GET
https://auth.web.id/qrcode?chl=otpauth://totp/Example%20Inc.sdf:johsn%40example.com?issuer=Example%20Inc.sdf&secret=SA&algorithm=SHA1&digits=6&period=30
> all computations are performed client-side with no data storage
so this isn't true.
I am sure you can generate the qr code on the client as well
The scientists of today are the priests of tomorrow.
The only reason we don't use "religious" method is because science has taught us to only believe "data backed evidence". Also at the same time we are moving fast into the era where reproduction of most "papers" being published today is hard and unlikely if not impossible.
That "day-to-day" people neither read science papers in depth nor religious scriptures in depth is a common problem as well.
This is simply false. Reproduction of papers is an academic issue but your claim is at the very least hyperbolic. The scientific method has proven to be by far the most successful method of investigating the world around us.
Agreed. However, the method has ritualistic elements that can reproduced without following the method itself all that closely. When we use “accepted by a top journal” as a proxy for value, we are substituting social proof for actual value.
I think what you’re referring to is that a lot of traditional ‘hard’ science we are familiar with came out of a period of time when the most important thing was being provably correct (or not) - and it mattered in concrete ways - and so was enforced pretty heavily. Aka ~ early 1900’s to mid cold-war. When hard science and industrialization was a front and center, existential thing for society.
A lot of science (both back then, but especially now) is less hard and is more optimized towards being accepted. Psychology, Anthropology, Geology, Paleontology, many fields of Biology, and many others are all about social proof, since really what else can you use? There are too many lines of judgement that have to be drawn for any of it to make sense in a hard ‘verifiable’ way.
And hard science still requires reproducibility, but a lot of that is getting more niche and harder to verify, rather than more directly verifiable, so it is also falling prey to ‘acceptability’ vs ‘verifiable correctness’.
Going back even further Historically, it was very hard to afford verifiable correctness, so very few people could actually do it. Pretty much either very rich people, or people with rich rich sponsors - which also often required or
provided social proof/acceptance.
Religion helps wrap the whole thing up in a way that is marketable, and secrecy protects the ‘trade secrets’ so any sort of professionalism can be supported for further work or development. And because people need to eat.
I’m not so sure it was secrecy or just some not that curious about the complicated subject matter. Much of the group study happend in specific location travel and publishing being what they were I expect knowledge scarcity without trying to control the information.
I’m not clear about what you mean with ‘tiered system of information based on achievements’ separate from ‘secrecy’. That pattern was, and still is very common in religious and military institutions that I think anyone would call high on ‘secrecy’.
In broad strokes, how is that different from modern day security classification systems, and/or things like information access based on rank?
One very obvious difference between now and then, IMO, is the massive difference in wealth and population between now and then. That allows specialization and optimization to much greater degrees than possible before.
> Reproduction of papers is an academic issue but your claim is at the very least hyperbolic
What % of population today can actually understand let alone reproduce the papers being published today. And this is not just about practicality of it. Is there a motivation to even reproduce it ?
I am not saying "science is bad". I am saying science has the same fate as religion.
No it doesn't. The fact that most are unable to reproduce it doesn't mean they can't reproduce it. Many do in fact are interested in these sort of experiments and methodologies and do them outside of their profession. All of this is different from the practice of religion. I have no idea how you compare a methodology to a ritual. The methodology comes from easily provable axiomatic facts about statistics and logic. The same cannot be said for rituals.
Tell them to present some evidence or go pound sand? (“You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.” -Tim Minchin)
Or, you know, destroy and deny existence of evidence that was previously abundant and considered obvious. Or move goalposts on what's considered "evidence" at all. Or manufacture mountains of data and statistics to simply drown out anything else.
We probably disagree that they are built differently. I’m willing to let you believe they are seperate and ask that you let
Me hold my ideals. If you want to discuss you would have to state what the differences are. Declaring they are different and expecting me to know why you think that is a real hindrance.
I’m happy to defend them. I just don’t know what you think is correct. I understand you believe I’m wrong. I see the linkage as crystal clear evolution of human thought.
More importantly, Jupyter Notebooks are becoming a de facto standard which makes repeating calculations using newly gathered data far easier, allowing for a straight-forward reproduction.
> reproduction of most "papers" being published today is hard and unlikely if not impossible.
It is unlikely because there is no incentive to it. In contrast, it would be considered career sabotage if you keep reproducing other studies than creating original research. Because funding agencies and hiring committees will look for that. Not because it is impossible (Of course operative word here is "most")
I think it may be more subtle than what you present. Earlier naive beliefs my have just as much evidence of support in the context at the time of conception.
Would love a suggestion on books to start conceptualizing of a business in terms like these, instead of how I currently think of it (tech stacks and cost)
Think of it like you're making a career change and immersing yourself in a new circle. Not strictly studying, rather just hanging out and taking it all in.
It helps my brain more fully switch into the "product leader identity". It's been very helpful and fun.
because there were some interesting nuggets. Maybe nothing new to you - but not everyone has read everything on the topic.
though this was more about their process rather than an 'engine'. but you know, headlines /shrug
Practice Storytelling:
Incorporate anecdotes, metaphors, and analogies into your conversations. This makes your communication more engaging and less direct.
Example: Instead of saying "We need to increase our sales," you could say, "Imagine our company as a ship; to stay afloat, we need to navigate towards higher sales."
Use Fillers and Connectors:
Use phrases like "as you know," "in other words," "basically," and "to put it simply." These help to extend your speech without necessarily adding new information.
Example: "As you know, our goal is to improve efficiency. Basically, this means we'll need to streamline our processes."
Focus on Emotional Appeal:
Use words that evoke emotions rather than just conveying facts. Express enthusiasm, concern, optimism, or caution depending on the context.
Example: "I'm really excited about this new project because it has the potential to revolutionize our approach."
Reiterate and Rephrase:
Repeat key points in different ways to emphasize your message without adding new content.
Example: "The main objective is to boost productivity. In other words, we need to find ways to work smarter, not harder."
Ask Rhetorical Questions:
Pose questions that don't necessarily need answers but keep the audience engaged and thinking.
Example: "What does this mean for us? It means we have an opportunity to grow."
Resources:
Books:
"Talk Like TED" by Carmine Gallo: This book offers insights into how to present ideas effectively and engage audiences, inspired by TED Talks.
"How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie: Although more focused on interpersonal skills, this classic book provides valuable advice on persuasive communication.
so this isn't true.
I am sure you can generate the qr code on the client as well