Thank you for sharing. Stories like yours remind us that there is good in the world, and even if it isn’t everywhere, it is still worth cultivating.
I’m a software engineer née scientist, but my spouse is a therapist who specializes in addiction. They (and I!) cherish stories like yours because we had seen up-close the struggle that so many people face.
I haven’t used Android or Windows in any meaningful way for years, so I cannot comment on them.
I can tell you that the hearing accommodations on the AirPod Pro 2/3 headphones brought literal tears to my eyes because of how fabulous it makes music sound for me.
This is a a LOT more work than just adding an equalizer because you have to do multiband real time compression and expansion, in relation to other frequency bands and respecting band-specific sound energy limits.
I know I might sound like I’m gushing, and I kinda’ am. They didn’t have to put in the time or energy to do that or maintain it and they did ... and for that, like I said, I am extraordinarily grateful.
Passkeys are highly phishing resistant in a way that passwords are not and are not subject to credential reuse (though password managers somewhat solve the first problem and almost entirely solve the latter problem.)
In effect, though, 1Password is both something you have (the device with 1P logged in, login requires a Security Key that you don't memorize) and something you know (the master password) or are (typically biometrics can be used to unlock for a period after entering the master password.)
No. The service you are logging in to does not hold the keys so they can't be leaked, passkeys do not get reused between services, it's effectively impossible to fall for phishing attacks with passkeys, and it's effectively impossible to fall for scammers trying to get your keys since there isn't any mechanism to directly dump the private keys out.
Pretty much all the problems related to passwords are solved by passkeys, having them synced between your devices does not impact that.
A passkey is a public-private keypair strongly tied to a specific site. Sites never have access to the private key, and the key will never be presented for use on the wrong site. Those two advantages remain even if the passkey is stored in software or synced over the cloud.
That's my impression as well, and the nature of computing today /encourages/ putting passkeys into some container that means that they can be accessed from other pieces of hardware at different locations.
From a practical perspective, passkeys are mostly identical to passwords where (1) secret generation is guaranteed to be strong, random, and unique; (2) they're tied to a specific site, so they can't be phished; and (3) filling is standardized and therefore ergonomic. If your passwords have those properties, passkeys aren't really an improvement for you. The main benefit to savvy consumers is that websites can trust that your passkeys are actually high quality and treat them as a primary authentication mechanism, instead of only a weak factor in an MFA system. And of course the huge huge benefit to most (unsavvy) consumers is that, you know, they're actually secure/unique and phishing-resistant.
Normal passwords can be phished, no matter how strong it is. The weak link is always a careless human. Passkeys are definitely a huge improvement for everyone, apart from the vendor-lock in which can be avoided
You can get around it, of course, but password managers are aware of the correct domain for a password and will only auto fill it into a form on the right domain. This is phishing-resistant. I'm not saying it's perfect, and I'm a big passkeys advocate. But "randomly generated password auto-filled by 1password" already meets many of the same benefits as passkeys, kinda, so long as auto-fill works on that particular website. Passkeys, in addition to stronger versions of those properties, also provide (1) ergonomics/standardization ("fill" works everywhere) and (2) sites can trust them to be strong.
Imagine using the worst password manager out there. 1Password was breached several times and even led to some people losing significant amount of money
I have worked at multiple companies that vilified open source anything, while building their entire businesses on Linux, Java, Debian, and thousands of other "OSI Approved" software.
It's because, in my experience, the majority of businesses want to take but do not want to feel any obligation to give back or support.
Which was the entire purpose of Open Source, from conception, and the only way it is distinct from other licenses. Open Source is like Free Software, except you can use it without giving anything away.
> Open Source is like Free Software, except you can use it without giving anything away.
No, Open Source and Free Software are two names for essentially the same thing. The Free Software Foundation has a preference for licenses which go beyond its own Free Software Definition [0] and which are also "Copyleft" [1], but does not define Free Software in a way which requires that it also be Copyleft.
> No, Open Source and Free Software are two names for essentially the same thing.
This is not substantially true, which is why I assume you've added "essentially" in here. Open Source is Free Software, because anybody can take it and make it anything they want as long as they comply with the minimal license terms. Open Source can be proprietary, too, if somebody takes it, complies with the minimal license terms, and makes it proprietary.
> This is not substantially true, which is why I assume you've added "essentially" in here.
No, it is. The OSI Open Source definition and the FSF Free Software definition are framed differently but require substantially the same things, and for virtually every license on which both have expressed an opinion, they have cone to the same conclusion as to whether it meets each organization’s requirements.
Free Software does not require a license that prevents proprietary re-licensing, that is an additional separate concern beyond the Free Software definition (Copyleft); the FSF generally prefers copyleft licenses, but recognizes non-copyleft licenses as Free Software licenses.
You seem to under the mistaken impression that copyleft is a requirement to meet the Free Software definition, but that has never been the case.
To be clear, Open Source and Free Software aren't licenses. They are philosophies. FOSS licenses come in two major varieties - copyleft (like GPL) and permissive (like MIT). It's possible for either type of license to conform to both open source and free software philosophies. In fact, the vast majority of FOSS licenses - both copyleft and permissive - are endorsed by both camps (OSI and FSF). Also, both camps reject licenses for similar reasons - like for having proprietary terms (as in case of BSL).
The property of being able to keep changes to oneself is the property of permissive licenses, not opensource. Open source software under copyleft licenses cannot be modified and distributed while withholding changes. The inverse is applicable to FS under permissive license too.
The real difference between free software and open source is in how they treat the software. FS camp considers software as something that should give the users total freedom over the computing devices they own. The software shouldn't constrain or exploit the end user in any manner. This of course needs the source to be open.
OSS camp established open source because they realized the advantages of 'open' source, but didn't like the emphasis on freedom. That's more in line with corporate philosophy - take advantage of unaffiliated talent to increase code volume and quality, without making any commitment to user freedom. This is why many companies completely avoid the term free software. It's also easy to find 'open source' code that's very exploitative towards users, despite being open and using FSF-endorsed licenses.
