Don_alForno @ Don_alForno @feddit.org

Posts

2

Comments

408

Joined

1 yr. ago

He gets accused of wanting to deescalate conflicts, pull out of NATO, and generally refusing to uphold the constant state of war that every single US politician wants.

Just going off e.g. the stunt he pulled with moving the embassy to Jerusalem, I would say this sentence is giving him way too much benefit of the doubt.

The way see it, what he is mostly accused of is claiming to want to do those things (and most candidates would claim they wanted to "solve" e.g. the middle east conflict) but not actually having any kind of realistic idea of how to achieve any of them. Possibly besides pulling out of NATO, which, given the current state of the world, is a stretch to call this a "good thing".

Also, when it comes to stupid pointless conflicts, I think we can rest assured that he will always be invested in them on the side he believes he can personally profit off the most. Which is an ideology too if you think about it.

Preposterous! Nobody has ever accused Donald Trump of doing a good thing.

If you are selling three sizes of something, the sizes are called "small", "medium" and "large".

Cable breaking from being bent in a weird way for too long.

hard to comply with properly

Not at all. Don't collect personal data that's not technically necessary for the service to work. Tell users what data is collected and for what purposes. Done.

I wouldn't classify "teacher" as a "position of power" in the sense that people who are mostly interested in holding power over others want the position for that reason.

There's a huge difference between "being interested in power" and "being interested in improving things for yourself and other people". The one is selfish in nature, the other isn't.

There is also a huge difference between wanting a position and being good at it.

Positions of power are filled by people who are not interested in holding power.

There are differences of course. Still, Steam's policy, which is often internationally praised as consumer friendly, is very restrictive from a European perspective.

I can get faulty physical goods fixed/refunded by the store up to 2 years after purchase (EU). It's the store's problem to get a refund from the manufacturer. The same should be true in case of Valve and a publisher.

Crunchy peanut butter is superior peanut butter.

Whatever brother printer is on sale

Even in your example above, with only two letters, no numbers / special characters allowed, requiring a capital letter decreases the possibilities back to the original 676 possible passwords - not less.

No it doesn't. It reduces the possibilities to less than the 52x52 possibilities that would exist if you allowed all possible combinations of upper and lower case letters.

You are confused because you only see the two options of enforcing or not allowing certain characters. All characters need to be allowed but none should be enforced. That maximizes the number of possible combinations.

that passwords should all require certain complexity, but without broadcasting the password requirements publicly?

No, because that's still the same. An attacker can find out the rules by creating accounts and testing.

By adding uppercase letters (for a total of 52 characters to choose from), you get 52 52 = 2704 possible passwords.

You don't add them, you enforce at least one. That eliminates all combinations without upper case letters.

So, without this rule you would indeed have the 52x52 possible passwords, but with it you have (52x52)-(26x26) possible passwords (the second bracket is all combinations of 2 lowercase letters), which is obviously less.

The only way you would decrease the number of possible passwords is if you specified that the character in a particular spot had to be uppercase

Wrong. In your example, for any given try, if you have put a lowercase letter in spot 1, you don't need to try any lowercase in spot 2.

Any information you give the attacker eliminates possible combinations.

Which is funny because those strict rules reduce the number of combinations an attacker has to guess from, thereby reducing security.

So the ending was always going to have to move away from what made the series interesting/successful

While you have a point, I don't think the ending was necessarily bad because of that.

To me the resolutions they did use were just badly executed. I'd have been fine with the battle of the bastards resolving the Bolton plot, if the battle as shown didn't make me scream at my screen every 2 minutes from all the logic holes. Same with the fall of Highgarden, Daenerys going insane, Bran becoming King etc. They could have reached mostly the same outcomes and it could have been fine. But the build up and the attention to detail just weren't there at all. And it wasn't even that they ran out of time, they deliberately shortened the last 2 seasons because they wanted it to be over.

Yes, they had no other choice than to come up with their own story in this case. Still, it went downhill hard once there were no more books to cling to. Either their writers or the people directing them weren't up to the task.

Wear hearing protection.

Normal people have friends and family and would like to use social media to stay in touch with them.

Normal people stay in touch with their loved ones even if they are not on the same platform. You do not need everyday group chat noise for that.

Oh come on, that's like "all politicians lie". There is "I record every millisecond of your private life to sell to anybody with a fat enough wallet" evil and there is "I am raising prices this year because I can" evil. The two are not the same.

If my workplace is in any way representative, it's because decisions are made by close to retirement out of touch old geezers who want to virtue signal very hard that they are not out of touch old geezers. So they push the "new thing" for lack of any actually innovative ideas of their own. Then, when the younger team members who do have some rough knowledge of the "new thing" try to explain why it might be a bad idea, they call them afraid of progress and double down on the "new thing" even harder.