so distinctive and so apparent in certain breeds that it's nonsense to dismiss like this. Peak HN arrogance.

> it's nonsense to dismiss like this

I'm not dismissing herding behaviour. It is a thing. But genetics is simply not a good explanation for the story here. Here we have two dogs of the same breed (Arthur and Lenny). One lets their owner swim freely the other doesn't. The difference here is not genetics (they are the same berad), this in my opinion is a personality difference between the two dogs.

Which is why I'm starting my comment with "Idk if the "herding behaviour" is a useful way to think of this." Calling it "herding behaviour" doesn't explain the difference between the two labradors.

> Peak HN arrogance.

So lovely. Would you say that to my face closewith? I was nothing but polite to you and everyone else. I'm a human here you know. Can you treat me like one?

> It is not polite to assume that you, after a brief amount of thinking with no background knowledge, have overturned centuries of empirical and scientific knowledge of canine heredity.

I do not claim any such thing. Simply that the difference in behaviour between two dogs of the same breed cannot be explained with genetics. Lenny and Arthur share a genetic background. They do not share the behaviour. There is some other difference between Lenny and Arthur (or between the two swimmers!) which drives the difference in the observed behaviours.

I'm not saying genetics is not a thing. It is simply not the right lens to inspect this situation here.

> And it is, indeed, peak HN arrogance to make that assumption.

Which I'm not making. In any of my comments. So we are good then. :)

If the answer is the end of - I'll call it - "Consumerism", and the industries we choose to subsidize are those that are more essential to a community driven life (e.g. food, shelter, health, education, transportation, communication, etc ...), I think it is possible to lower the "Standard of Living" as reshaping what the term means, undoing years of advertisement based conditioning.

Americans may no longer have an unnecessarily large or luxurious automobile, or a screen in every room, but I would argue excess becoming the standard is the problem and a major cause of the imbalance.

The solution doesn't feel very democratic or free though, values that have been critical to the identity of the USA.

Not to mention this is almost certainly not what will happen in the USA. Trump and the GOP have no interest in reducing wealth inequality, and the vision you have laid out would be immediately labeled "communism"

Yes, my thoughts exactly too. Not an endorsement by the way.

You have a place to live and avocados now, that could be considered a win win. "Win" is such a subjective term as used here. The equation is not as simple as jobs lost equals bad, jobs gained equals good. I too have the gut reaction that a farm subdivided is a bad thing, but logically I can't really convince myself it's really as simple as that.

Recording and watching or listening to myself play has been very helpful for me. Even a temporary recording of just the current session, or most recent n minutes/beats would be nice. It's hard to evaluate execution in real time while performing it. To get it right as a user experience is not a simple task though. However, your great minimal feature set could also be seen as a plus to drive the practice routine efficiently no matter the quality, you'll get better too.

Agree about recording and listening to it. I also do it sometimes. My concern about implementing the record/playback functionality is that it may introduce a bunch of complexity considering it's a web app (permissions to record mic, browser compatibility etc, limits on local storage etc.).