Depends on why these C1 classes exist.
But I reckon there is a difference between driving a heavy van, and driving a heavy loaded van.
Or maybe they need to make a C0 ;) that has just enough of C1 to make it "safe" again.
You know what I lack most in this entire discussion and github conversation/bug ? Basic boundaries.
If someone says "no thank you". You can maybe try to ask if there is any wiggle room, or good will possible. But if there isn't, then that's the end of it. Leave the other person in peace.
If you don't like it, then fork it (if allowed). Or get your needs met another way. But trying to enforce them on someone else is not very respectable.
And if someone continues to try and bother you into doing what you want. You say no one last time, and stop communicating.
Do I detect a fellow partner acrobat ?
But that would be nice indeed.
The problem however is we work on contact area between each other (the 2 acrobat partners) that isn't perfectly stable. (For example handstand in hands.) Or there might be a way to abstract it away.
My brain seems to recall you want to keep your sourdough for 2 weeks before using it, to make sure there are no harmful strains left in your culture. But I cannot find the resource atm.
I agree on the stress, you can however remove some of the stress. It's not because you are in pain you have to suffer. I know it's not entirely true, but it is to some extend.
debt? sounds like you want retribution.
As long as your mindset is on punishment, rather then to fix (if possible) what drove the person to such undesired behaviour, it's going to be hard to forgive. You want to lock up people because you have to, either as a WORKING deterrent, or to keep people outside jail safe.
No, I don't want retribution. I've slowly come to the belief that prison should be to keep people who cannot function in society separated from society until they can function in society. It's punishment enough for such separation, I don't agree with "hard" time.
And what's so wrong with retribution? If you cause suffering to another during their short and precious time on this world, why should you not be made to suffer as well?
This desire for retribution is a central part of the human psyche. As we have done for our other wild drives, we have tamed it with process and institutions, but we should not deny our moral intuitions. If you reject the legitimacy of moral intuition, then you'd have a hard time justifying why blackmail should be illegal, for example.
People lose their phones, wallets, and keys all the time, and these are things that they constantly use and check for. What chance does a "little device the government gave me that I don't use very often" have?
Making the device something that is used often is actually a good way around that problem. It's a bit like housekeys. It's not so much that you can't leave without them, but it's a bit hard to return, so you tend not to leave without them....
I'm strongly partial to a worn form-factor. A near-field-chip ring, essentially a modern signet ring, which interacts with various authentication systems, strikes me as attractive.
I've written here on HN before that it should be a device that is issued that has the private key, but that private key is also hashed with a pin and some piece of biometric data. The pin itself would be changeable (forced every 90 days, at will anytime). The device would have a keypad.
You would go down to some place (govt office) to get the device (card?). They would take the device, pop it in a reader/writer, and the device would ask you for a key and your biometric data (maybe a fingerprint?). The device would have on it a keypad and fingerprint reader (or whatever). Once you typed in your pin and scanned your fingerprint, it would generate a private key, hash all three together and store it in the card. This key would be "permanent" to the card (if you lose the card, you have to get another). The key wouldn't be saved anywhere (not in a govt database, etc). And it couldn't be retrieved from the card.
To prove your identity, you would slot the card into a reader, swipe your fingerprint, type in your pin. If your pin and fingerprint plus key on card hashed matches the stored hash - then you are identified and the card outputs a "true" value to the reader. Otherwise, it outputs a "false" value indicating no match.
Multi-factor auth - something you have (the card), something you know (the pin), something you are (the fingerprint/biometric).
That's the basic gist or blueprint - essentially an ID card that can't have it's id read (not easily at least - I imagine that you could read it with proper decapping and electron microscopy), with a built in keypad and biometric read sensor in one unit. Anywhere you need to do a transaction to prove yourself, you need to use a reader (even online - so as a part of you getting your card, you would get a reader too).
There's probably a ton in the scheme that I am missing or have wrong, but I think the basic idea is there, and I think it is possible to do with today's technology. The idea is that just having the card alone isn't enough. Just having the id number/key isn't enough. You need all three pieces for it to work.
It isn't "rubber hose" proof - but then again, not much is or can be.
> The pin itself would be changeable (forced every 90 days, at will anytime)
You have now destroyed any security this device has, as no one wants to create a brand-new PIN every 90 days, no matter how much or little entropy it has.
Changing passwords on a regular basis as a security best practice has been debunked for years now. Even NIST is (finally) on board, saying that forced regular password changes should not be used in an attempt to increase security.
Your password/PIN should be changed iff there is reason to believe it has been compromised.
cannibal card -> I'd say this is mostly about others people discomfort with it. As this seems to boil down to suicide / cult suicide + meat consumption of a uncommonly consumed animal (humans in this case). The main problem lies in the reason for suicide. (There might also be health problems with eating certain meat, I don't know.)
I may severely dislike certain people but acknowledge their undeniable good judgment. Being reasonably honest, I'll tell as much if asked for a reference.
Anything that involves a word like "good" instead of something numeric is hard to objectively measure. But if your aim is not science but hiring, you learn to trust your gut and other unscientific instruments. (Human vision is very much flawed as a scientific instrument, but it helps do complex things nonetheless. Same with human judgment.)
