And you didn’t even read past the first sentence I see.

Saying they’re the same because they both use a neural network is roughly equivalent to saying things are they same because they’re both manipulating kinetic energy.

It can totally be fine for your needs, and secure while it does so, and not be two factors.

It’s a question of what’s required for access. In this case, they would need your password and to have had some manner of device access at some point to steal the value used by 1password to verify you at one point had the secret key. Someone with a keylogger from a random untargeted malware infection could plausibly get sufficient information. It’s really good 1 factor.

To be two factor there would need to be a requirement for two factors to be demonstrated at auth time. For example, if 1password encrypted the passkeys in such a way that the passkey could not ever leave the device, like via certain types of hardware backed key storage, then unlocking the vault is proof of something you know, and the usage of the signature is proof you have the chip.
The trickery comes about in the techniques available to move the passkey between encrypted hardware devices without it ever being exposed or loosing the “device you control” assurances.

For the record, I use 1password. Just not for passkeys on desktop. I prefer the Bluetooth connection to my phone, since phones currently do a much better job providing uniform targets for what’s needed to provide the proper two factor for something like passkeys.

… How if flying a spaceship different from driving a car? They’re both controlled applications of kinetic energy to move people or objects.

At the end of the day, it’s all a pile of transistors and the only thing that is of import is the intent behind usage.

In one case it’s saying you can use a neural net to take something rendered at resolution A/4 and make it visually indistinguishable from the same render at resolution A.
The other is rendering something and radically changing the artistic or visual style.

Upsampling can be replicated within some margin by lowering framerate and letting the GPU work longer on each frame. It strives to restore detail left out from working quicker by guessing.
You cannot turn this feature off and get similar results by lowering the frame rate. It aims to add detail that was never present by guessing.

Upsampling methods have been produced that don’t use neural networks. The differences in behavior are in the realm of efficiency, and in many cases you would be hard pressed to tell which is which. The neural network is an implementation detail.
In the other case, the changes are more broad than can be captured by non AI techniques easily. The generative capabilities are central to the feature.

Process matters, but zooming out too far makes everything identical, and the intent matters too. “I want to see your art better” as opposed to “I want to make your art better”.

There are secure ways to transfer the key that preserve the properties that make it useful as two factors in one.

Basically, the device will only release the key in an encrypted fashion readable by another device able to make the same guarantees, after the user has used that device to authenticate to the first device using the key being transferred.
A backup works the same way.

You can do that without an extension. There’s a bunch of different protocols that let you, for example, use your phone as the authenticator.
You can log in with your phone on a computer you’ve never used before by scanning a QR code and credentials never leave your device.

My passkeys are tied to my phone, which I use via the browser and OS. I keep them in my password manager running on the phone. My password manager supports the open spec for securely migrating credentials between vendors.

It may be difficult to believe but they want you to use them because they’re legitimately significantly better.

Users are silly. They blame Microsoft for bad passwords. They blame Google for forgotten passwords. They blame Facebook when they click on a phishing link. They blame apple when apple “lets” someone who they gave their password to see their pictures. They blame apple when they don’t let the user in just because they forgot their password and every recovery mechanism.

Everyone involved has a significant issue with passwords because they cost them user satisfaction, credibility, or money directly. The reason cross vendor transfer has been slow is because everyone wants to be the leader, since if everyone follows your lead you get to make it work better with your stuff.

That ones because users like choice. They need to look up who you are to know how you’ve chosen to authenticate. At least, that’s how it started. Some could be doing it because the big kids are, but that’s why the big kids do.
And they support choice because businesses want to use their login infrastructure and refuse to share. So you enter “user@businessOrUniversity.com.edu” and it forwards you to your institutional login.

They inevitably didn’t write it for that reason. They wrote it to say the field is invalid until the user changes it to be valid after someone landed on the page holding the enter key down and instantly locked themselves out after submitting the form 50 times in 3 seconds.
Unless you know otherwise, it’s easy to think that “form interaction” is the same as “form changed”, and one of those is much easier to check.

I’m unsure what you mean about passkeys. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone mention significant concessions to os makers and I’m pretty tuned in on the topic.

Depends on the system. The thing where your password manager is managing your passkeys? That’s a single factor unless it’s doing something tricky that none of them do.
When it’s the tpm or a Bluetooth connection to your phone? That’s actually two factors, and great.

