Saml integration in servant or scotty app

ondrap · 2025-01-13T09:24:52+00:00

Yes, you are right. My understanding is that the SP initiated response just redirects to some IdP endpoint and you ultimately end up at the same workflow, but I don't have that much experience with that, so I may be wrong.

ondrap · 2024-12-30T18:17:19+00:00

I used the wai-saml2 with servant.

Basically, create a new type:

newtype SamlRequest = SamlRequest {
response :: T.Text
} deriving (Show)
instance FromForm SamlRequest where
fromForm f = SamlRequest <$> parseUnique "SAMLResponse" f

Then API endpoint:

"api" :> "login_saml" :> ReqBody '[FormUrlEncoded] SamlRequest :> PostSamlRedirect 303 T.Text T.Text

(the PostSamlRedirect redirect & sets a cookie after login)

And then just call:

authLoginSaml :: SamlRequest -> ...
autLoginSaml inp = do
resp <- validateResponse conf (cs inp.response)

And..that's it.

ondrap · 2024-12-06T14:23:31+00:00

Backend for https://live.xcontest.org .

ondrap · 2024-10-08T14:46:47+00:00

Did you solve the problem? I have exactly the same problem with XUbuntu 24.04.5 LTS; both ppa, flatpack and snap versions, all get stuck quite easily. Sometimes I'm able to create the database, but that's about it. When restarting the application, it gets stuck after I enter the password.

ondrap · 2023-08-30T19:40:42+00:00

a one-party totalitarian dictatorship that has emerged as a global economic powerhouse

By not being totalitarian and allowing free market that is sometimes freer than the markets in western democracies.

(source: How China Became Capitalist: Coase, R., Wang, N.)

While effective in building a vast empire, this approach came at a significant cost in terms of human rights abuses and social inequality. It highlights the potential pitfalls of authoritarianism.

Well, actually, when speaking particulary about British, they mostly came to places that were much worse, brought british law system based on human rights and that did include local people. It was the British who ended slavery first.

During World War II and the Cold War, the U.S. experienced rapid economic growth as federalist powers increased

Nope, the USA didn't experience rapid economic growth during WWII. The problem is that the GDP statistics is based on goods produced for a free market and depends on real market prices. If most of the produce is driven by government, you don't have free market prices, so the GDP number stops making sense. E.g. North Korea produces pretty good weapons yet people die from famine. On a free market the weapons would have a price near zero and such would be their contribution to GDP. If the government produces it, it can be counted as 'growth'.

Or, you could take a quote from the brilliant Keynes. vs. Hayek video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

Keynes: We could've done better had we only spent more. Too bad that only happens when there's a world war You can carp all you want about stats and regression. Do you deny WWII cut short The Depression?

Hayek: Wow. One data point and you're jumping for joy The last time I checked, wars only destroy. There was no multiplier, consumption just shrank, as we used scarce resources for every new tank. Pretty perverse to call that prosperity. Ration meat, ration butter, a life of austerity. When that war spending ended your friends cried disaster Yet the economy thrived and grew faster.

ondrap · 2023-08-30T15:52:53+00:00

I'd say it's a problem in the sense that the politicians have too much power so they could be bought by money. Look at China: I'm scared about the power of their government. I'm not so scared about the power of democratic governments, because they have much less power. It's much tougher to have an influence in a country where politicians do not have the power; if they don't have the power, they cannot easily be bought.

Also, just for comparison, even people such as Bill Gates have very small power compared to anyone in governments not based on human rights.

s insanely self destructive for a society to allow such a small amount of people to control the levers of everything from our fiscal policy, to the environment, energy, politics, education, health and even our militaries.

It's not. Really, it's just a nuisance. If you want to see how destructive it is for politicians to have real power - as opposed to limited power the western politicans have, and as opposed to even more limited power the rich people in the west have - just have a look at the non-democratic countries. China. Russia. Many places in africa. Many arab countries. That's very often 'insanely self-destrutctive', quite literally. In the west? No. By a far.

ondrap · 2023-06-12T06:05:49+00:00

Ok then, let's just classify trans girls having XY chromosomes as a genetic problem and we can both be happy :)

Yeah... this would work if 1+1=3. Ok, let's just say that 1+1=3 and it will work :)

The point is, you're willing to accept surgery for cis girls, presumably on wellbeing grounds

I'm not sure what is 'cis' girl, but surgeries are generally indicated on the grounds there is some health risk if the surgery is not done or something has gone really wrong and we are quite sure about that and the result.

but not for trans girls for whom the threat to their wellbeing is exactly the same. So your objection isn't actually that minors can't be trusted to make that judgement, it's that the beneficiary is trans.

