If you have an Android phone (even if just an old one you don't use anymore, or a cheap one you're willing to buy) and you're willing to root it and wipe all data on it, you can:
1. Unlock the bootloader (if not already done) (this will wipe your device)
2. Install Authy on it and log into your Authy account
4. Once rooted, you can access the Authy app data and extract the TOTP secrets, then import them into a different app (there's a script to make this easier here https://gist.github.com/gboudreau/94bb0c11a6209c82418d01a59d..., but you can also just go exploring manually in the root file system and find the Authy storage file)
It was somewhat of a pain in the ass to do this, but Authy really annoyed me with how difficult they make it to migrate off of their bullshit, so it was worth it to me to finally be able to delete their app after extracting the secrets this way.
Decrypting the OTPs on another device has required a password for a long time now (maybe always, I can't actually remember if it was always there or just added years ago). It isn't only bound to your phone number.
The cited "40% of college age women report being choked during sex" article is an NYT opinion piece where some of the respondents actually say they _wanted_ to be choked during sex, but the author of the opinion piece thinks they're wrong and choking (even if you want to be choked) is bad.
This isn't about protecting children, it's about prudes who don't like the way that other people enjoy sex.
Thank you for posting this. Parent comment is exactly how lies get told on the Internet these days: write a statement that nominally has a speck of truth but with the deliberate intention that it will be misinterpreted by any normal person reading it.
1. It's not just "college aged women". The study was on undergraduates of both sexes.
2. The framing of OP's comment ("these porn laws are dumb when all these women are being choked!") was obviously made to imply that we should somehow stop women from being choked, implying it was nonconsensual.
3. As you point out, the study itself was more about sex practices than people being attacked.
Hardly anything is even bothered to be argued in good faith anymore.
40% is a lot but kink and bdsm is really becoming more mainstream.
I've been into this longer and it's funny to see girls wearing designer dresses with black leather straps and studs and collars etc. Good for them though. I also love being choked, by women in fact (I'm a man)
The cool thing is that these people will shape a society that no longer looks down on such things, as these conservative politicians do. It will take a long time though, in a country where politics is a game for geriatrics.
>it's about prudes who don't like the way the younger generations enjoy sex.
Worth mentioning again that this is California, one of if not the most left/progressive state in the union. Absolutely dominated by Left/Progressive/Democrat politics thanks to how many cities are located in it.
As the old saying goes, one becomes more Right/Conservative/Republican(?) the older they get.
I'll sit back amused at identity politics players' heads imploding if this measure goes ahead further, because they always point and laugh at Texas, Montana, and Right/Conservatives/Republicans, et al. for this very thing.
An SF state assemblyman introduced a bill to limit cars to 10mph over the speed limit. It's just safety nannyism. Not everything is "conservative"/"liberal", and these labels tend to be meaningless. Obamacare was originally Romneycare was originally a Heritage Foundation idea.
> As the old saying goes, one becomes more Right/Conservative/Republican(?) the older they get.
Once again, I'm breaking molds. The older I get, the more liberal I get, at least with the current leanings of today's "conservative" party. Banning books is atrocious to me. Dictating women's health is insulting. Allowing businesses to be considered a person flabbergasts me. Knowingly denying scientific evidence on pollution is not only insulting to me but future generations. The list continues to go on that I honestly do not understand how just because one gets older they are supposed to suddenly think these things are okay.
While they might seem at odds (one observes tradition, the other does not necessarily), they are not mutually exclusive and there is significant political overlap in espousing moderation/caution and freedom ("generosity", "not strict", "open-minded"). Small government is the most obvious form of this overlap.
Conservatism for political contexts can thus be defined as a desire to exercise a minimum (and ideally no) enforcement of powers in order to protect and guarantee people's freedoms, and a general desire to oppose change unless a change can be demonstrably warranted.
As for the saying, the older we get the harder we are set in how we live and conduct ourselves. A man builds stronger and stronger ideals and an identity that defines what is good and evil as far as he is concerned. We become more conservative as we grow older.
Then conservatism is b.s. You'd think environmental conservation would be extremely conservative as it keeps things the way they are. But nope. The party of "individual freedom" is also the party of "don't let people do what they want in bed with consenting adults". It's a fairly arbitrary mix of policy positions adopted on each side, some in line with the principles and some contrary to.
> I honestly do not understand how just because one gets older they are supposed to suddenly think these things are okay.
