Barclays in the UK offer (or used to) a hardware device with a keypad allowing the user to do a challenge-response using the bank card's chip and PIN. Not sure if they still do, though.
What if one doesn't own an android/iphone device? Banking is a fundamental need, so most countries regulate them to cater to a wide range of users. In this case it's possible that the bank could be compelled to provide you a 2FA device if you don't have one.
I don't think there is such regulation. Many banks simply do not have any other means of authentication any more. They can't give out 2FA devices because their systems just don't support them.
That's because they're stupid or doing something suspicious, probably both.
There's legitimately zero reason to allow 2FA only on your own propreitary app. You can't even make a financial argument - allowing other TOTP methods is cheaper because now you don't need an app!
> Article 7 Requirements of the elements categorised as possession
> 1. Payment service providers shall adopt measures to mitigate the risk that the elements of strong customer authentication categorised as possession are used by unauthorised parties.
> 2. The use by the payer of those elements shall be subject to measures designed to prevent replication of the elements.
No, because phones that lock keys in hardware effectively prevent that, and that works only with hardware that prevents its owners from having full control an doing what they want with their hardware.
"Unextractable keys" works with hardware that you don't "truly own".
What if you truly want the security properties provided by a device which can keep keys in a way where you fully control their use but its extremely hard for anyone to extract them?
it costs basically nothing to change banks. you sign up to a new one and they transfer your account and direct debits. you just tell your employer where to send your next salary payment.
Sorry, not available where I live and not the bank I can use for what I need. I won't give personal details but my options were limited for multiple reasons.
Battery does seem to be a limiting factor and I don't wear mine unless I'm doing activities where it's especially useful. But, for a lot of people, something else to charge doesn't seem a big impediment.
When we heard young people don't wear watches any longer at the time. And certainly many people didn't think yet another bluetooth earphones were anything to get excited about.
AR does seem to be a potential big deal. But the tech and implementation probably has a ways to go before it's interesting outside of a bubble audience.
Yeah, we have basically infinite battery on "dumb" watches, as long as you use them. You know, so you can rely on them.
The Apple Watch to me just seems like a worse earbud. If I want to be that interrupted in tge middle of something might as well hear the thing and not have to look at it.
I never had any interest in wearing a watch to bed. Still don’t, although theoretically I could charge it for a few minutes in the evening to make that possible.
The Watch has helped me lose 30 pounds, has significantly helped motivate me to exercise more, and has let me keep my phone on silent mode for at least 5 years now. For me, it’s a great device.
I have a Garmin with roughly the same functionality and I only need to charge it every other week. If you use the GPS the battery gets drained in about a 6 hour activity, but I've recharged it at a refuge while eating.
I understand, and I don't care. I charge my watch overnight, and if I don't have a charger, I can power it off overnight and still have juice for the next day. It's simply not a big deal for me.
I don't personally sleep with my watch on, so I just charge it every night. But it actually only takes about 15 mins to charge a decent amount, so if I did I'd just charge it while I was in the shower...
I wonder if, from a staffing perspective, it's actually easier to cancel a show under these circumstances than through a more traditional cancellation process.
Why would a broadcaster want to pull a show and need an excuse to do so? Shows get cancelled all the time if the broadcaster decides that they're too expensive etc.
Have you found a good Head for Kafka to easily query the Topics using a SQL like language? Especially something that can infer table schema from the Schema Registry.
True, they've gone all in on Flink, which can also do what you want. And I suspect SparkSQL can do it also these days, but I haven't looked at that for ages.
They would. The main reason has always been the location. It’s right at the doorstep of China. It’s the same reason when Russia tried to install missile in Cuba, Americans dont like that. Cuba “crisis” is actually a US centric term. Also on east coast of Taiwan, theres a deep waters, submarines can enter pacific ocean much more stealthily.
Everything else is just bonus to them. Semiconductors, supporting nationalism, you name it.
You have to take a look at a map to really understand Taiwan's importance.
Taiwan isn't about military proximity. It's about access shipping access. Try open up a map. Despite China having a vast coastline, they do not have access to the open seas. Every one of their shipping lanes requires passage through another nation's waters.
If a heavy conflict were to erupt, China's supply chains would be cut off via naval blockade. It's a huge risk to China, and one they've attempted to ameliorate via the Belt and Road Initiative.
That changes if they acquire Taiwan. Taiwan's importance is not of offensive, but defensive primacy.
> If a heavy conflict were to erupt, China's supply chains would be cut off via naval blockade
Or possibly the 30+ fast attack submarines sinking every military or resupply vessel in the region, augmented by a colossal amount of rapidly-deployed naval mines.
Taiwan doesn't buy them much in this regard. Why would China be permitted to use sea freight at all in a "heavy conflict" scenario? Why not just sink these vessels near their origin - why allow Brazilian soybeans to even make it out of the hemisphere?
> Despite China having a vast coastline, they do not have access to the open seas.
I didn’t realize that Okinawa is halfway between the Japanese mainland and Taiwan, and the Japanese territorial waters extend right up to the Taiwanese EEZ on account of Japan’s far-flung southern islands.
This seems more correct. It's the same reason they got involved in the Korean war - didn't want anyone to cross the Yan(?) river that wasn't an ally of China. Too close for comfort.
Or more accurately, the Taiwanese government also believes that mainland China and Taiwan should be unified (ie. a One-China Interpretation). But that this One-China should be under the rule of the Taiwanese government and not the CCP, which they considered an illegitimate government, up until the 1992 Consensus.
After the 1992 Consensus [1], the Taiwanese government still considered the Mainland its territory (again under a One-China Interpretation), but also acknowledges the CCP's interpretation of One-China. In practice, this meant they officially abandoned plans to re-take the Mainland, and focus on maintaining the status quo of peace and stability.
Interestingly, the Taiwanese government also used to lay claim to Mongolia in addition to the Chinese Mainland.[2]
Almost no one in Taiwan still believes that though. But China has made it clear that they will invade if the Taiwanese government changes their official stance to be that they’re an independent country.
It's more complicated than that, and I think many people in Taiwan (even some in government), especially younger folks, wouldn't really think that way anymore. While it's dicey to say so, many would support full independence.
China has wanted Taiwan long before they fabbed semiconductors. It's a matter of ego and nationalism, not economics.
It's also political: China hates that there's a Western-style democracy full of "Chinese rebels" on an island 80 miles from their doorstep. They also don't like the cozy relationship between the Taiwanese and US militaries.
Probably, my understanding is that the primary reason China cares about Taiwan is internal pressure about the separatism. The power Taiwan has is the only reason they haven’t acted.
Yes, they would. However, if Taiwan wasn’t as important to the world because of their chips then the world would probably not care as much about what communist China wants to do to them.
