The Armenian genocide killed approx 1 million out of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey in an attempt to wipe them out which is kind of where the term genocide originated. I don't think the Armenians attacked the Turks or took hostages or anything like that.
In Gaza maybe 3% of the population has been killed, partly as a side effect to fighting back against Hamas after they attacked and took hostages.
I guess it depends how you define the terms. Maybe we need some new term for trying to wipe out a people as opposed to causing casualties in war against people who attacked you?
This is fairly common in academia. Instead of having to explain something every single time something common happens, you just throw it on a web page and link that. Reference letters, office hours, and LaTeX formatting are all super common here. I understand why you might respond this way; I view it just as a different kind of https://nohello.net
I don’t understand what sets this apart from any other random AI scraper I don’t want wasting my resources. It’s possibly worse because of the brute force tools involved. Is the assumption here that you’re allowed to run this tool against any website that runs a bug bounty program? Or do you have more refined criteria?
AWS finally added the ability to swap between a few accounts [1]. There’s an arbitrary limit of 5 so it’s really bad if, say, you work for an enterprise and have lots of accounts or, say, you work for a smaller business following the AWS Well-Architected Framework and isolate things. Containers still win.
> Many samples have an issue description that is underspecified, leading to ambiguity on what the problem is and how it should be solved.
OpenAI apparently tuned _basic discovery and refinement_ out of the tests so I don’t think this is a benchmark of anything useful. It can’t replace a human but can possibly make a human more productive.
The big thing missing from the article is how a device that contains many passkeys is any different from a password manager that enforces security settings. I don’t worry about passwords my password manager generates getting compromised because I use at least 24 random characters (assuming my password manager is using a cryptographically secure PRNG that guarantees some level of randomness, giving us more than 128 bits). Assuming I use that to manage the password to my email, I really only have to worry about my password manager key being compromised. I only used my password manager on trusted devices so I really only have to worry about my trusted devices being compromised.
If I use passkeys, I have to worry about my trusted devices being compromised. According to the article, “as long as you can remember your phone password, you can log in to your accounts.” That sounds like my password manager. The other benefits also sound like a combination of my password manager and privacy focus. I’m not saying this is bad; I just don’t see how it’s different from a security-conscious status quo.
Passwords are still leakable, guessable, and can be phished. Passkeys are “second-factor-only”: your device responds to a challenge and acts in a similar capacity to a yubikey. The private keys contain much more entropy than a password, never leave the device, and the challenges and responses are both signed with site-specific keys so they can’t be phished. So from a security perspective, a lot is gained.
From a user perspective, instead of trying to get the dang webform to autofill, I just smile for a second and become authenticated.
Until you lose the device. Or you're given security codes and those are again, leakable and guessable. No normal user is going to accept their phone being stolen and losing access to their bank account. It's bitcoin as unregulated fiat levels of wishful thinking
Registering your phone as a passkey through Apple or Google will cloud-sync the key. This isn’t great for isolation, but is pretty good for availability.
Using something like KeepassXC puts you in charge of your own backups.
I’m sure we can all find people for whom one or the other would be preferable.
> Registering your phone as a passkey through Apple or Google will cloud-sync the key.
Isn't it lovely that the big players can do that...
and when Keepass or others want to do it, they are threatened in no uncertain terms with de-attestation? Members of the FIDO Consortium threatening KeePassXC and other open source tools with blocking for sharing "roaming keys", meanwhile "Oh, Apple wants to share keys via AirDrop? No problem", which is one of the concerns, that it's yet another "push users to Apple and Google's tool of choice".
"Leakable" isn't a purely negative property. It's the same thing you can use to provide access to a trusted spouse, and ensures a trivial solution to the "lost device" problem when traveling.
I refuse to believe that not answering every single email within an hour is a good predictor of anything other than being glued to your phone. I think extending it to a reasonable amount of time, maybe a business day max, works out pretty well. Sometimes people respond really fast because they’re taking regular breaks and other times they don’t respond all evening because they’re putting on their kid’s birthday party. Even at work, sometimes very good colleagues are doing things back-to-back for hours and using short windows to do things like go to the bathroom.
On the other hand maybe this is some art thing I’m too far away from to understand? Maybe really good artists to work with never need more than twenty minutes of deep focus at a time for anything?