Well I don't think it is that they "become OK"; I suspect the effect is that at some point over the course of 40 years most people have the click moment where they start earning some money, realise that the politicians are willing to talk about what is in the news but not what actually matters, and start aligning based on economic incentives.
Picking on the US, the government makes up 40% of the economy, and it appears that an entire generation of capital formation just happened in China rather than in the Americas. All the stuff you listed is a concern, but I think there is a pretty good argument that the entire Trump phenomenon is the backlash against decades of fumbled economic policy that the corporate media has not effectively grappled.
This is pedantism, and is also just wrong. "if you have the right key" IS authentication. Encryption keys are used as a form as authentication all the time, it's one of the main use cases of public/private key encryption. I challenge you to explain how OpenSSH does non-password authentication without referring to encryption.
Authentication just means proving who or what you are. Secret keys, whether they be passwords or encryption keys, are one of the primary ways to do this. Just because the key is also used for something else in addition to, or as part of, that process doesn't change it from being authentication.
Well, regular WG authenticates at the host level (roughly), not the user level, which can matter. I think this actually does auth at the user level, but there is some nuance there.
I'm not going to claim that it's much better these days, but it's worth noting that the launch center in the link is quite old. The launch center have had multiple upgrades since then; the link here [0] shows some videos from inside a newer configuration, which does look a little bit more comfortable, and even that video is from the early 2000s. I would have to guess that more upgrades have been made since then.
Yes, that video looks to be the "REACT" [0] upgrade that was done in the 1990s. It specifically says it changed it to make the operators sit side-by-side.
His spiel starting at 14 minutes in about how seemingly every tech product these days is a partially-baked, unfinished, barely even usable, yet full-priced product with a vague promise of "it'll receive updates and be better" rings very true, and is frustrating as hell.
Marques specifically mentions it happening in video games, cars (Tesla self-driving), smartphones, and these AI things as particular offenders. I've also seen it with SaaS. Even a lot of the things being released by the big cloud providers at their yearly conferences are mostly in some half-baked state.
We've taken the concept of a "minimum viable product" and turned it into "minimum hype-able product". It sucks.
It's unfortunate that the only reason this problem exists is because people buy into the marketing. But the amazingly ironic part about this is that MKBHD / Marques Brownlee has hocked this type of garbage (aka sponsorships) for years, propping up a lot of this bad behavior along the way. Personalities like him are "celebrities" from a lot of consumer's perspectives, and they trust what he says verbatim. From an objective stance his reviews are lackluster: they contain very little data and no fundamental framework that underscore his "reviews". He's a YouTuber with an opinion that is being influenced by sponsor marketing money. Yet his well crafted productions are pretty and easy to consume, which sells and Google puts it front and center. To say that he has a "core philosophy" is laughable. The entertainment I would watch is if people like him had to disclose all earned income along with these videos. I'd gather a lot of his loyal following would start putting those dollars to sense with respect to how his videos are positioned: call-out, hype generating, brand supremacy, etc...
I've seen interesting products, and either been curious or ready to buy. Unfortunately, the only available information to me is the marketing.
Seriously, look on amazon. You can see pictures of the product, read the description, and read the reviews. this leads to 2/3 of the information being by the marketing team, and quite possibly much of the final 1/3, the reviews.
Being able to view a video of the product by someone (anyone!) on youtube gives you a chance of critical information you need for a decision.
Who cares if he's lackluster. If he even in passing gives you an idea of what the product might actually be like, you've been helped.
By the way, even consumer reports, formerly the gold standard in unbiased reviews is part of the gravy train. When they switched from the magazine to online, they acted like a funnel to purchases. sigh.
If you actually watched his videos you would have seen the one where he actively calls out that a lot of his viewers aren't interested in the product at all and just want to see another high production value video from him just to kill time, with no intention of ever buying anything.
"The entertainment you would watch" would probably amount to nothing and you probably wouldn't even finish the video, because it would be too boring.
I'm not sure why I would want to watch his videos if he's basically telling people that he's an entertainer - and that he caters to that. I see why he would do that, but that seems to bolster my assertion that his focus is on production, not review.
Most review videos are entertainment- and that includes accounts that focus on performance and include metrics, too. The medium makes the message. Been that way since Will it Blend?
Tell me you’ve never seen a MKBHD video without saying you’ve never seen a MKBHD video. He’s probably the best tech reviewer on YouTube. I definitely trust him more than other reviewers who do it for the clicks/lols.
