Aren’t there already other progressive parties? Look how they’re doing.

At risk at seeming like I sympathize for Musk (I don’t), anyone else read parts of the article that raise questions?

In the United States, Musk has found a powerful ally in Trump. Together, they have ransacked the federal government

ransacked? Doesn’t that usually mean plunder? They’re damaging the government in many horrible ways, however, Musk outright stealing from the government would lead to easy challenges making headlines: I wish he’d make it that easy.

Ransack for as in vigorously searching through something could be another sense, but it wasn’t used that way here. I guess it could mean rush through, causing damage. Curious word choice that I can overlook. Reading on…

She filed a complaint with a local market regulator, requesting a refund and compensation. Teslas are among the most computerized cars on the market, so Zhang asked the automaker to turn over the full pre-crash data from her car, hoping it might help explain what went wrong. Tesla refused.

“Tesla’s employees were very arrogant and tough in dealing with my complaints,” Zhang said in an interview. “I was burning with anger.”

no mention of Zhang receiving compensation

So it looks like Tesla is resisting compensating Zhang & releasing pre-crash data.

A top executive speculated to Chinese media that she “had someone behind her” and said Zhang was making a fuss because she just wanted higher compensation.

Wait, did Zhang receive any compensation? I thought she hadn’t. I still don’t know. Does the article clearly say?

Back in court as a defendant, Zhang was unable to prove that the brakes on her Tesla had indeed failed.

Besides Zhang’s words of her father’s panic that the brakes aren’t working, did she have solid evidence that the brakes did not work? Post-crash analysis? Independent analysis of untampered logs directly off the car’s hardware?

While I was ready to condemn Musk & Tesla and to ridicule the Chinese government over this, this isn’t satisfying. Not to understate all the other reasons to condemn them, which are clear & also covered in the article, this article leaves unanswered a number of critical questions that it could answer.

This would be much better with citations.

Passkeys or WebAuthn are an open web standard, and the implementation is flexible. An authenticator can be implemented in software, with a hardware system integrated into the client device, or off-device.

Exportability/portability of the passkey is up to the authenticator. Bitwarden already exports them, and other authenticators likely do, too.

WebAuthn relying parties (ie, web applications) make trust decisions by specifying characteristics of eligible authenticators & authentication responses & by checking data reported in the responses. Those decisions are left to the relying party’s discretion. I could imagine locked-down workplace environments allowing only company-approved configurations connect to internal systems.

WebAuthn has no bearing on whether an app runs on a custom platform: that’s entirely on the developer & platform capabilities to reveal customization.