I read this as "answer within the hour when preparing an exhibition". If you are in full swing to get an exhibition up and running and this is the time you decide to throw yourself into deep focus work, you are probably hard to work with. I would also assume if some artist told the author "look I know we open on Tuesday, but this Friday we have my kid's birthday so from 4 to 8 I won't be easy to reach", this would probably just be silently dropped from the cou ting of how fast they respond.
On the other hand, without warning going dark for 4 work day hours a few days before exhibition would look terrible if any serious question came up.
So I don't think it's literally responding within the hour, but it comes pretty dang close. You have to keep in mind that being an artist creating art and being an artist setting up an exhibition are basically two different jobs and if you end up doing them in parallel at the same time, that's your problem right there.
I read it like so too. I don’t typically respond to emails immediately unless I have my email application open (which I rarely do as I do enjoy time to do deep work). But in the lead up to a big event there is no way I would go radio silent, unless I’m unconscious in the hospital.
Since when is email expected to be answered immediately??? Anything urgent means a phone call, or a text message. Emails are either for cya reasons (but then my urgency is not necessarily your urgency) or just big stuff needing time - to write, to compose, to think, to analyse. So email answering time is a wrong metric by definition.
How long does setting up an exhibition take, and what kind of hours are you expecting? 4-8 are workday hours?
And what kind of question needs to be answered that fast, but wasn't important enough to be asked several days earlier? My feeling is that there should be very few such questions, few enough that each artist can safely take half a day if they get one.
Setting up an exhibition can take many days, and the hours can be extreme. There is limited time between when the previous show goes down, and when the next show goes up.
It's crunch time for the artist, and what exactly is involved will depend upon the show. This is the time when the artist's concept for the show meets physical reality, and since things involve the physical world, there are all sorts of things that can go wrong.
At this point the artist is essentially a project manager. They are coordinating with other people to fulfill their own vision. If those other people need a question answered before they can proceed, then those people are going to be blocked until the responds.
It's simply not polite to let people sit on their asses for a half day waiting for a response.
> If those other people need a question answered before they can proceed, then those people are going to be blocked until the responds.
This is where I'm not seeing it. It sounds like the gallery employee we're talking about is working with several artists at once. Which gives them plenty of things to do.
And if the hours are long, then 4 of them are significantly less than half a day.
A day and a half is slow even in software, and software doesn't have things like the example given of wanting a wall put up then asking for it to be taken down again.
Sure, software does have bad communicators who change their minds, but revert is relatively easy.
We're talking about half a day, not a day and a half. Or really, less than half a day.
> and software doesn't have things like the example given of wanting a wall put up then asking for it to be taken down again.
The wall example was taking place over "weeks". If there is still an urgent question about wall-building a few days out then it sounds like someone waited much too long and that's the real problem, not the extra four hours.
If everyone is there to set up your exhibition at a certain agreed upon time, then you should be engaged and answering any questions immediately if not sooner, regardless of how long it takes to set up the exhibition.
Certain agreed upon time? Yes, of course. You should probably be there for most of it too.
But once you're covering multiple days, no, a single person should not be expected to respond lightning fast the entire time. And the several day scenario is what the comment I replied to talked about.
Unfortunately it's one of those hacks that makes your look like a superhuman. I hate it but obsessively answering emails and messages as soon as possible has given me so many opportunities that it feels like a cheat code. It's nothing reasonable about it but it's just the way things are.
When people complain about this they aren't thinking about how much they love people not answering them. Obviously not everything needs to be answered quickly all the time but the world is full of delays and waiting. Any relief is welcome.
What is the difference if you answer in 10 minutes, 6 hours or 24 hours? Are you competing on time of response so if you're fast you're getting the deal?
I can only speak for myself - I produce exec/board materials.
Often a request will go out to several people and I can get ahead by responding first. Sometimes someone will reply to me quickly and the edge I bring is properly digesting their response and then going back quickly to them with questions. Others might accept they have a reply and then wait until they are pulling the paper together to realise they are missing key data.
I don’t read or action all emails instantly, but I am very aware of the ones I need to, or when I am in a period of high focus that needs information fast.
In an ideal world I’d be in an office with all the people I needed around me, all with the same focus and priorities, but that is rarely the case. So to excel at my job I need to make connections fast and respond fast. (Note this isn’t just email, this is just for my communications in general.)