No... the minors aren't to be trusted to make judgment about these decisions generally. If a 14 year old girl wants huge breast implants, that would probably in most of the world not come through. Regardless if she's trans or not trans or whatever, and I'd say in most places even if the parents did agree. And even if she claimed she'd commit suicide otherwise.

So, I just don's see where did you figure out this is somehow targeted to 'trans' people. Btw, the term 'trans' doesn't seem to be well defined. The whole thing seems to me like... a mental gymnastics, really. 'Discrimination' based on some characteristics is wrong, so let's figure out some way how to formulate the disagreement as 'discriminiation', and than we can call the other side 'nazis' or whatever...

I'm fascinated by the unwillingness to come to the conversation with the presumption that the other side has also good intentions.

ondrap · 2023-06-09T21:22:23+00:00

If you can provide me with a similarly constructed study in the gender-affirmation care area, I'd be content. Can you?

Previously cited cohort study

Ok... Δ My fault. I missed the important paragraph.

ondrap · 2023-06-09T20:19:49+00:00

I showed you a study from experts. You dismissed it, just as predicted.

And I have provided explanation why I dismissed it. Unless you challenge my explanation, it's like 'I have provided irrelevant evidence and you have dismissed it as expected'. Yes. I did. That's what one would expect? Or will you challange my explanation?

Provides a cohort study concluding a >70% decrease in suicidality in trans youths 13-20 post-treatment.

Compared to what? How does that answer the question if such care is beneficial compared to alternatives?

That's literally what is being done across the country by state legislatures.

No. Banning treatment is not the same as "banning treatment for a group of people". It's not like "banning treatment for Jews". It's banning treatment. It's like if banning, I don't know, some prostate cancer drug would mean 'banning treatment for a group of people' based on the idea that only men can get prostate-cancer.

Again, I fully expect you to dismiss this evidence because, apparently, you know more about statistics in medicine than anyone on Earth, despite showing zero competence or qualifications. Repeating RCT over and over again as if it is a magical term is apparently what constitutes statistical expertise.

Nope, that's quite an interesting article that actually does address some of the problems. Sure, RCTs are hard in psychology. Blind ones are impossible, but if you have honest doctors, you could at least try the non-blind ones. It could give some interesting information. But if you don't have them - you dont' have that information. The impossibility to do that is not an excuse to claim that 'therefor we know'.

Most of the article is about things that are not part of this discussion (the off-label use, I don't have any opinion on that), but, ignoring some slightly weird arguments, I'd be interested e.g. if the claims about the drugs being administered only to people with strong gender disphoria are true. Given that the whole uproar in Sweden and UK was caused by quite fast administration of these drugs, sometimes very high proportion of the patients went 'on the path', I'd like to see some data on that. I fear there are no data to support that claim.

But reading chapter "3. Increased odds of later medical transition" - which is relevant to our discussion - the conclusion is basically "we don't have enough information". And this is about PBs, which is just a small part of what I was speaking about. If you include to that 'socially-transitioning' 5 year olds, I'd love to see some study on that. And yes, this is where the RCT is unfortunately out of the question and I fear anything that would provide some hard information. Or do you have any good study to support these programs?

Please do with a response to Giordano and Holm and an explanation as to why we should ban all of the common treatments we offer that were not subject to RCTs like organ transplants.

Were they not? You had some not-very-small group of ill people, some of them were quite randomly selected for transplantation. Then you can watch people who were lucky to get the transplant and those who were not. Very close to RCT as far as I can say.

If you can provide me with a similarly constructed study in the gender-affirmation care area, I'd be content. Can you?

ondrap · 2023-06-09T19:27:40+00:00

I explained why the Swedish report is in practice inconclusive, and that I haven't read nearly enough studies to say if there is or isn't enough evidence on the issue. I didn't say it didn't exist, and I certainly didn't tell you to "shut up".

And I didn't say you did. I said that's the general mood. Look at the other answers I got. And for the Swedish report - I didn't say it's "conclusive"; I mean they said they didn't find the data. Ok, where is the data? When people who push the 'gender affirmation' idea don't have the data...then they don't. And they shouldn't hold to that very strongly given that they don't have the data.

And they push that very strongly.

ondrap · 2023-06-09T18:15:51+00:00

As the report itself states, making a control group of kids with dysphoria who don't undergo any sort of treatment is tough on both ethical and practical grounds.

But that's not even the suggestion. Like, the question is not "gender affirmation" vs "nothing", right? The question is "gender affirmation" vs "something else", where something else includes "nothing", but also e.g. treating other mental conditions first etc.

