Reducing variance in a random outcome still has value. For instance, you might have the money to cover an adverse outcome, but if you could guarantee you wouldn't need the money, then you could park it in an illiquid asset (e.g. some type of investment).
It doesn't work that way - and if it did - it's absolutely acceptable in most, if not all systems. A year to "break something" is absolutely considered secure in risk management of larger systems.
Also in the NYC area. There seems to be a major shortage of blue collar labor: contractors, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. the cost of home renovations is truly staggering due to this lack of supply.
So I work in tech but am pretty well-connected to the trades within my family and friends group. The major shortage in every trade is in helpers and laborers. It’s not the case that they need people with journeyman-level technical skills, are willing to offer lucrative TC, and simply can’t hire for the skill set.
They can’t find unskilled/semiskilled labor willing show up to a job site every day for $25/hr cash. Even 10 years ago this wasn’t a problem. The issue is that nobody wants to offer market-clearing wages and benefits because it cuts into the owners’ distribution.
We're asking businesses to make additional payments to their employees' landlords. If rents were lower $25 would be a good wage to live on, but given the cost of housing, we're all paying out to landlords, even homeowners.
Even if the copy the header, they can only perform a replay attack, which is an improvement over leaking an API key. Also, you could include a timestamp in the signature to limit the amount of time it could be replayed.
Most pollen is captured at pm10 or higher level. PM2.5 tends to be created by humans
Crossing the blood brain barrier exacerbates not only asthma but other vascular/heart and related diseases, including diabetes, as well as lung diseases.
It isn't clear until you are suffering from allergies, and notice that old people who used to chew on lead fishing weights are not all that bad off. Most people with high lead in their bodies don't realize the issue nor to the people they know.
Chunks of lead just aren't that bad. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp060175 lists common sources of lead poisoning, and none of them are lead weights.
Common sources involve things like airborne lead powder (from grinding or smelting), lead compounds dissolved in food & water, paint, and lead in soil.
Identification and authentication are different, though. You identify yourself to a website as a specific user (e.g. using a username) and the website in turn authenticates your claim, i.e. verifies that you are in fact the user you claim to be (e.g. using that user's password).
If you go that route .. your OIDC provider authenticates your claim. The website just trusts some specific OIDC authorities which you must use to create your identity.
And the third half, “management” verbalizes the action therein.
Also, IAM has a cryptic assertion of ultimate authority: In Hebrew, . . . hayah carries the added weight of representing God himself: Yahweh, “I am.” [0]
What could be a difference between identification and authentication? In my understanding they are completely synonymous. I frequently use an IdP (identity provider) to authenticate for web applications.
Know your customer is something that started in banking and is leaking everywhere.
Identity is who you really are. Be that you as an individual or as a corporation.... In the case of your bank they have a copy of your ID, your SSN, for them identity is what established the account and auth lets you work with it.... AWS might know some members of your company (either by corporate or individual card) but might not know your identity (as an individual) and yet you can still authenticate, because you have been authorized by an identified customer. I can transact with crypto as an authenticated user and NOT be identified.
In some circles "identity" is a term of art. For instance an identity provider maps credentials to user accounts. Those may or may not map to a government-numbered human.
I think authentication is about proof of identity. Identity can mean a lot of things imo. Applications identify me all the time without me giving them any proof of who I am. This happens in meatspace all the time too. People project identity and we make assumptions about what we observe. We don’t necessarily ask them to verify this identify through mutually agreed upon terms.
KYC is not so much about removinh ambiguity. It's about risk mitigation and proof. Not only about a specific user, but also the connections of a company or a person. There is also a lot of rules and laws behind against AML and PEP checks.
Indeed. "Logging in" implies some kind of long lasting session. And logging in conceptually only requires "identification" (e.g. via a username) but not necessarily "authentication" (e.g. via a password)
To “log in” is to convert the username/password pair (or API key, or whatever) into a smaller token with an expiration. Doesn’t matter of it’s put in a cookie in my browser, held in memory by some other API client, etc.
Aside:
Why bother even doing that? Because every time you transmit the credential, there’s the possibility of leaking. We would rather leak the token that has an expiration.
Everything is interconnected. People who commute to work need a car. If parking is unavailable, then commuters cannot live there. If workers can't live there, then property taxes are lower and less money enters the local economy. You can't apriori say what impact these parking policies have.
Quite a lot of lower income workers can't afford to commute by car. Breaking that "need" relation is the #1 priority for people trying to design lower-car cities.
Clearly there is a limit. Otherwise, you could circumvent all copyright by saying "The contents of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is <insert novel text here>". While technically a fact, it's protected by copyright.
There’s definitely an element of evolution: domesticated animals have evolved to have human recognizable emotions. But that’s not to say they’re not “real” or even “human.” Do humans have a monopoly on joy? I think not. Watch a dog chase a ball. It clearly feels what we call joy in a very real sense.
Hm, this is true, but I think it's worth pointing out that this is more general. The article was focusing on how JIT is harder than interpreting, whereas neither model in parent's post is inherently more complicated.
reply