He doesn't hold a candle to people like Dave2D or Hardware Unboxed, the latter of which has extremely thorough testing for every single one of the products they review. MKBHD is often inaccurate about many things and certainly not exhaustive in his reviews like other reviewers are. His channel can be better classified as infotainment, much like Unbox Therapy and (for certain of their videos) Linus Tech Tips are.
He doesn't do it for the clicks? I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but I'm going to assume it's not - because if this is truly your perspective I'd implore you to install a few extensions that help weed out what YouTube knows you'll watch. Clearly the algorithms are working.
To sum this one up:
Tell me you can't tell the difference between an influencer and a reviewer without telling me you can't tell the difference between an influencer and a reviewer. The bar is really low with respect to quality (not production, but content) these days.
You really should watch some of his videos if you think this. Marques has been doing this for years at this point, he's a reviewer, not an influencer. The clickbait titles is purely a YouTube thing, that is only indicative of the video being on YT, unfortunately.
I don't believe we share the same barrier to entry for objectivity, is really what it comes down to. He's sponsored, he's an influencer.
From a recent article [0]:
"The 30-year-old YouTube kingpin makes money from sponsorship deals with brands, merchandise sales, and a whole lot of ad revenue from YouTube."
Where do you draw the line between his format and his sponsorships? And how do you know that he's "reviewing" without monetary bias? As an example he put out this [1] video with Buick a few years ago. Let's try to be honest for a second - he wouldn't be caught dead driving that car unless Buick paid him to. And that is my point. There's no boundary between his "reviews" and his "ads". They look, they feel and they are the same format. He's excited about this Buick, "reviewing" it on his channel, it does say that it's sponsored, but is it his actual opinion? Very doubtful. And that, right there, is the difference between a reviewer and an influencer. Is he a charlatan? Maybe not quite that far - but he is being dishonest by making the sponsor video in, basically, the same format as anything else he does. Does he have relevant points? Sure - but there are other reviewers that have much deeper knowledge of the reviewed product. Case in point is his car reviews - he's not a true car enthusiast. His car "review" videos clearly reflect that when you compare it to someone who knows the car market in-depth (there are a lot of great car reviewers on YouTube, MKBHD isn't one of them). Is it good enough? For most people, probably. But again - I don't trust anyone to do a full spot on a car that's not even close to being on his want-to-have list and then expect him to be unbiased when "reviewing" a competitor. He puts out ads for his own brand, and anyone willing to pay him. He's an influencer. And now, he's hocking wallets that are $125+ [2][3].
Looking at the comments to the Buick video, that seems to be the exception to the rule- commenters dislike it but express they like his other ones. Of course, perhaps he’s had more sponsored videos since then, but again, maybe they’re exceptions to the rule.
I think the mindset is like, we've done a bunch of development, let's sell it to deliver some value now rather than wait for it to be perfect. It makes sense from that agile manifesto perspective but I miss the days of buying something like a game boy advance cartridge that ships once and mostly just works.
I'm seeing this play out at my workplace. Going down the wrong path just because we couldn't add an extra week to think things through and go down the right path from the beginning.
The trap here is thinking that starting fast is also the way to reach the goal the fastest. That doesn't always work and is especially true the more complex a project is.
The problem is with the lack of transparency and expectation setting. If you sell something with lots of hype and then deliver half of it, you've failed.
I agree. I wonder if the AI-aspect muddled things, like engineers saying "we just need more data for <x feature>, let's push for a cheap product and iterate fast"...
That only works if you are doing something unique enough to ignore its imperfections, otherwise people will use a full-featured competitor. The alternative to the Rabbit is your phone, I suppose.
I laughed at the big cloud providers comment because my job these days is filing support tickets with AWS when their ancillary services don’t work properly for some reason.
While I don’t think maturity has improved or got worse really, considering the general state of things 20 years ago, it should have by now.
As someone who likes to solve a problem rather than create two new ones, I will always go for a mature solution these days.
I love this rant of his. This trend towards selling unfinished products at full price is corporations exploiting yet another lever to squeeze more money out of people. And that lever is to treat customers not as customers but as investors. Whenever you purchase an unfinished product on the promise of a more complete product in the future, you are taking on the risk that that future product will not be delivered. You are being used as leverage and even worse, you receive no share of profit for any future success because you’ve already paid full price. You are an interest free loan that does not need to be paid back! I wish that more influential people would call this practice out for what it is and try to stop people from being exploited in this manner.
