BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Personal Incredulity, and Overconfidence Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 15.9% saturation with 49 hits. Analysis detected 292 faulty-reasoning hits from 308 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.2% and a BS Rank of 63% (7,824 of 21,096 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.90% of the article peer group.

Today's rant: passkeys considered bad. 
I knew this instinctively, based on their complexity, but David Hansson explains it in detail. 
Whew. 
Passwords are a problem, for sure, for me as a user as well as for me as an applications developer. 
Good passwords are hard to remember, every site has different rules, sometimes you have to change them, sometimes you can't reuse them, and everybody writes them down insecurely. 
(Yep, you do too, admit it.) 
So when passkeys were invented, everyone said yay. 
But they don't solve all the problems and create many new ones. 
The difficulty of having them across multiple devices, the difficulty of creating them in the first place, and the difficulty of implementing them. 
And the reliance on central authorities. 
Whenever there's a new thing, I try to understand it. 
(Blockchains! 
LLMs! 
Etc!) 
If the thing escapes me, maybe that's on me - sometimes I'm slow and it has to soak before I get it. 
But mostly if I don't get it, it's on the thing - it's too complicated to be good. 
(W=UH!) 
And so it seems with passkeys. 
The best solution to passwords is not to have them at all. 
Just send the user a limited time link in text or email. 
This is simple to explain, simple to use, simple to implement. 
And no less secure than passwords; most of the time you can change or recover a password with a link in text or email anyway. 
Oh, and it supports multiple devices easily. 
I get the appeal and value of two-factor authentication. 
Simple and better. 
After you remember your password and enter it, we'll send you a text or email too, just to make sure. 
But maybe we skip the "remember your password and enter it" part? 
Simpler and betterer. 
So long passkeys, we hardly knew ya... 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.5%Ole Eichhorn: 9.1%Critical Section: 9.1%Confirmation Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.5%Critical Section: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.6%Critical Section: 1.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.3%Critical Section: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.5%Critical Section: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Ole Eichhorn: 4.7%Critical Section: 4.7%Overconfidence Bias10.7%This article: 4.5%Ole Eichhorn: 3.4%Critical Section: 3.4%Framing Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 5.3%Critical Section: 5.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.3%Critical Section: 0.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Ole Eichhorn: 7.5%Critical Section: 7.5%Negativity Bias4.9%This article: 3.2%Ole Eichhorn: 0.4%Critical Section: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.8%Critical Section: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 2.2%Critical Section: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.6%Critical Section: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 2.4%Critical Section: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 4.0%Critical Section: 4.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.3%Critical Section: 0.3%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.3%Critical Section: 0.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 5.8%Critical Section: 5.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 3.9%Ole Eichhorn: 2.3%Critical Section: 2.3%Straw Man3.9%This article: 4.9%Ole Eichhorn: 2.5%Critical Section: 2.5%Appeal to Authority4.9%This article: 14.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.6%Critical Section: 1.6%False Dilemma14.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.4%Critical Section: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.9%Ole Eichhorn: 10.8%Critical Section: 10.8%Hasty Generalization15.9%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.6%Critical Section: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.6%Ole Eichhorn: 1.3%Critical Section: 1.3%Bandwagon2.6%This article: 0.3%Ole Eichhorn: 0.5%Critical Section: 0.5%Appeal to Emotion0.3%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 2.6%Critical Section: 2.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.8%Critical Section: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.4%Critical Section: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 1.2%Critical Section: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.5%Critical Section: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 12.7%Ole Eichhorn: 2.5%Critical Section: 2.5%Personal Incredulity12.7%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.1%Ole Eichhorn: 4.0%Critical Section: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice7.1%This article: 3.6%Ole Eichhorn: 2.8%Critical Section: 2.8%Indoctrination3.6%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 16.6%Critical Section: 16.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ole Eichhorn: 0.0%Critical Section: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

308 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.