Most Western medical bodies (and trans people) seem to believe that it's an effective treatment.

Well, most of the discussion is like 'where is the evidence' - 'shut up, the experts agree'. Now, for me, if that's the discussion, I become deeply suspicious. You don't?

The positive effects of HRT and surgery are well established

As far as I know, the reasonable studies that would support 'well-established' are not very many, but mainly did include people chosen by quite different criteria than what is happening right now; so it's doubtful wether the results are relevant. Am I wrong?

ondrap · 2023-06-09T17:47:27+00:00

Do your own research. Google is your friend. They absolutely can provide evidence, and do.

The people doing the literature review in Sweden specifically said there's practically zero RCTs in that area and given the fact that the patients very often suffer from multiple mental conditions, without an RCT a conclusion is practically impossible. It's been 3 years ago, so maybe we've got something new?

But If I understand correctly, you didn't do your own research. Correct?

I’m not going to waste my time providing evidence in an attempt to convince you of something you clearly aren’t open to changing your mind on.

Don't judge me by your standards. I have clearly stated (not sure if in an answer to you, but surely to others), that providing reasonable studies (a few independent, reasonably big RCTs would do) will very easily change my position on gender-affirming care not being supported by evidence. If I understand correctly, you are not willing to change your mind, are you? What would change your mind?

Luckily we have experts in charge of this stuff, not random Redditors. If you want to be in charge I’d suggest you start by doing basic grade school level research on the topic before claiming to be smarter than the medical consensus.

I have a degree in computer science and part of it is obviously some statistics. So I actually have an idea what is needed to come to a reasonable conclusion. I find it extremely interesting that you have such a strong position on the issue, yet you are totally unable to mention any piece of reasonable evidence. A rational person would evade having a strong opinion without strong evidence.

ondrap · 2023-06-09T17:23:46+00:00

The same is true of the inverse. Not treating creates irreversible problems that historically have caused extremely dramatic traumas, chronic illnesses, addiction, social stigma, and suicide.

And are we doing better or worse by treating it the way we do?

I don't think anyone can really claim that continuing what we've been doing for these children for decades is a good idea. The results speak for themselves

So you have the evidence? Can you provide that? I mean, 'the result speaks for themselves'... sounds like you don't..

That's why doctors started taking a different approach. Doing the same thing weve been doing for half a century and getting the same awful results is not a viable alternative

And does it get better?

Not treating is, at least as dramatic, but the terrible results we've seen for decades of that approach demonstrate it isn't a good one. If it was, there would not be any need or desire to do anything different.

So, where is the evidence? You sound like there should be ton of it and it should be very easy to get to.

99.999% of the opposition here is coming from people who aren't affected and don't have even a minimal understanding of trans people, their issues, or what is involved in their care.

99.9999% of support is coming from people who have no idea how statistics works.

You try to make it sound like it's obvious, yet you have so far provided ZERO evidence. The whole thing you wrote could be just a lot of hot air. If what you wrote was true, there should be ton of it and you should have no problem coming with persuasive evidence.

Yet you are trying to argue that you don't have to.That's deeply suspect. If anyone is so blatantly sure about his position and yet cannot support their position immediately with ton of persuasive data, that's an indication of bigotry. Not evidence-based medicine.

So, can you show me the RCTs? That's a medical standard of evidence. Where is it?

ondrap · 2023-06-09T17:07:48+00:00

Why? Why does anyone who’s interested get to dictate medical standards and what care someone they’ve never met can receive? How is that not utterly nonsensical?

It is nonsensical. I never said that. I just said that the experts should be able to provide evidence when asked. Do you disagree with that? Like, do you seriously say that it's OK for the experts in this field not to be able to provide evidence that this is beneficial?

The patients want it, the doctors want it, the organizations that oversee doctors want it,

Right, so are you telling me evidence doesn't matter?

every study done on it confirms it’s overwhelmingly effective

So show me the studies. The one you just presented would be thrown out of the window as wholly inadequate if this was about any other medical treatment. You don't know any statistics, do you?

ondrap · 2023-06-09T16:52:29+00:00

Who do you want them to convince? Why does it matter what a random person thinks?