The article directly says the opposite, and reinforces what GP comment was saying about the union not being helpful:
> Although Dugan, Shaffer, and other members say their union stewards on site helped press their concerns to management, they say that local and international IBEW officers who visited the facility scoffed at their concerns. Dugan says a local officer refused to file a grievance on his behalf about the mold in January. One worker requested to stay anonymous out of concern that union officials might withhold his future job placements if he spoke out.
Guess we need to separate the local union members from the national organization.
This is a labor focused web site talking about labor issues. Not run by any one particular union, it isn't a union controlled web site that is trying to pump a particular message.
It is an article about labor, where the factory, local union, and national union organization, all had some part to play. So this article is covering all of those issues, not trying to be all 'super pro union'.
FWIW I agree with you. The title hardly makes sense to me as well.
"Ford's Battery Flagship" - even after reading the article I'm still not sure what this is. "flagship" is used only in the title and nowhere else. Based on my knowledge of Ford, I would assume their "flagship" would be the F150, but this article seems to be talking about some sort of battery factory that a South Korean company is building?
Similarly, "socked by mold sickness" is a weird phrase. Feels like an inappropriate use of "socked" here. If the project is delayed because workers are getting sick, just say that.
The title strikes me as a failed attempt at clickbait, and immediately makes me distrustful of the rest of the article, which is confirmed by the "all over the place"ness that you mentioned as well.
Socked here is just "hit or struck" which isn't that weird of a phrase to use in the context. We use it all the time for natural disasters, cities are socked by a hurricane.
I've literally never heard "socked by a hurricane" despite living in an area where hurricanes hit the coast every year. I just did a google search for "socked by a hurricane" and there were a mere 8 results. Seems like a stretch to say this is used "all the time".
I know I'm being pedantic and it doesn't really matter that much, but I stand by my original comment that the headline phrasing was offputting to me.
I’ll throw my hat into the ring and agree that this phrasing makes no sense.
To help the AI with its clickbait generation for next time: “Workers at Ford EV battery plant marred by mold”, “Foibles at Ford battery plant! Mold infestation takes down workforce”
""FORD TO LEAD AMERICA'S SHIFT TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES WITH NEW BLUEOVAL CITY MEGA CAMPUS IN TENNESSEE AND TWIN BATTERY PLANTS IN KENTUCKY; $11.4B INVESTMENT TO CREATE 11,000 JOBS AND POWER NEW LINEUP OF ADVANCED EVS
FORD TO BRING ELECTRIC ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES AT SCALE TO AMERICAN CUSTOMERS WITH THE LARGEST, MOST ADVANCED, MOST EFFICIENT AUTO PRODUCTION COMPLEX IN ITS 118-YEAR HISTORY""
What they wanted to say was "Ford's flagship battery plant" or something else. Flagship is an adjective unless it's meant to denote a ship that carries an admiral's flag.
It's HN, things that are clear cruel nitpicks elsewhere, are signal to be remarked upon, we're highly sensitive, in ways good and bad.
You're right, once is a typo. But the consistent pattern is quite rare in good writing.
Also, you make a good point re: OP's comment was not so much focused on grammar --- they had an interesting observation re: style I'm, and I wanna see I'm familiar with from labour-focused news publications. Which I support!! But, in a sentence, there's a sort of forced first-person, emotional, lengthy narrative that is quite appealing, but you're also not quite sure what actually happened.
Interesting. I understood it immediately, but I'm a pretty smart guy and can comprehend things without them being explicit, so I asked Claude.ai to see if it could do it.
> Prompt: I saw a headline titled "Ford's Battery Flagship Socked by Mold Sickness, Workers Say". What do they mean by "flagship", a literal ship?
> Claude Opus: No, in this context, "flagship" is not referring to a literal ship. In business and marketing, the term "flagship" is often used to describe the most important or leading product, location, or division of a company.
> In the headline you mentioned, "Ford's Battery Flagship" likely refers to the company's primary or most advanced battery manufacturing facility or division. This facility or division is considered the "flagship" because it plays a crucial role in Ford's strategy to develop and produce batteries for their electric vehicles.
> So, when the headline states that the "Battery Flagship" is "Socked by Mold Sickness," it means that this important battery facility is facing issues related to mold growth, which is reportedly causing health problems for the workers.
But Claude Opus is a remarkable LLM. Very powerful. Mixtral 8x7B quantized down to 4 bits is also a remarkable LLM, but much smaller and runs on my laptop. I gave it the same prompt.
