• 3 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle


  • It sets both the technical requirements and recommended best practices for determining the validity of methods used to authenticate digital identities online. Organizations that interact with the federal government online are required to be in compliance

    My argument is that if this document (and others) are requirements for companies shouldn’t there also be a more approachable document for people to use?

    Sure, have the jargon filled document that those in the know can access, but without an additional not so jargon-y document you’ve just added a barrier to change. Maybe just an abstract of the rule changes on the front page without the jargon?

    I don’t know, maybe it’s not a big deal to compliance officers but just seems to me (someone that isn’t a compliance officer) that obfuscating the required changes behind jargon and acronyms is going to slow adoption of the changes.


  • The one that gets me is that if the Universe is infinite but how matter can organize itself is finite (albeit a very large number) then there is another galaxy just like ours, another Earth just like ours, and there is another GoofSchmoofer writing this exact some thing in the exact same way somewhere out there.

    And if this is true then how many GoofSchmoofer’s are there in this infinite Universe?


  • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldCities these days
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    What’s crazy to me is this is a well known problem yet the people that have the ability to legislate this have just 100% ignored it.

    The presidential candidates in the US either completely ignore it (trump) or give a solution of building 3 million new homes (Harris). No one wants to actually start regulating the number of homes that an individual or company can own. It’s an obvious solution to the problem yet, complete silence from the law makers.








  • True. But the people advocating for these laws don’t want to deal with nuance and compromise on what it would take to have a society where you educate people on sex in a healthy and positive way. These prohibitionists see the world as either bad or good - nothing in between. Good (how ever they decide to define it) must win no compromises, and the weapon that they use is unfounded fear of the bad and it works.

    And the reason fear works is because it is easy and visceral and reality’s complexity doesn’t work for media’s need for sound bites.




  • Because there are some Democrats that have held on to their seats for many many years and are too fucking scared to do anything “out of the norm” because they may lose their seat. There are also some Republicans that will state they don’t like the ruling but are also too afraid of the loss of their seat to actually do anything for the country the swore to protect.

    Ultimately it comes down to the fact that there are not enough brave representatives in Congress and the Senate to take on this problem. They all talk a big talk but if their actions reduce the chances of their reelection then they are out.