Not sure what the problem is. Keep doing it.

This is how I operate in most traffic jams, since I only own manual cars & it’s much easier on my leg.

I genuinely don’t even remember any specific scenarios where somebody merging in caused me to have to come to a full stop (where I wouldn’t have had to stop if they didn’t merge). Not saying it never happened, but it was so rare and unnotable that I don’t remember.

I do live in the northeast US, so maybe that has something to do with it, but I don’t usually feel like I spend meaningfully more time in traffic because I let a few people in front of me.

Bonus benefit: my life is measurably better since I stopped getting pissed about people being in front of me. Road rage had such a broad impact on me, even after I got out of the car.

I think I’m confused on your point.

I interpreted your statement to mean “adding a requirement for certain types of characters will decrease the number of possible passwords compared to no requirements at all”, which is false. 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.

Perhaps you’re trying to say that passwords should all require certain complexity, but without broadcasting the password requirements publicly? I suppose that’s a valid point, but I don’t think the tradeoff of time required to make that secure is worth the literal .000001% (I think I did the math right) improvement in security.

At one point, Charles Schwab allowed a password of infinite length, but SILENTLY TRUNCATED ALL PASSWORDS TO 8 DIGITS.

This is something I sent a few angry emails about wherever I could find an opportunity.

Provably false. That’s only true if the rules specify some really wacky requirements which I haven’t seen anywhere except in that one game about making a password.

Think about it this way. If you have a password of maximum length two which only accepts lowercase letters, you have 26 choices for the first character & 26 for the next. Each of the 26 characters in the first spot can be combined with any of the 26 characters in the second spot, so 26 * 26 = 676 possible passwords.

By adding uppercase letters (for a total of 52 characters to choose from), you get 52 * 52 = 2704 possible passwords. It increases significantly if you increase the length beyond two or can have more than just upper & lowercase letters.

Computers have gotten so efficient at generating & validating passwords that you can try tens of thousands of passwords in a minute, exhausting every possible two-letter password in seconds starting with aa and ending with ZZ.

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, but I’ve never seen a password picker say “your fourth character must be a lowercase letter”.

I agree - I do use passphrases in some critical cases which I don’t want to store in a password manager.

However, I believe passphrases are theoretically more susceptible to sophisticated dictionary type attacks, but you can easily mitigate it by using some less-common 1337speak character replacements.

Highly recommend a password manager though - it’s much easier to remember one or two complex master keyring passwords & the random generated passwords will easily satisfy any application’s complexity requirements.

I bet they do.

I’ve learned that the best way to get printers to work universally is to buy a printer with ipp support & force a static IP / DHCP reservation. Seems to universally work with every OS I use in my home with no bloaty drivers.

I’ve had some pretty great experience with my Brother multifunction printer / scanner on my Ubuntu server, but never played with Arch.

Best part about Brother’s scanner driver is that it literally just runs a shell script you can modify. I have it set up such that I can scan to PDF from the printer & it will programmatically drop it into my samba share, despite the fact that my printer is not expensive enough to come with the “scan to nas” feature in firmware.

I could be optimistic and say it’s a Porsche engine!

Looks like a Subaru engine

You’ve still gotta be good at prompt engineering to make great AI art.

Like you said - it’s a tool which requires nuanced skill like any other art. It just happens to lower the barrier to entry a pretty significant amount

We used to distinguish AI as automatically / programmatically making a decision based on an ML model, but I’m guilty of calling it AI for wow factor, lol.

Now I have to be careful because AI = LLMs in common language .

Yes - this photo is pointing out that it’s not the responsibility of that black man to be nice to you and drive you out of racism.

Would it help? Probably. But it’s not that person’s responsibility to prevent you from being radicalized. It’s on you and on us as a collective.

You don’t feel like you have to be nice or every white person that person runs into will always be seen as shitty - our non-white friends shouldn’t have to bear that responsibility either.

I mean Barbie was a woke movie…

In the best way a half movie half advertisement could be. It argues against citizen’s United in the first 5 minutes of the movie ffs.

I’m not sure what I’ve done differently, but my under screen reader on my 6 pro is more reliable than the back reader on my pixel 3.

Obviously my one data point doesn’t negate the vast swathes of people who do have issues, but for me I may not even elect to use face unlock. Seems unnecessarily insecure.

In statistics, everything is based off probability / likelihood - even binary yes or no decisions. For example, you might say “this predictive algorithm must be at least 95% statistically confident of an answer, else you default to unknown or another safe answer”.

What this likely means is only 26% of the answers were confident enough to say “yes” (because falsely accusing somebody of cheating is much worse than giving the benefit of the doubt) and were correct.

There is likely a large portion of answers which could have been predicted correctly if the company was willing to chance more false positives (potentially getting studings mistakenly expelled).