Why GNU? I get the appeal of Linux, but Android has that angle covered. What makes GNU a better userspace than Android for phone use? I actually think the Andoid userspace is very good for what it is. If Google's influence were magically removed, Android would be more or less the ideal OS, at least for me.

It's not GNU itself that's appealing, it's the fact that it's not controlled by a company.

Any creative work you create is copyrighted by default as soon as it is recorded onto some medium, at least in the US. https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

Interesting. Maybe I'm thinking of "registration" in regards to copyright which is talked about in that link.

Not OP, but I absolutely know people like this. Devs who don't even know what POSIX is, let alone care whether their OS is compliant.

People have preferences. Some preferences are shallow. That's it, really. All kinds of people exist in this world, and wanting to be perceived as high-status is practically quintessential human behaviour.

An AGI doesn't need that level of detail to do most tasks effectively. To use the OP's example, a cat catching a bug out of the air does not need to run a fluid dynamics simulation of airflow over the bug's wings to be able to catch it. A cheap approximation of the flight path is sufficient. Perhaps some physical tasks will need that level of detail but many will not.

There absolutely are laws restricting what hardware you are allowed to use. e.g. https://www.fcc.gov/faqs-recent-updates-fcc-covered-list-reg...

This argument would make more sense if the cloud providers used these devices but you were not allowed to.

Those are routers - not general purpose computers.

Can these services not use the same fallback mechanism that already exists for non-passkey logins? i.e. an email with a 1-time code or similar. Yes that somewhat defeats the purpose of passkeys but that option is going to exist for a long time regardless of passkey adoption.

If you don't want to downgrade security, how about requiring confirmation from another session that is already logged in using a passkey? e.g. You try to log in on PC2. A prompt appears with something like "confirm this login from [PC1, etc.]". You log in on PC1 using your passkey. The service recognizes that the login id definitely you, or at least someone in possession of your physical device and login method for that device. Therefore, it then allows PC2 to register a new passkey. Kinda similar to how google confirms new logins by sending a notification to your phone.

That could work, but then the service needs to implement complex non standardized authentication mechanism outside of Passkeys. You will have 14 different services with 15 different options. I don't think that's really user-friendly.

Also it could be vulnerable to MFA fatigue attack, if people would constantly get new "confirm this login" popups, they would press anything to make it go away.

So you would need something that is explicitly initialized from a trusted session, then you need something to connect the trusted session to the new login. If you want that to be user friendly you need some short codes and can't rely on QR code / Bluetooth, or two-way interaction. And that brings up the phishing / MitM attacks again.

I've had the opposite experience. Lightning was been far more fragile than USB-C.

> throw out all the ones that don’t

> encouraging as many other people as possible to also throw out their cheap cables

One of the main advantages of a single standardized plug is reducing e-waste. This just sounds irresponsible. Having a single tool that covers every possible use case is rarely a good solution.

Device makers need to stop including these garbage 4 cm A to C cables. I have enough USB cables and bricks to last my whole life. I don't need to collect a million more spec violating ones in a drawer I will never use.

Things are shifting though. Ikea ships their USB-C stuff without cables now.

> This just sounds irresponsible.

The irresponsibility lies with the companies making the non-compliant trash in the first place.

> I didn't have a way of running that code and only giving it access to a single USB device and nothing else.

To be honest I think that's the most compelling case for webUSB today. If desktop OSes had sandboxing tools (or more granular permissions in general) that are easily usable be everyday users, there would be no need to put webUSB in a browser sandbox. The cross-pltaform nature of it is nice, but that alone is not enough IMO. I think it would be interesting to see a Linux distribution where software that is not explicitly trusted (i.e. not installed by the system package manager) has no permissions by default. Interpreters make this more complicated but for binaries it could work.