The authentication factors of a multi-factor authentication scheme may include:
1. Something the user has: Any physical object in the possession of the user, such as a security token (USB stick), a bank card, a key, a phone that can be reached at a certain number, etc.
2. Something the user knows: Certain knowledge only known to the user, such as a password, PIN, PUK, etc.
3. Something the user is: Some physical characteristic of the user (biometrics), such as a fingerprint, eye iris, voice, typing speed, pattern in key press intervals, etc.
Email and phone are both in category one, comprising only one unique factor.
What is the minimum number of things you need access to in order to log in?
If you have access to the phone, you can log in. OR if you have access to the email account, you can log in.
You don't need to know the user's password, you only need access to one of these inboxes and nothing else. One-factor authentication, but worse, because there are multiple attack surfaces.
I think that framing makes the argument vacuous. If an action is framed as murder, how would OP defend in the first place? Any argument would be tough to carry. It would be arguing against a tautology. You are right to mention how the "debate" here is people asserting their arguments.
What I find most tough to carry is the consequent: there are ~600,000 (rough number of abortions per year in USA) people "murdering" their own "children" every single year. I suppose in the process of putting their faith in god these people have removed all their faith in humanity...
I'm pro commenting, but let me play devil's advocate.
If you view leaving a comment as murder, then commenting doesn't just affect the person partaking in it, but also the life of everyone reading the comments. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed?
Here's is my point though: if you assume something is murder, of course you will conclude that it is bad. There's no "Devil's advocate"—or for that matter—any argument at all to be had. The entire debate revolves around the assumption you simply asserted for "Devil's advocate".
Well if we go to an even more extreme degree with the devil’s advocate thing: what is the difference between an ~4 month embryo (or any cutoff after which miscarriage becomes very unlikely) and a newborn?
Either of them isn’t a real person, neither is fully conscious. Sure a newborn can feel pain but infanticide can be done in a humane way. What we are depriving from the newborn is the opportunity to live and experience the rest of its life but the same applies in both cases.
And in a quite a few ancient societies infanticide was fully acceptable (killing slightly older children was generally not) and used as a somewhat safer alternative to abortion.
> Well if we go to an even more extreme degree with the devil’s advocate thing: what is the difference between an ~4 month embryo (or any cutoff after which miscarriage becomes very unlikely) and a newborn?
From a practical perspective, giving up the newborn for adoption is significantly easier than the 4 month embryo - it's already been carried to term and birthed. And quite a few humans, correctly or otherwise, feel a lot more 'ick' around the idea of infanticide vs. abortion. But they also feel a lot more 'ick' around late gestation abortion too - most states have had gestational limits around abortion. Very few have had none. (Many of those with gestational limits do have exceptions around health/safety issues for the mother, or significant medical issues with the fetus, etc.)
It's kind of a strange argument because most of the US did accept the premise that at a certain point in the embryo's development abortion becomes less acceptable. I can't speak as definitively for the rest of the world, but a cursory google shows that the situation is quite similar - most countries that allow for abortion have gestational restrictions.
> world, but a cursory google shows that the situation is quite simila
IIRC US is quite permissive in that regard? 12-14 is generally standard across much of Europe while in US that’s generally viewed as quite restrictive?
Why so snarky? It's pretty clear cko understands that and is trying to convey your exact point to the person they responded to (who made the opposite assumption)
Yes you can use it. Put in a brand, click the "analyze" button and you will get the report that shows "when, where, and what Redditors say" exactly as advertised. There is an additional paid service (notifications, competitor analysis) currently on waitlist, but you can still use the tool as-is right now.
