You’re currently connected to your neighbors that intimately. Chances are a good chunk of your neighbors are on the same ISP as you.
What disconnect do you think a non-local ISP is providing that a local one wouldn’t?

It actually largely has. It both reduced the numbers of people who needed to ride horses around to figure out the winner, and it helped keep power consolidated with the powerful.

A good chunk of our early democratic institutions were designed with a lot of influence by people who didn’t entirely trust their constituency and wanted to keep things from being too democratic. So you have several options for elected officials to disregard voters in most matters, and the president has the power to say “nah” to legislation.

This is for the primary. This means that people can vote for a more progressive candidate as their first choice and have their second choice be for the “safe” candidate.

The winner of the Democratic presidential primary is almost certainly always going to be a Democrat. There’s almost nothing you can do to change that.

Beyond that, they can do multiple things so doing w good thing doesn’t mean they didn’t do something else.
How do you propose they fix gerrymandering, a state level issue affecting the election of representatives, or citizens United, a supreme Court ruling, via the procedural rules of the party presidential primary? It’s like saying there’s no point brushing your teeth if you have credit card debt.

deleted by creator

I think we’re just at a point where a company not constantly trying to find ways to squirm out of every single thing is a breath of fresh air.

“Hi! We’re valve. We’re mostly following the law without fuss, mostly make money by getting people to buy things they want, and our excessively wealthy owner acts like a preposterously rich person, not a comic book villain: Fantasizing about living his life isn’t deeply concerning. The hardware we sell isn’t deliberately worse for consumers to no benefit to ourselves” – Hands down one of the best “big” companies out there.

I thought the same thing about the steam deck and it turned out to be entirely fine.
This is basically cutting the screen out of a steamdeck so I’m pretty excited for a good controller.

I thought the same thing, but per it’s suggestion I tried using it for fine tuning on the steam deck and I was pleasantly surprised. I’d never use it for for large motions, but on a game designed with mouse motion in mind it can be a little tricky to get those fine motions locked in.
I tried with portal and it made it a lot easier to get little adjustments lined up that were tricky without it. Since it exclusively kicked in when I wanted it to it wasn’t as wacky as a lot of gyro controls are for games that focus on them, and I think it was as simple as “press your thumb a bit more roundly onto the joystick”.

It’s not going to supplant the mouse for fast precise motions, but it at least means you can skip the wild overcorrection that sometimes happens with joystick on unoptimized configurations.

Don’t forget 1812 either.

The generals quite realistically cannot stop him, short of an active coup.
The launch process is based on authentication, not authorization. As such, people who are not present are asked to verify various authentication codes. The details of the order are often not even visible to the person in question.
This allows for training exercises that are indistinguishable from a real launch order until the people in the bunker turn their keys and the readout tells them that no launch has occurred.
The selection process involves finding people who say they’re willing to kill a billion people without questioning it, screening out those that want to so you just have the ones who follow orders and don’t care, giving them snuggies, locking them underground for long enough that they’re not certain about world events, and occasionally handing them a loaded gun with orders to point it at the world’s head and pull the trigger before they find out if it’s a blank or not. If they even hesitate you replace them.

The orders are pre-cached and distributed after being vetted by lawyers. The soldiers are then trained that the order are pre-approved as legal so questioning the legality isn’t valid.

The only safeguard is for one of the few people who both know the order and is responsible for verification of identity to just refuse to validate the code.
In this case, that would mean relying on Hegseth to object.

Do you think soldiers are different than cops? Do you think someone who somehow has less law enforcement training than a cop will do the job better?

My advice: only cook the toughest of meats for much longer than that. You can safely go longer, but the tenderness gets to be too much and you cross a line into unpleasantly soft.

Yours looks perfect though! What’d you season with?

Purely to keep the inaccuracy from spiraling: “not personally liable” is not the same as “legal”.

They ruled that the person holding the office isn’t personally liable for official acts unless certain extremely high bars are passed.
The act can still be illegal, you just sue the office of the president, rather than the individual who is president.

To him it’s the same, but since it’s not default legal, there’s still lines for others to stop at. It’s much easier to disobey an illegal order than a legal one.

Calm down, jeez. You said you have a system for generating passwords. Scheme is just a word for a system of doing stuff in a security setting.
I’m literally just asking what your system is and you’re acting like it’s the most aggressive thing ever.

Do you expect everyone to agree with you immediately? Disagreement isn’t aggression, it’s the starting point for the debate you keep mentioning.

There’s a principle in security, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs’s_principle, roughly summarized as “the enemy knows the system”. It’s the notion that you should be able to fully describe everything about your system except the secret key and still be secure.

My concept is a bit like this (don’t wanna give it all away):

That’s always a concerning thing to encounter at the beginning of a description. That implies that there’s an awareness that if you knew how the system worked it would be weaker, which in a security setting is considered a very notable defect.

If we’re looking at the actual security of the system you describe through that lens, the name of the company doesn’t add to your security. Neither does your word substitution rules. The secret in your system is the passphrase and the number you’re using to modify the letters from the company name.

Now, using a passphrase is good, but it kinda felt like you were implying that you use the same passphrase for all services and then modify it. That’s not a good idea, since it reduces your effective security to a single number.
Additionally, a passphrase should be random words, not a known phrase. If the phrase is grammatical it reduces the security pretty fast since it’s weirdly easy to guess word sequences.

Adding a character to the end of a password during rotation is also a bad idea. Anyone breaking a password database will automatically try with a series of characters tacked onto the end specifically to catch that, so a password of yours that got leaked years ago can be used to figure out your current password just by checking it with different endings.

A better system would be to write a truly random password down on a sheet of paper along with 31 others. Now fold up the piece of paper and put it in your wallet.
You are already adept at keeping paper in your wallet secure, and anyone not in physical proximity to you has to fall back to the usual tricks to get at your stuff.
Better yet would be to use a password manager, ideally one you can export to something you carey, encrypted, with you while you go.

Uh huh. When was I rude? You started by calling me ignorant, and I just asked you some questions about your system. You seem extremely defensive, since it seems to take only the smallest disagreement for you to dismiss someone as ignorant, lacking common sense, and unable to hold a discussion. Take a breath, and try actually explaining your system so there can actually be a discussion of what is or isn’t wrong with it.

I’m not looking for a fight, but I am extremely skeptical of your scheme because it’s one that people bring up often, and it’s never done in a secure way. Maybe yours is, but there’s no way to know if you don’t actually say what it is.

How often does any of that happen to you?

For the second one, that seems unlikely, and you can just type the password you read off your phone.

The printer scenario seems both unlikely, and has nothing to do with password managers.

If you’re memorizing your passwords, you need to factor in the likelihood you forget, and for the actual security of the password. It sounds like you’re memorizing weak passwords, which is the heart of the problem, not a downside to password managers.

What’s your system? I love hearing about people’s great systems for generating passwords. How much entropy does your system produce per password?

You’re extremely confident for someone disagreeing with literally every security professional I’ve talked to, and considering I work in the industry, that’s a lot of people.

Because your brain is terrible at remembering random data. Your simple system is extremely unlikely to produce passwords of any particular quality.

Also, I have 170 passwords saved. I don’t know how many of those live in the category of “once every six months”, which is too infrequent to remember easily.

Could also store our bools as floats.

00111111100000000000000000000000 is true and 10111111100000000000000000000000 is negative true.

Has the fun twist that true & false is true and true | false is false .

But only if you really mean it. If not, it’s a syntax error and the compiler will know.