psilocybin @ psilocybin @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

0

Comments

100

Joined

2 yr. ago

Okay seriously guys! Who let John Bolton join lemmy?

Also take note of the arrogance of the claim to know and declare another nations complete cultural identity.

To give them a chance I have asked them to clarify but I am pretty sure they haven't lived in the DPRK

The problem with North Korea is that its entire cultural identity is built on resisting American aggression

I am curious: Why do you feel you can confidently speak on the exact nature of another nations cultural identity? Let alone reduce it in this way?

Not sure if you understand how arrogant your statement is, but you have to realize that you have 0 idea of the cultural identity of the people in the DPRK.

Corporate news isn't interested in showing you anything but the conflict don't make the mistake of letting that shape your perception. The first step is realizing your ignorance

You joined one month ago

Yogthos' account is 4 years old.

At least this indicates that he is a human with an opinion that he stated on a highly nieche community and not a paid actor that only joins and starts to influence consensus after a community grows.

You on the other hand...

Jk, but think before you misrepresent a community and people as being shills.

For sake of completeness: account dates can be manipulated by the owner of the instance the account is registered on

[The USSR] was state capitalism economically

That statement is not valid and I can't understand where its decisiveness comes from. The enonomy was centrally planned, nobody respectable calls the USSR "state capitalist"

Russia was never even close to starting to try to attempt communism

IMO the urge to conclude this comes from having to reconcile two believes: First that "the USSR was evil" and secondly an interest in communism.

People affected can then either decide to denounce communism or reevaluate and deepen their knowledge of the USSR.

The latter option is often incomprehensible, so a third option is contrieved: decoupling one from the other.

I applaud you that you could uphold whatever positive view you hold of communism and instead settle for the last option rather than denouncing communism.

However the USSR obviously absolutely seriously tried to develop their country towards communism. A lot went wrong, mistakes were made even crimes committed.

But you also have to see the context of the times. The statehood is repealed in a revolution and you need to rebuild it. all the while a couple of the strongest nations on earth invade you and fund a civil war in your country also your people are poor. Then the behemoth war machine of the nazis invades. After you beat them, costing you 30 million people, the biggest power in history declares you their enemy.

A lot went extremely well compared to that: No society was ever development that quickly before and only China managed to pull this of as well. For a brief moment in the 60s life expectancy in the USSR was higher than in the US.

Wherever you stand: The USSR is something to learn from, successes and mistakes. Keeping them in the "evil" corner is just falling for propaganda.

militarizing space now might be about the phenomenon

Just to be clear I did NOT have a shortage of explanations for the interest to militarize space. That was already a given, much more so than any phenomena

seems that several Congress members, from both parties, are interested in unveiling where trillions of dollars went by the military

In the Oversight committee on national security? No way.

Its crazy how different interpretations can be. I was constantly roling my eyes listening to that hearing

it breaks up the boring monotony of giving endless checks to the Pentagon.

Does it? Or is it just the foreplay for more endless checks for the pentagon to weaponize space

Its worthwhile reading Caitlin on the matter (as it is for every matter)

She correlates the partly obvious bait with the desire to weaponize space

I have no idea how to interpret your comment

I think you're taking it too personal.

If it makes you feel better, for me its not about the phenomenon at all.

Its about the source not having any credibility when topics touching militarism and war are concerned.

And since an interest exists to weaponize space and this narrative fits the bill it might be true or not, but a comitte hearing, the pentagon or the intelligence community are as helpful in finding the truth as blindly guessing.

Its not aliens

Funny How The UFO Narrative Coincides With The Race To Weaponize Space

Here is a cached version if you want to reject tracking without flipping a hundred individual switches

You should not be able to decrypt a password, passwords aren't encrypted but hashed, they would be insecure would they be encrypted.

Hashing differs from encryption in that it is irreversible, because two or more strings might result in the same hash if the hashing function is applied to them (hashing is not injective).

But since your password will always yield the same hash you can compare the two hashes and if they are equal you are considered authenticated. If you try to log in with a different password (or even the hash of the correct password) then it will produce a different hash resulting in a failed authentication attempt

The way crackers get a password if they have the hash is by guessing pw candidates and using the hash function on them, if its the same as the hash they have they found the/a valid password. The guessing can be quite involved and with enough time and data about a victim often 12-13 digit passwords with special characters and all can be cracked - If the victim used a somewhat mnemonic pw that is. Generated pws from a password safe are much safer (but usually also longer).

In your case I suspect MS was storing a history of hashes which is not advisable as it gives potential crackers more to work with, but its way less bad then storing plain text or encrypting passwords

Sure if the means of authorising a password change is your old pw then everythings fine

You're right ofc if you wanted to make a general remark, but wrong if you thought that was what I was implying. Never store hash histories, kids!

This war could not be more clear in who is the aggressor

Ofc it could be clearer. For example: The US invasion of Iraq was a an actually unprovoked invasion

You're just late at learning about a border conflict at a time of horrible escalation and don't have anything but imperialist propagandaof a meddling party to draw conclusions from.

And no I don't have the emotional energy to spare to discuss it here I just want to signal much needed dissent to people stumbling over this thread

That's the point though.

You're not supposed to have the old password. If you had the old password you could just compare it to the new password.

The only way you can do it is to take the new password and make a hash for every possible single-character variation and compare them all to the old hash

I mean "because password hashes" is basically my original rational so not sure it qualifies as a counter argument.

But the link you provide is more explicit:

When the user enters the new password, the system generates the variations of the new password entered, hashes each one of them, and compares each hash against the old password's hash. If any of the hash matches, it throws an error. Else, it successfully changes the password

It is possible to hash all 1 character variations I guess, I kinda doubt that it is done often (does anyone know a library?).

I guess complexity increases linearly so password length is might not severely limit this mechanism. It would be interesting to see a calculation of how long it takes for a long password can to calculate all possibilities for 1 char variations for utf-8 or other charsets

Thanks for sharing the link!

How would they know how many digits changed? They don't store the password in cleartext.

Right?

...

If only there was a school of thought and associated branches of science that lay out the systemic shortcomings which necessitate this condition since the 18hundreds and on which a solution absolutely can be build.

But alas its consequences entail the discontinuation of global exploitation and the dethroning of the capital class who benefit from it and who exert control over the political, media, and academic classes thought to be necessary to bring about systemic changes.