You shouldn't model it as incredible hard to fake. It isn't. It's harder that typing a password you've stolen into a web site, but if you set out to do it, it's not that much harder.
This is the primary reason I'm against biometrics used for identity. Yeah, the privacy invasion is a problem, but I think that's completely dominated by the fact that if everyone uses it, it will be leaked, and once leaked, can indeed be quite practically faked. If used as a password, it's a password you can never change. That is useless.
The difficulty of overcoming a security measure should be greater in cost than the thing it is valuing. The cost of, for instance, replicating a fingerprint given a photo of it, is basically a home hobbyist project for the weekend. Check out Youtube for many people who have done exactly that and give instructions how. When the cost of bypass is "home hobbyist project on a weekend", the value of what it should be expected to protect is correspondingly low.
(In fact I don't even use it on my cell phone, with all its access to bank accounts and amazon accounts and other ways to spend my real money. The idea of a password to all that stuff that I leave arbitrary copies of sitting right on my screen is completely absurd. Everything important is locked behind codes and passwords. It's less convenient than fingerprints but at least those offer actual security.)
You also have to bear in mind the costs of the biometrics gathering. If you have a physical guard watching someone do a retinal scan and verifying that they have put their real eye up to it, you're at least on track to something that takes a lot of resources to overcome, especially if it's in combination with other techniques of identification. If you don't have that, now we're back to "how cheaply can we replicate whatever passes for a retina with this scanner" and that's likely to be cheaper than most people think. Real-world biometrics are in places where attackers can perform arbitrary attacks with impunity.
They do have to prove who you are, and to do that you need to show your ID(s) and they need to check it in their system. I don't understand your comment.
I already have to log to their website with 2 factor authentification.
I had to walk and physically present my id card, install the numerical identity app. That should be enough.
Also, apart from reuploading IDs, they ask for information such as age, name, place of living, and a thousand more things that they already have and doesn't need to be provided to establish that you really are you.
I fully agree that only Congress can change the official title of the Department of Defense to Department of War, but the vast majority of Americans are so authority-slavish that they just accept the administration wiping its ass with the Constitution.
"Elbridge Andrew Colby (born December 30, 1979) is an American national security policy professional who is the under secretary of defense for policy since April 9, 2025."
Yes, but I would consider it somewhat rude to use the bell in a space where both bikes and pedestrians are allowed. If it would be required to be used regularly, I'd say the path is badly designed.
I used to commute to work by bike in ~1M city in Europe, mostly on dedicated bike lanes, but some shared, and had just the smallest, barely audible bell, only because it was required by law. I don't remember using it much at all. I don't know what the problem is. Maybe the Londoners should take a good look at themselves.
I agree that on a footpath pedestrians should be treated as having priority.
A semi-common way I use my bell: when on a shared footpath with plenty of space to take over, I often use my bell when I'm still ten meters away, so that I don't give pedestrians are heart attack by suddenly dashing right past them.
(I have a nice ding dong bell. They don't seem to mind. It also helps that I often have a cheerful five year old in the back.)
I do that. This was never a problem, as the ANC ones I used don't cancel every sound the same way.
For example, I can go into datacenter and it will cancel all the datacenter noise(aside for when air blows directly into mic, it overdrives it) but I can still hear what other person is saying.
Also I used them to generally listen to podcast so there was no wall of music to go thru, so sirens and such were easily discernable
You do you but as a cyclist you are super vulnerable to all manner of things and I'd never want to give up that kind of awareness.
If you listen carefully you can usually hear a cyclist behind you who may want to pass or is passing you, and having headphones probably makes that a lot harder
People shouldn't really be walking around in public with ANC on. It's not safe. Not a simple problem to solve except maybe to inform people better upon buying/setting up ANC-enabled devices.
Why are they walking around with ANC, you think? Maybe the sound of traffic (cars). They're also the ones posing the danger to cyclists and pedestrians. The solution is simple.
or cyclists should have their own lanes, pedestrians shouldn't walk on them - and vice versa. and if you're stuck behind someone slow just overtake them when you can.
Safe or not - it is up to individual to decide if it is worth the risk.
I don't see how they can get "special treatment", the difference between someone who couldn't hear the bell because they cannot and someone who just wasn't paying enough attention to react in time isn't obvious without questioning them. Cyclists should simply learn to share shared infrastructure and be careful when passing people instead, because they can't know if that person is aware of them in time and going to react in a predictable way.
The sense of entitlement of cyclists knows no bounds. If cars are liable for running over cyclists then cyclists must be liable for running over pedestrians.
I used to live in a city where I would walk everywhere but I had the constant fear of cyclists running over me because they would drive all over the pavements without any regard for pedestrians. Imagine walking and having to look around all the time. I find it amusing how people in websites like this one talk about how we have to be very afraid of cars when the true terror, at least for me, were cyclists.
>>If cars are liable for running over cyclists then cyclists must be liable for running over pedestrians.
They are though(at least here in the UK) - a guy was convinced of manslaughter for hitting a pedestrian on a bike just last month. In general the rule is that the person in charge of a bigger/heavier vehicle is the responsible party in almost all collisions.
And when you must walk with your small dog on a section of road where suddenly high speed e-cyclists zoom past you, now that's constant terror. At times you really get killer ideas.
On the other hand, I hate it when I'm on my bike on a bike path, and someone walks their dog, leash fully extended across the bike path, they are looking down on their phone and wearing headphones. Absolute selfishness.
That would never work. Have you never been mindlessly walking and stepped on a bike way without realizing? Cities are for people after all. There's also so many places where bikes and pedestrians share the way, like roads under construction, and shared streets. We need to stop thinking of cities as these perfect automated places where humans are not welcome.
This sounds just like the idea that quantum computing will solve a lot of computational issues, which we know isn’t true. Why would AGI be any different?
Accuracy/faithfulness to the code as written isn't necessarily what you care about though, it's an understanding of the underlying problem. Just translating code doesn't actually help you do that.
Or... it's something that you always have on you which is incredibly hard to fake.
reply