🇰 🌀 🇱 🌀 🇳 🇦 🇸 🇰 🇦 🇵 🇮

  • 0 Posts
  • 75 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle






  • Google Wave tried to replace email with a come-and-go / bulletin board / long-form chat kind of thing. I’d still like that for occasional things, like organizing holiday get-togethers with the family, but that has been the only time I think about using something like that.

    For most personal communication that isn’t biz-to-biz, it’s chat nowadays. And the rooms/teams/channels concept (like IRC) is the main medium for what I used to want Waves to be. At least on Teams, it still supports more than just a “tweet”, and people can come and go on those threads, and depending on the service, you can pin messages, associate a wiki for persistent content, etc.

    But all those still require people to be on that particular chat service.

    Perhaps that’s the end result for personal and group communication. The format feels pretty right for the job, to me. I just hope it eventually morphs into a federated system like email and Lemmy, as I just don’t imagine everyone agreeing to sign up for yet another chat service every time someone else wants to start a group chat. Then instead of “did you add so-and-so to the group chat”, we’d just pivot the problem to “oh, we were discussing this on the Slack group, but on the Teams group someone else said blah blah…”. Same problem–fragmentation.








  • Depends on context, too. Counter-point, for example: “You let your boy wear pink? He’s gonna be a sissy.” “You should take your kids to the church the rest of us go to.” “She/he’s too young/old to do ___.” I could imagine a few good reasons to tell people to mind their own business.

    But yeah, we’ve really got to look at ourselves in the mirror frequently and make sure we’re not just shutting out constructive criticism. Brains adapt, and that can rationalize bad things.



  • That didn’t quite explain everything. I want to add that there are “type your name to sign” forms that are just what you described, just bytes spelling out your name. In those cases, you’re right, those bytes don’t have your handwriting to prove anything, but they do accomplish something. If the form is secured behind a login and not a totally buggy heap of garbage, then the act of typing your name on that form demonstrates that whoever logged in deliberately expressed their approval. And whatever level of identity verification is needed for login is then playing the part of demonstrating who did that. That’s not perfect, but the level of evidence might match the level of risk enough to justify that mechanism to the company providing it, and it’s important to consider all factors: not just system cost, but end user tolerance.

    E.g., there was (maybe still is?) a “ham” radio logging system that had end users generate their own PGP signing key pair to sign their log books, which are simply a list of who they talked to over the radio, always for non-commercial purposes (by law). Many questioned whether a secure web site with good 2FA might suffice and be much more convenient, manageable, and adequate risk level for most users.

    “Digital signature” is a proper term that should mean what the parent comment explained–public key crypto “signing” (a hash of) a document’s content–but “sign here by typing your name” will inevitably get called a signature and, obviously, is also digital, just not a real “digital signature”.