Readit Newshttps://infosec.mozilla.org/guidelines/iam/openid_connect.ht...
Was by far the most useful information about OIDC I could find when I was implementing an integration.
This. Gotta have your round robin of foreign call centers be able to spoof the main customer service line numbers for whoever they're contracted to represent.
Personally I think that should all be done in software these days, not something supported at the teleco level but what do I know.
I understand, for example, search with intent to buy "I want to decorate a room. Find me a drawer, a table and four chairs that can fit in this space in matching colours for less than X dollars"
But I want to do the final step to buy. In fact, I want to do the final SELECTION of stuff.
How is agent buying groceries superior to have a grocery list set as a recurring purchase? Sure an agent may help in shaping the list, but I don't see how allowing the agent to do purchases directly on your end is way more convenient, so I'm fine with taking the risk of doing something really silly.
"Hey agent, find me and compare insurance for my car for my use case. Oh, good. I'll pick insurance A and finish the purchase"
And many of the purchases that we do are probably enjoyable and we don't want really to remove ourselves from the process.
I could see an interesting use case for something like "Check my calendar and a plan meals for all but one dinners I have free this week. One night, choose a new-to-me recipe, for the others select from my 15 most commonly made dishes. Include at least one but at most 3 pasta dishes. Consider the contents of my pantry, trying to use ingredients I have on hand. Place an order for pickup from my usual grocery store for any ingredients necessary that are not already in the pantry"
As much as I reminisce about the days of private servers for Quake/2/3, UT99, CS1.6, etc., saying this is really ignorant of how modern gaming and matchmaking works. Some games would simply not be possible without public matchmaking; I don't care how much of a social butterfly you are, you are not going to get 99 friends to get a PUBG match going. Even getting 11 other people to run a game of Overwatch or CS would be a pain. Other games need public matchmaking to have a fair ranking system. You go onto say ranking is "weaponised" but, ranking is a feature, and a lot of people like that feature.
> However, it does mean that the big publishers wouldn't have control over everything a player does. Getting them to agree to that is probably the real hard problem.
The demand for anticheat, and matchmaking/ranking systems, are entirely player-driven, not publisher-driven. If developers and publishers could get away with only implementing player-managed servers and letting players deal with cheaters, they would! It's a lot less work for them.
As a sibling comment mentioned, even in the days of private servers you ended up with community-developed tools like Punkbuster. I remember needing to install some anti-cheat crap when I signed up for Brood War's private ICCUP ladder.
Squad has 100 player games, and despite its anticheat having well-known bypasses, I don't see a lot of hacked client cheating. Why? Because I play on servers that consistently have a couple people online during the hours I play that ban anybody who cheats.
Community servers have a lot more moderators than the game devs could possibly afford, because they can build trust with volunteers.
"Anubis doesn't target crawlers which run JS (or those which use a headless browser, etc.) It's meant to block the low-effort crawlers that tend to make up large swaths of spam traffic. One can argue about the efficacy of this approach, but those higher-effort crawlers are out of scope for the project."
So its meant/preferred to block low effort crawlers which can still cause damage if you don't deal with them. a 3 second deterrent seems good in that regard. Maybe the 3 second deterrent can come as in rate limiting an ip? but they might use swath's of ip :/
Why guess? This is data that is almost certainly aggregated back to the manufacturer and could be available as a published report. The fact you don't see this report I think is indicative of the reality.
> Pessimism about battery longevity is giving us all cheaper second-hand EVs
The seller sets the price. Not the buyer. You should ask why the seller is willing to let the vehicle go for a lower than expected price for a given number of miles.
> had lost just 15% of their capacity, on average
There are no average batteries. The used vehicle market doesn't work on averages, it generally works on worst cases, particularly in an as-is (no warranty) sale.
> in other words, there was no active cooling of the battery
As it requires a four way valve. That's a common failure point in EVs.
> Many manufacturers provide long warranties for their batteries
Do those often persist through private party sales?
I'm not trying to be mean, I think EVs are great, but hybrids are still obviously better, and the market is far more complex than this author would like to acknowledge. I dislike articles that start with a conclusion and then spend pages trying to justify it. The data to actually answer this question was available but completely unused here. I did not find this convincing or informative.
Think of it this way. There is a segment of the buying market that is hostile to these vehicles by default. Waving your hands with no data to back it up only makes it worse.
Anyways..
With an ICE, I get gas once a week or so. With an EV, I plug my car in overnight a couple times a week, maybe using a fast charger once a month or so when I realize I've neglected to do before a longer trip. With a hybrid, I'm plugging in every night, plus getting gas once a month or so.
With a (manual transmission) ICE, I get to decide my power curve, and know if I slam the peddle to the metal, I can get a LOT of power out of that car. With an ICE, my acceleration is limited mostly by software. With a hybrid, if your EV mode battery gets depleted, the car gets sluggish. Plus, you're dragging around a bunch of dead weight in the form of a battery, so you don't even get respectable acceleration on ICE standards.
On top of all that, hybrids cost more (because they have basically all the parts of an ICE and an EV).
You're right for many drivers with dense charger coverage it's a nuisance.
But there are drivers who take trips with sparse charger coverage , where the 20% loss means insecure or impossible trips.