> Mixtral 8x7b: "Flagship" in this context refers to the main facility or center of operation for a certain activity or product. In this case, it refers to Ford's main battery production plant.
That was generated in 1.2 s. Not bad. Checking the actual article, it appears that is what the article is about. In a world-modeling and text-comprehension sense these models appear to beat many human beings on meaning inference in ambiguous contexts. Quite cool! One can imagine a future where humans without this inference skill can use a rapid-response text model to auto-translate things down to their comprehension level.
After all, this entire discussion tree is a discussion about communication breakdown. It would be entirely obviated if these LLMs were placed in the comprehension path. Then we'd be operating at a higher level of discussion: talking about the referent rather than the reference, so to speak!
While I understand fairly well what "Flagship" means in business context... my immediate assumption would be "top EC model", considering that Ford is an automotive brand.
To give you another example: if I read "Uniqlo flagship in Berlin is plagued by mold" I immediately understand the implied term (flagship STORE) but if the title say omits "in Berlin" I would try to figure out if maybe there is a new type of mold that destroy... what? Heattech? Pima cotton?
Yeah, I know the forum dislikes LLM-posted comments but I thought it was a pretty good opportunity to show how it could improve human-to-human comms. I think if we'd like we could each get a lot more information extraction ability from the world with this new machinery.
We think about the technology as accelerating development of other stuff purely through generation: code, images, video, sound. But it could actually accelerate comprehension of text because in many cases its skill at teasing out value outstrips ours.
They compared it to a sentence that doesn't make sense, and said "makes no more sense".
If they weren't saying "flagship" makes no sense as a non-ship noun, then they used the wrong words.
Oh unless by OP you meant someone other than jvanderbot, but jvanderbot is the person that prompted the claude reply. It wasn't a reply to duxup, who didn't even mention the headline.
Ok, so you realize now you lied, and the poster never claimed it didn't make sense. That was thin gruel already, they made very clear their complaint was about usage, i.e. the part of adjectives is half their comment, that the LLM poster themselves noted.
Given that, do you still believe the huge, unedited, LLM explanation of "flagship" was responding to someone?
If so, who?
If not, I'd like to avoid normalizing spamming long, child-like, auto-generated, explanations of things to prop up straw-men in service of condescending.
A message board where that was mundane, everyday, behavior wouldn't be fun to be on.
I might enjoy it if I think someone deserved it, but I'd still balance that with the long view, because that sort of behavior is extremely corrosive.
> Ok, so you realize now you lied, and the poster never claimed it didn't make sense.
I'm not lying. I stand by the claim that jvanderbot was saying it didn't make sense.
> Given that, do you still believe the huge, unedited, LLM explanation of "flagship" was responding to someone?
> If so, who?
Is this a real question? Do you not see how it's a reply to jvanderbot...?
> Is it helpful to normalize spamming long child-like auto-generated explanations of things to prop up strawmen? Would that be a fun board to be on?
The ship comment is just as child-like, and it came first. So while I don't think AI comments are good in general, I think in context it wasn't egregious. If we're trying to filter toward good discussion, then jvanderbot's comment should not be treated as much better than the claude comment.
1. You know what they said. ("They said "makes no more sense".)
2. They demonstrated they understood, via note on part of speech and reworded example.
3. You're happy to lie about it. ("I stand by the claim that jvanderbot was saying it didn't make sense")
4. LLM spam is good because it proves what they didn't say is wrong.
I think we all agree on #1, I and the spammer agree on #2, and I alone believe #3, and you alone believe #4.
With that, best to leave it at our interests differ: I'd prefer a forum that wasn't overrun by people making up things other people said* and posting LLM responses to the made up thing.**.
You're missing that jvanderbot's post was itself a strawman, about the title.
And I still say the way they insisted on flagship being the wrong word while using the phrase "no more sense" was a form of not understanding. Doing it on purpose doesn't mean not doing it.
If that's not what you meant by "understanding" then I'm sorry for not reading your mind. It doesn't make me a liar. And you don't seem to have made any attempt to understand what I meant.
And you're doing your own strawman with 4. You know that, right?
It was a demo on how to use the tool. Would you like to learn how to? Try the following steps to construct a prompt on Claude Opus:
1. Type in "I saw this comment on Hacker News:"
2. Hit `>` to start a blockquote.
3. Paste in my entire previous comment
4. Type in "Is this person saying that we should copy-and-paste LLM output as comments to others? Could you explain what he is suggesting I should do if I misunderstand?"
