For folks who are not familiar, this is "The Library of Babel" by Borges. There is no creating, just selecting among characters sequences we already knew were possible.
the library of babel contain all possible books, but people are unable o find the good ones among the sea of random rubbish.
the LLM equivalent would be to prompt "give me an app", without specifying what that app does and then repeating that until you get the app you are looking for, each time, checking by hand if the app does what you want.
You need schools, pediatricians, daycare, other kids, etc. Cities (and suburbs) have those, not sure about every rural area. Certainly not the village in the article.
I doubt it would make much of a difference. Children growing up in rural communities typically move to a bigger city as soon as they can, which is where they then find mates and start their own families. I suspect not many young people are going to give up the social opportunities to stay in a small town or move back there.
But when they want the family, they have the option to go someplace to build it. That's the point. Right now the people meet in the city and stay in the city because they're tethered there.
If you look at it, you'll see that, yes, a million or two million or whatever immigrants arrived during the last year biden was in office.
However, if you're not trying to use statistics to lie, what you'll also find is that millions came every year for the past fifty years, including the years trump was president.
There might be some specific "record number" but only in the sense that the total population of humans increases every year so when the same percentage does the same thing as last year, the absolute number is now larger.
And of course this all ignores the part where immigration is a huge benefit to america.
I think the graph you linked obscures the issue a bit by showing total immigrant population by year, which would change much more slowly than arrivals by year.
It certainly seems to be a big increase under Biden, compared to the last 25 years. Anyway, I personally favor immigration, I just don't want to use statistics to lie to myself either!
I'm not sure what exactly "net immigration" means in specific for these graphs, but according to this chart there were 9.8 million during bush and a predicted 10.4 under biden? This seems... statistically average? The number fluctuates a bit during different decades (and of course it's probably worth remembering that the trump years in this specific graph involved quite a bit of corona virus, whatever that means for these numbers)
My point here is mostly just that america has had lots of immigrants every year for the past 75 or something and there was nothing particularly unique or notable about the recent biden years and the people who claim there is are lying in order to achieve unrelated political goals.
Bush was 8 years while Biden was only 4. Biden was much higher on a per year basis than anyone else since 2000, but obviously people believe what they want to believe.
I was wondering about this, but digital versions are typical DRM-encumbered and actually a license (not a true purchase) whose terms probably don't allow this. The court's decision was that training is fair use, but in practice, it seems many avenues are blocked.
It reminds of the theoretically public beaches that are blocked off by privately owned land.
DRM is irrelevant. That's only if you want to efficiently extract the text.
If you point a camera at an ebook reader with a little motor to tap the screen, "next" that's still easier than scanning physical books.
The reason why companies aren't using ebooks is because all the publishers and ebook companies make you click through a license stating that "this book for personal use" (paraphrased).
I'm on the distributor side, I used to fantasize about using XSLT to produce all the different XML formats (beyond DDEX, like Apple, etc) from one house format, but that was probably a bad idea!
This is how non-engineers have always lived! The code is a black box, but Product Managers develop a sense of whether the developer really understood what they meant, the QA team verifies the outputs, etc.
Users exclusively belong to Organizations; every User belongs to exactly one Organization.
But I also see a screenshot where, after login, the User has to choose an organization or to create a new one. It seems to me that you support Users and Organizations in a many-to-many relationship, is that correct?
At my work, we landed on the terminology of Users, Memberships, and Accounts to describe this (a User can have Memberships to multiple Accounts, an Account can have multiple Members, etc). As a result, you don't "delete a user", you "revoke a membership".
Yeah, this is a line I wrote and could probably improve the clarity on. It's worth distinguishing the Tesseral concept of a User from the sense in which we might colloquially refer to a user. Some other people call the equivalent of a Tesseral User a Member or something similar.
An individual human being who wants to log in can be represented by multiple Users in Tesseral, each of which belongs to exactly one Organization.
That is, there's support for a given person with a given email address to participate in different workspaces, but each workspace will have a different instance of a User.
