For sure, but it feels really risky. If it's a small codebase, I would be more confident knowing what queries I was using and just switch them. If it's a large codebase, I'd want some really comprehensive test coverage, including performance tests
Is there another segment increasingly hiring fashion consultants?
Do you believe marketing towards this segment won't be as predatory as possible and predicated upon profiteering off their insecurities, like fashion tends to do for all segments anyways?
Your claim is that IT people aren't being victimized by predatory marketing.
The claim I'm arguing is that fashion marketing targeted towards any segment is predatory anyways.
There's no false conflation. If what I'm claiming is true, it follows that this marketing agenda is also predatory: because it's fashion marketing targeted towards a pretty particular segment.
Another way of interpreting my question was: "do you really believe fashion marketing targets everyone but IT people with predatory marketing?"
Verifiable Credentials can be used in place of OpenID to allow a user to make verifiable attestations about themselves without the authority having to be present.
It would still have many of the same flaws as OpenID, but at least you accessing a site wouldnt notify the authority.
This is pretty far out of my norm. Where I'm from email auth is referred to as OTP, as we all always assume an OTP is sent to the users email.
The only time I've seen links for confirming in email are when signing up or resetting a password (or changing/verifying emails in an otherwise already authenticated context). Not for logging directly into an authenticated context.
Disclaimer: I'm the type of dev who has routinely argued against magic links. The convenience they provide is hardly worth all the considerations that have to be made.
I've only ever seen magic links recommended by sales people. Presumably because it makes their demos go smoother when people want to know how difficult it is to access the product.
Not sure about everyone else but where I'm from customer service is intentionally horrible everywhere within a 10 mile radius. To be fair I live in an affordable housing project from the 1900s but yeah. AI would definitely beat shouting matches in the drive thru.
I can't see that actually working for YouTube in the end though. You can just download content and not play it, but in some background thread complete all the challenges.
You would need a way to prove audio/video on the end device/UA to the server and that's impossible AFAIK
That's not the suggestion though. It's that a lot of high performers in STEM tend to be "Weird Nerds" and by selecting against that type, you alienate a large number of potentially great researchers.
Not selecting against weird nerds doesn't mean selecting against "socially well-adjusted Nerds".
In fact, the article says that a person can in fact be exceptional at politic and science, despite their tenets being antithetical in many cases.
It says there is a "strong anti-correlation" between being a weird nerd and being pleasant to be around socially. This may be true, but it is not my experience that there is a strong anti-correlation between being an exceptional mathematician and being pleasant to be around socially. Despite the stereotype, in my experience the best mathematicians are not the ones who stare at their shoes when you talk to them.
My point is not merely that there exist socially competent people who advance science at the highest level, but that I reject the claim that this is an anti-correlation. I do not think that scientific genius and social grace are anti-correlated, or antithetical.
I still think you're adding some nuance that isn't in the article.
The article is about how politicking is a requirement of success in academia. Schmoozing isn't social grace. It's closer to social engineering.
Social grace is having the grace to socialize without embarrassing yourself, you don't have to schmooze to do that. And yet it is often a requirement of politics.
Which is a requirement of success in academia.
Schmoozing is antithetical to science because science is the pursuit of the truth of the nature of things backed by tangible evidence. Science isn't supposed to show bias or favoritism.
Kind of hard to reject that notion. Though you could probably argue that schmoozing isn't necessary for politics. Most people would disagree though.
Good at what? Rewriting the queries?
I think the point of Pongo is you can use the exact same queries for the most part and just change backends.
I've worked a job in the past where this would have been useful (they chose Mongo and regretted it).