5. Hit Enter
I just tried it and the explanation is right on the money. Not everyone can pick up on human language well, even if they're skilled at other stuff.
You can repeat that with the original sequence of comments as well.
0. Type in "I saw this sequence of Hacker News comments:"
1. Paste in Arrakeen's comment in a blockquote starting with "FWIW I agree with you"
2. Create a nested blockquote with the next response '"Flagship" means important.'
3. Create a third level of nesting with the next response Ford's battery "Important"
4. Exit the nesting and ask: "Does it appear that these people understand what "Ford's battery flagship" means or are they confused by the term?"
And it will correctly detect that they were confused as they said:
> FWIW I agree with you. The title hardly makes sense to me as well.
"Ford's Battery Flagship" - even after reading the article I'm still not sure what this is.
See, he does not know what it means, but if he had asked a high-powered LLM it would immediately have gotten him there and saved him some time commenting. And it looks like you could have too! It's really pretty good stuff. Thanks for working on them.
I think my original comment about "flagship" was worded poorly, and has led this thread down a path I didn't intend.
I know what "flagship" means, and I did correctly assume that the article was trying to convey importance of _something_ related to Ford (my first thought was a flagship car model, but after reading the article I can infer it's about some sort of factory). My gripe with the title is that the article doesn't actually explain why or how it is important, and just assumes you will take the "Ford's Flagship..." description at face value and trust the author that it's important. It's unsurprising to me that an LLM would interpret it this way, because you asked it to just interpret the headline, which it did.
However, in _my_ reading of the article, I'm skeptical of the "Flagship" claim in the article because 1) it is never really explained and 2) the article seems to be going extra hard (too hard) to imply this is a big deal by attaching a bunch of other names (Joe Biden, Department of Energy, Inflation Reduction Act, multiple contracting companies, a SK investment company, state of Kentucky) to the project, but again never really explains why or how. It's almost like the journalistic equivalent of an appeal to authority, I guess.
Yes I'm aware that "flagship" indicates importance, but I stand by my comment that the article does a poor job of explaining it. It only says "flagship" in the title, and also the title is the only place where it really even links the factory to Ford to explain why it's important to Ford. Also from reading other sources, the factory mentioned in this article is only 1 of 3 factories that are being built as part of the project.
Other than that, the article calls the factory a "banner project for Joe Biden", as well as saying it's an "unprecedented" project for Kentucky", mentions investment by the Department of Energy, and also that it is being built for "SK On, a South Korean company". The article seems to be going out of its way to try and imply that this factory is some huge deal by name-dropping a bunch of people and attaching grand sounding adjectives, but doesn't actually explain why. It is, as the GP comment said, "all over the place".
It seems there's a story here about mold that needs to be told, but in the best case this article is just bad writing, and in the worst case it seems like it's actively being clickbaity/deceitful.
I don't think the word "flagship" is the issue. The issue is that no other noun follows. If this was "flagship factory" or "flagship truck" it would be much clearer. To me the headline wasn't clearer do to "flagship" being followed by "socked" which I am most commonly used to seeing as a noun rather than a verb, especially in a news article rather than a conversation in a pub.
As a Car Guy, when they said 'battery flagship', I immediately understood that to mean the F150 Lightning: the top-of-the range version of their most popular vehicle, which also (now) runs on batteries. (The Lightning used to just be an obnoxiously-fast V8 truck.) Therefore: "Ford's F150 Lightning is moldy." Ew, nasty!
Finding out that the author didn't intend "flagship" mean the truck, but a factory, is baffling.
It's not normal usage at all, as it's missing the main "thing" that is the flagship. Flagship What?? Imagine it applying to any other thing to see what we mean.
1. Unlock the bootloader (if not already done) (this will wipe your device)
2. Install Authy on it and log into your Authy account
3. Root your device (I used Magisk https://github.com/topjohnwu/Magisk)
4. Once rooted, you can access the Authy app data and extract the TOTP secrets, then import them into a different app (there's a script to make this easier here https://gist.github.com/gboudreau/94bb0c11a6209c82418d01a59d..., but you can also just go exploring manually in the root file system and find the Authy storage file)
It was somewhat of a pain in the ass to do this, but Authy really annoyed me with how difficult they make it to migrate off of their bullshit, so it was worth it to me to finally be able to delete their app after extracting the secrets this way.