Replying quickly looks like you care and you already know what's going on. It also suggests that you'd be willing to have even more synchronous conversations (phone calls, trips together, etc.)
Doing it during business hours matters more than off hours outside of major deadlines or event prep.
With many organizations, if you want to give this impression and also shut down communications to focus, you need blocks of time outside of business hours where you focus. For example, I know a responsive executive who cannot be reached from 6am-9am every weekday, when most people aren't trying to get hold of him. This is when he writes and reads. Even then, his assistant fields communications so he doesn't seem to have disappeared.
Not saying you should do this or that it's for everybody.
Exec asked for some business information information while traveling.
I replied promptly, sending a link to a webpage, within the proper process for secure data sharing according to company policy. This required exec to visit our internal website to view the information.
A teammate emailed the information directly, violating policy and good data stewardship.
CEO replied to teammate's email with a big group thank you for "emailing the information quickly".
My experience is the complete opposite. It’s a weak point like a supermarket that is still open at 11 pm. Do I need it? No, but I’ll take the service anyway since it’s free.
How is it a weak point for a supermarket to be open at 11? 24 hour supermarkets are fantastic and have saved my bottom many a time.
Do I _need_ it? No, I don't _need_ much of anything other than air to breathe and a bit of food in my belly. Most people don't just settle for that though.
This is an uncharitable take. Who said anything about an interruption every 20 minutes? We're talking about an artist doing an exhibition at a gallery, by any measure, this is a pretty significant collaboration that is in the artist's best interest and not something their getting spammed with dozens of a times a day.
If you read and digest the article, the point is not to create a litmus test based on time-to-response, it's to recognize there are a lot of people to talk a big game but are unserious about achieving shared goals.
If an artist is not responsive because they are so serious about their creative process that they don't have time to respond to a gallery doing an exhibition than maybe that's the right thing for what they are serious about, but it does jack shit for the gallery staffer who is serious about creating an exhibition.
Are you a professional [earning most of your money through your art]? Which country do you live in please?
I've only seen the self-curation from community groups. I'm all for collectives but I'm pretty sure the professional artists I know would say it gives off budget/desperate vibes and so it's something you can't afford to do if you aspire to 'make it [big]'.
{I express myself through overuse of parentheses and through runon sentences...}
i did take some issue with the way that point was phrased as well.
but, i took it a little more broadly than it was actually specified: people who are not great about communicating or make it hard for you to work with them at the outset will probably continue to be like that throughout the entirety of your working relationship.
i watch some videos on the Tested youtube channel, where the host is Adam Savage, who was one of the hosts/creators of the MythBusters tv show, and he often talks about this point, and how he learned it working with Jamie Hyneman early on in his career where they would take clients, and Jamie explained this principal.
You’re trying to systematise something that is more like basic human nature. It’s like trying to explain why people like attractive people from a utilitarian perspective.
In the real world I just prefer to interact with people who prioritise me over other things and most people are the same.
Yet some artists do believe that it's morally wrong that producing whatever they deem as good art isn't guaranteed to be self-supporting. They shouldn't ultimately have to answer to anyone else's opinion to earn a living. Which is highly entitled, and non-evolutionary.
He didn't mention a timescale. Maybe it's a difference between 4 hours and 1 day? I would agree that if someone takes longer than a day to respond, then it's going to be hard to work with this person. 4 hours is fine.
Becoming recognized as a good artist depends a great deal on being an effective communicator about one's work. It's sort of self-selecting but it is part of the job.
All people are not alike. Thankfully. Refer Law of Requisite Variety. Some people live to please.
Once you understand people are very different, the whole story turns into setting teams up such that the right people are in the right role. Ofcourse this is hard to pull off, so there is always drama in any group.
They have EA’s that can go through their inboxes for them and highlight what actually needs a response. Hell they probably draft responses for them too
This is not just some art thing. People note it in every field. It's not the only predictor; the author of Chrome reportedly did most of it offline IIRC. But it's a real phenomenon that is robust in the face of the concerns you're raising. There is a wide range of email responsiveness -- even among people who are going to the bathroom and putting on birthday parties and doing focus work -- and it is a helpful predictor.