That’s not bullying, that’s enforcing social mores.

There’s no precedent at all. Precedent implies that it happened, which it didn’t.
Something being thought of and dismissed is just not evidence for that thing being done.

It’s not like it was even that original of an idea. There had been two plane hijackings by cubans in the past year. Proposing “what if a third went wrong” is hardly a masterclasses in outside the box thinking.

We’ve done other false flag operations. Other terrible things to domestic civilians.
Using that time we didn’t actually do anything as an example is just odd.

Personally, I think people like it just because it has a cooler name. “Mongoose” just doesn’t have the same ring.

And? What happened next? Did they do an operation Northwoods? Did we go to war with Cuba? Was Johnson more aggressive on Cuba than Kennedy, or was he actually more engaged on diplomatic fronts?

I’m not forgetting anything. It just doesn’t fit with any narrative that makes a lick of goddamned sense. Like, Kennedy rejected Northwoods because he was worried the troops might be needed in Europe, so starting a war in Cuba would be a bad move.
He was strongly in favor of every other operation they proposed as part of the larger plan.

Why would a massive conspiracy exist to kill Kennedy for rejecting a plan and then… Not do the plan?

I agree, and feel similarly about the inclusion of operation Northwoods.
It’s most prominently a horrifying plan that was rejected and remained classified, with the proposer being replaced shortly afterwards (it’s entirely possible that’s a coincidence).

Someone thinking of something horrible and then not doing it isn’t evidence that they would do something similar. There’s no particular reason to think they hid evidence because they admitted in the same deeply classified documents to doing far worse things.

I mean, I get that. As I said, it’s the surprise that confuses me. I understand “ugh, why are we putting profit in _____”. It’s that someone would go “whoah, hold on, people are running daycares for money?”

I’m honestly slightly confused by this response. Any business type will end up with some that do well, open more locations and get some manner of central office. It’ll inevitably be some manner of corporation because that just how we structure any business beyond small. The daycare is where the kids go and the office their handles local stuff like contact forms and medical notes, and corporate office handles billing and such.

Like, yeah it’s weird for something as personal as childcare to be a franchise, but no one gets too worked up about corporate pharmacies and that’s literally trusting a stranger giving you a bottle of drugs to eat not to hand you the poison they keep a few feet over.

It’s weird and kinda dystopian, but I’m confused by the shock.

That’s not what that research document says. Pretty early on it talks about rote mechanical processes with no human input. By the logic they employ there’s no difference between LLM code and a photographer using Photoshop.

Well, first off he wasn’t actually doing it after Celsius existed as a temperature scale. He made it a solid 18 years beforehand.
Second, there are some issues. Specifically, ice freezes at 0, but it doesn’t stop getting colder. So if you have a bit of ice, that doesn’t tell you the temperature, just that it’s below a threshold. Boiling is more convenient because liquid water can’t get above 100, but you do have to consider side pressure.
Fahrenheit used brine because as it freezes it forces salt out of the ice, making it more resistant to freezing. It self stabilizes its temperature, which is immensely handy.

None of the people designing their scales envisioned that using the basic reference points for common calibration would be a thing. Just like how we don’t calibrate them with brine, ice, steam or butts today, instead relying on how we marked down how electrical resistance changes as a function of temperature and then calibrated reference numbers to get the scale right.

It’s important to remember that the people in the past were largely not stupid, they simply hadn’t found out something we take for granted or they had priorities that we don’t.

So you get in the bathtub with the bike pump and have the hose connected to a nozzle going out. You might need something stronger that shrinkwrap depending on what you get, but your bathtub is invariably able to handle 1 atmosphere of pressure.

Or, hear me out: a bathtub, some shrinkwrap, a bicycle pump and so e good old fashioned grit and determination.

I’m one of those people who knows we should standardize, bit also finds Fahrenheit just very convenient.

Like, when people say it’s 50 out, I immediately know that it’s going to feel about halfway between what I know 0 and 100 feel like. No one can even put up the pretext of doing that with Celsius, because not even the most pedantic person ever bothers to tell you when it’s 100 c out.

In seriousness though, the Fahrenheit scale isn’t non-sense, it’s just addressing things we don’t much need help with anymore. The zero point was chosen as a temperature you can create reliably without particularly sophisticated tools, and the range is so freezing and boiling are 180 degrees apart, putting them on the opposite sides of a dial.