Email OR SMS is still one factor. Its not multiple factors. How are you not getting that? Do you know what MFA means?
Even if it was Email OR password, that would still be one factor due to the OR. I do not think they are discussing in good faith.
Readit Newsmax__dev commented on Emailing a one-time code is worse than passwords blog.danielh.cc/blog/pass... · Posted by u/max__dev
max__dev commented on Emailing a one-time code is worse than passwords blog.danielh.cc/blog/pass... · Posted by u/max__dev
Thats simple a lie or you didn't read the article.
The very first bullet point states: Enter an email address or phone number
That insinuates email OR SMS.
It doesn't just mention email only.
The following is copied from wikipedia.
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.
max__dev commented on Emailing a one-time code is worse than passwords blog.danielh.cc/blog/pass... · Posted by u/max__dev
Very short, badly written article.
It can't even describe phishing correctly... At least label your threat model correctly.
While the premise is correct -- it's easy to complain but the author also provides zero recommendations on what is a better form of MFA.
The article is not about MFA. It is about using email as a single factor.
max__dev commented on First hormone-free male birth control pill enters human trials scitechdaily.com/99-effec... · Posted by u/Teever
The anti-abortion "argument" (everyone on all sides are really just asserting things because there doesn't appear to be anything to argue about) is that abortion is murdering a child.
If someone accepts that frame, would you attempt to argue that there is no social contract to protect the lives of children? That seems like a tough argument to carry.
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...
max__dev commented on First hormone-free male birth control pill enters human trials scitechdaily.com/99-effec... · Posted by u/Teever
I'm pro choice, but let me play devil's advocate.
If you view the fetus? embryo? as a human life, then abortion doesn't just affect the person having it, but also the life being aborted. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed?
So for some people it's not that simple.
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".