There are some that are direct. Cryptocurrencies do provide novel features for users. Whether those features are desirable or beneficial enough to justify the huge price of these tokens (and further growth) is something people disagree on. I also think that ETH does provide novel capabilities with distributed computation. But again, the cost is enormous. This makes it hard for many people to buy the idea that the whole web will transition to this model.
For auth though, I agree with you. The only thing new here is that a lot of people have public/private key pairs that never had them before. Maybe this means that adoption is easier but I'm skeptical that this is a meaningful difference over existing signature-based authentication systems.
Fair enough, I did use a circular argument example unintentionally, my bad. But yeah, I agree with you - I wouldn't use wallets for auth really unless I'm making a web3 app. You *can* use this authentication scheme for other sites if you wanted, but you're right in the fact that the question is "Why?" Your target audience isn't going to have a wallet, why use it for authentication? Unless we reach the point where more browsers have native wallets built in, but even then, I'm not sure I'd want to do it for a traditional web app. Even though I find it cool personally that I can auth in this manner, if the target audience for the service has no idea how to use it, then it's not a good idea.
And I just wanted to say that I personally don't think the whole web will transition to this model, despite me working in the field. The current web isn't really going anywhere, I don't really have pipedreams of everything under the sun getting decentralized, but what I see is the potential for creators to make something cool and it's a neat emerging field to explore as a developer.
And one more time, just because I mentioned it in the first post, ETH is ridiculously expensive right now, but there are alternatives. It's awful for anything other than pretty minor distributed computing currently. There are some really neat projects out there that may be able to get around this by using off-chain distributed computing on ETH, there is a product that I've been meaning to test out as a dev but haven't had the chance yet as I've been focusing in learning the Solana ecosystem for the past few months instead of Ethereum. But it's an emerging space and I think we'll continue to see a lot of innovations over the years; even in the past 2 years we've seen a huge influx of innovative projects.
> Now you say "yeah, auth isn't any better but you might as well do it this way given that your web3 service is using ETH for whatever other hypothetical thing."
Edit - And I did want to reply to this actually. The value I find in this as an authentication method is it does make it incredibly easy as a developer to integrate. I've worked with SSO before that's also super easy as well, however that relies on centralization of trust in an entity such as Google. Even if it is just minor, I do like the idea of being able to provide authentication that:
1. I don't need to store passwords or handle them whatsoever
2. I don't need to rely on an external arbiter of truth such as google / facebook
I have used webauthn a bit, not as a dev, but as an end user and it's really awesome. I would imagine it's not terribly difficult to integrate and would satisfy both of those above desires for my own projects. But yes, in crypto world, might as well use the keypairs everyone already has.
It's about the number of patients, not the time. It's cheaper to run a trial over a longer period of time, a few patients at a time, but they don't continue to track patients for the entire duration. In this case tons of money was thrown at it and they were able to run tons of patients in parallel. Billions of doses of the vaccine have been given - seriously, what more do you want?
Because mRNA vaccines doesn't contain the dangerous virus at all, "just some genetic information" which will trigger your immune system to build antibodies. Things move forward, TTM for software features these days are often shorter because of technical advances, why wouldn't the same be true in biotech?
The police weren't defunded, they didn't have staffing cut.
If the police are sitting there watching a crime happening, and aren't doing anything about it, they should be fired. Of course, they can't be fired because their union won't let that happen.
The correct response here is indeed "Fucking police".
Put yourself in the shoes of an honest, hardworking police man/woman for the past 2 years and tell me honestly what you would do in their situation. I know I would either have already left or be biding my time looking for an exit.
> I honestly find these people to simply be trolls. The views espoused make no sense.
I hope it's not coming off as me trolling. I'm genuinely attempting to see what the other side of this discussion is. One side seems to represent remote work as a way to decentralize the industry allowing us all to move to lower cost of living areas, reduce the time "working" by not needing commutes, spend more time with family and children, and improve the amount of focus time you have.
As for the work-from-office side of things: I don't actually know why people want to return. As from what I can gather: people miss commuting and miss seeing other people. It seems fairly straight forward to me how this could be replicated in a WFH environment.
1. If you miss commuting adding a fake commute (home -> subway -> coffee shop -> subay -> home) into your day can help.
2. If you miss seeing people working from a shared office space like WeWork or attending meetups with other people in your field seems like a good substitute. You can talk shop with people who are actually your friends (changing jobs doesn't change your social group).
I see these as being very direct substitutes for what I see people bring up and I don't understand why these are not the same. Maybe because other people you are working with are not also doing these? Maybe it's that if the commute or socialization aren't part of the job it feels sort of "pointless"? I don't understand this though.
> Imagine if I suggested that they just video call their children from the office as a replacement for watching them grow up.
Funnily enough this is one of the reasons people like WFH. They can spend time with their kids instead of commuting.
> You want A, I want B. We can have both, it ain't even hard.
Actually, it is sort of difficult. In a world where we assume all workplaces allow WFH then yes, we can do both. Coworkers who want to work in an office can self organize into rented office space but the default of remote workers will change things: conference rooms need to allow people to dial in, people need to document discussions/decisions that are randomly made in office, etc. In a world where work-from-office is the assumed norm it is much harder to join a company as WFH since many processes are just not there.
> There's also the whole "corona theater" element, with people pretending that they don't want to come in because they'll die or whatever, which might have made sense for a month or two in March last year but now is just a sign that you're dealing with someone who is either deliberately lying or just has no understanding of the situation.
"Sure, I went to a packed restaurant with friends this weekend but I feel uncomfortable coming into the office."