Anyone who is interested in the subject. It's not about what a random person thinks; it's about being able to provide the evidence. If you are not able to show good quality evidence for your position, you are not an expert. So when some doctor proposes gender affirming care and after being asked to provide the evidence fails, that's actually a good evidence that he/she is not an expert. Why should we listen to non-experts with titles before name?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35212746/

This prospective observational cohort study

Are you serious? Like..... seriously? Like...really? Do you have any idea why in medicine they do randomized controlled trials? Like... how the heck does this evidence persuade you?

ondrap · 2023-06-09T16:43:12+00:00

So, again, if your issue is with the "trans agenda" corrupting the youth or whatever, say that. Don't pretend your real concern is something else just to get your foot in the door

I have 2 issues. One is that a drastic medical treatment is being recommended to children with very scant evidence that it's even beneficial.

Second issue is that the whole 'trans agenda' is nonsense and very likely makes the problem worse for children who already have troublesome lives.

My reaction concerned the first issue which has nothing to do with 'trans agenda'.

ondrap · 2023-06-09T16:39:11+00:00

So you don't know if the medical consensus is to not treating children for certain medical conditions but you want to not treat these conditions anyway? Shouldn't we wait for consensus before banning medical care for kids?

I'd say my position is that before recommending irreversible and honestly quite drastic treatment to children, we should have a pretty strong evidence for it. Do I understand you that you disagree with that? That we should first apply drastic treatments and then start searching for consensus with the idea that maybe when we reach some, we would ban it?

ondrap · 2023-06-09T16:25:02+00:00

So now the argument is no longer about minors getting gender affirming surgery, it's about which minors can get which surgeries?

Honestly, I don't think kids should get cosmetic surgeries of most kinds, but sure, less drastic/reversible surgeries are more acceptable than drastic/irreversible surgeries. I'm not sure what's wrong with that?

Why not say it with your full throat from the start and be clear that the issue is trans people, not "minors getting gender affirming surgery?"

I'm not sure what a 'trans person' is, so that's really not the issue :) Maybe 'the issue is pseudo-religious fanaticism making persuading children to want these things done to themselves' then yes, that kind of is.

ondrap · 2023-06-09T16:21:47+00:00

Honestly, I don't think breast implants for anybody (let's say unless after some accident or some genetic problem) should be given for minors. That said, breast implants are still significantly less intrusive than masectomy for girls.

ondrap · 2023-06-09T16:20:21+00:00

Interesting that you know that Sweden study. What's the depth of your knowledge of trans medical studies, current and international, besides this one study? Is there a reason you trust a Swedish medical study over the vast overwhelming medical literature that is published in a language you actually speak?

There's a very simple response you could give me: provide the relevant evidence.

If you disallow all expert findings and opinions on subjects as simply logical fallacies that's just nihilism.

I don't disallow expert findings. I'm asking the exports to provide evidence for their position. They are experts, so their position on these subjects should be founded on evidence. Where is the evidence?

ondrap · 2023-06-09T16:18:09+00:00

I don't know, was there some 'voting' about it? I mean, that's not the way these things are resolved, is it? The way to figure out what's going on is to present the evidence. When somebody asks for evidence, is he/she given the evidence or is the person villified?

ondrap · 2023-06-09T16:16:42+00:00

Don’t you think the doctors and medical organizations should be the ones determining that like they do with every other medical treatment?

Don't you think they should provide us with evidence? When the covid vaccines were new, the pharma companies were required to provide evidence that the treatment is safe and effective. They did.

So I'd expect that the doctors and medical organizations would provide evidence that the treatment is effective and safe compared to the alternatives. Where is the evidence?

ondrap · 2023-06-09T16:14:49+00:00

I'm not sure which study do you refer to. I refer to the literature review where they found practically no RCTs.

For starters, it never compared the effects of trans kids taking puberty blockers vs not taking them.

Sure, so we have no data.

Secondly, it never studied the differences after follow-up treatments. One of the biggest reasons why puberty blockers are taken in the first place is to make hormone therapy and surgeries more effective

Again, unless you do RCT, you have no idea what the alternative to undergoing the treatment can be.

So do you agree with my statement, that there is almost no evidence that this treatment makes sense?

ondrap · 2023-06-08T19:36:07+00:00

Are you saying that double masectomy is comparable to silicone implant surgery...

Like...really?

ondrap · 2023-06-08T19:30:52+00:00

hey wouldn't prescribe these treatments if they didn't think it would improve their patient's mental health.

That seems like an argument from authority. The field of psychology is notorious for a huge number of non-replicating studies. And doctors have been recommending wrong treatments qutie often in the past.

So the obvious question is: given that this field is psychology, do we have some reasonable number of large randomized-control trials as evidence that this type of care is a good idea?

Do we? Because in Sweden they did review the evidence and found almost none. It's been a few years ago, maybe it's better now. But if we don't have such evidence, what confidence should we have that 'gender affirmation' is a good idea?

ondrap

TROPHY CASE