That feels needlessly confusing and not a great way to handle large orgs. Datadog does a similar thing—I need to completely switch contexts to start working in a separate organization and there's absolutely no way to open tabs from two orgs side by side. Not to mention, any link to a dashboard or alert will fail until I go and select the right org from the dropdown (and if I don't know what org the link is in from context, I have no way to find it).
I don't think new auth services should encourage this pattern and I highly recommend that you remove this restriction as soon as possible before it becomes even more baked in. Your downstream services should have access to all of the orgs a user belongs to right from the beginning, using a comma-separated list or multi-value headers or something similar. Don't shard user IDs in this way.
> But when I authenticate my common support agents instead of the customers themselves, I do want them to have access to everything.
> I don’t think anyone has yet managed to make this easy.
We have a few recommendations for this (I work for FusionAuth, a different auth server). From our doc[0]:
Have users reset their password every time they need access to a different tenant.
Use a passwordless login option like a magic link or passkey.
Set up or use an administrative identity server, such as a second instance of FusionAuth, Google GSuite, or Azure AD/Microsoft Entra, and have these users log in using that.
Put all admin users in one FusionAuth tenant, create an application in that tenant, and set up an OIDC Identity Provider for applications in other tenants to delegate to that application.
> You don’t want org1 to have access to the data that user x has access to in org2
Of course not—I'm not sure why you'd think I mean that?
I'm just saying that if I open a link to `https://datadog.com/alert/12389` and `https://datadog.com/alert/12500` and the alerts are for different orgs, my auth cookies should be able to tell that I, as user X, have access to both orgs without having to "switch contexts" or re-auth.
It would also help with links routing to the correct org:
> If you are a member of multiple organizations, custom sub-domains help you identify the source of an alert or notification. Also, they can immediately switch you to the organization associated with the sub-domain.
However, that doesn't change my opinion that one-org-per-session and one-org-per-user is a terrible way to design an auth/auth system and Tesseral—a library/service that is trying to Get Auth Right—shouldn't design such a limitation into their system from the beginning
I think FusionAuth does something similar. They have a global user, and uses the notion of tenants / application registrations (which I think is comparable to a Tesseral Organization) to segment the same user.
Then you can define applications (which are mapped 1:1 to tenants) where a user has a registration entry against that application, where a user can be referenced by their global user id, or application-specific user id.
Applications are OAuth2 applications (meaning a dedicated client id / secret), so we only create a single application and tenant, and maintain organization segmentation on our own application / db side instead.
(We're paying customers of FusionAuth. Anyone from FusionAuth, feel free to correct me.)
"An individual human being who wants to log in can be represented by multiple Users in Tesseral, each of which belongs to exactly one Organization."
This will be extremely confusing. You should simplify it and just keep the concept of User as we usually do. A user should have access to 1 or more organizations. That's it. You should rethink this otherwise it will be too confusing.
But isn't this kind of like saying your logins to Blizzard and Activision should actually be the same underlying user? Doesn't make sense, and becomes an authz nightmare, imo.
I think the logic is to differentiate the "identity" from a "user"
One identity can have multiple users (one for each organization)
At the same time, a user can have multiple identities. (e.g. username/password, Google oAuth, SAML etc.)
The other terms that gets thrown around for this is “Workspace” and some sort of “Visitor”, “Guest”, or “Membership” relationship, or a “we create a copy and assign it to the new Organization” strategy. The past three places I’ve worked have done something akin to this. Usually after they guess about how Google Docs/Google Workspace functions based on observed behavior.
It's the latter, but is there any effective difference, really? Say that lowering their their staff level from X to Y would result in a 15 minute wait for a smaller, undeterred group of callers. Putting an artificial floor for wait time of 15 minutes would mean that (X-Y) agents are sitting idle while callers are artificially waiting. I assume HP would not continue to employee them, since cost reduction was the point, after all. So it seems like the only difference is order of operations.
