Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)C
Posts
0
Comments
241
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Word based passwords are (typically) not more secure, but they're easier to remember than random text, which makes them more secure than the lesser alternative, but not more than the better alternative: just as long, but fully random text stored and generated by a password manager. You're right that substituting text with numbers or symbols is bad, those are easily cracked. But fully random text with symbols and numbers is the best.

    Why? Badly remembered passwords are often reused and written down, sometimes even on the computer itself, in emails, chat software, text files. And any password created by a person inherently will fall victim to shortcuts, as humans are often just not as creative as you might hope, there's patterns. Common words might be used, too little words might be used. With a dictionary attack that checks common words, the entropy of such passwords can become drastically smaller to the point they can be cracked very quickly, and you have to be aware of that constantly when using words. Using uncommon words or more difficult words can prevent that, but that's typically not what people do, when "password123" is the best they come up with otherwise.

    A notebook at home would suffice, but it's not great for the same reason as word based passwords. A password manager can create passwords that are guaranteed to be entropically complex passwords that can't be cracked basically ever. There's no guessing, no shortcuts to take, no human laziness to slip in and curse the password to easy cracking. And it does so uniquely for every login you have. That's essentially unbeatable.

  • Lukoil apparently, you can see the same red-white colors in the reflection of the car.

  • Not to mention, Trump essentially has to keep that military force ready at all times to keep the pressure, or pull it away from other places he's threatening, like Iran. By the time the fleet is back on it's way Rodríguez just has to play nice for a while again and eventually mother nature, midterms, or whatever form it will take, will take care of Trump.

  • He's pulling this number from his ass. When the contracts are signed, infrastructure and factories are built, stronger alliances are formed, that number doesnt have to be nearly as big. It's only because we are catching up that it's expensive now.

    Rutte's only purpose here is to be a boot licker for Trump so he can remain on a level head with Trump when the next international temper tantrum hits, dont forget that.

  • Graveyard Keeper's big problem is it's lack of bulk operation mechanics and too basic UI (At least when I played it a couple of years ago). Everything just required dragging items manually and constantly multi-pressing keys to do actions in bulk (or holding left for over a minute to reach another place). It's the kind of game I immediately had to set up a bunch of Autohotkey scripts for, otherwise the more you progress, the more it became a chore rather than feeling like you made it big. Fun game otherwise but that just killed it for me at some point.

  • You are not getting the full picture. NATO by design used to exist to keep Europe small militarily under US supervision, because the US wanted to avoid another Nazi-like regime from taking hold in Europe. That was the deal post WW2. The EU doesn't grow their armies to the point they could reasonably threaten the US, and they provide that necessary protection instead. So the US inherently didn't want the EU to have too much defense spending, and to follow their lead so they could keep control. And with how weak Europe was after WW2, they could not really refuse nor reject that.

    In return, EU specialized in trade and manufacturing, something the US wanted. Hence why they are such big trading partners still. It's not like the US was just snoozing at the wheel for more than two decades as defense spending went down. There was always caution (and honestly, the EU shouldn't have ignored this) that more defense was going to be needed, but the status quo was always by mutual consent, as the US also benefited from essentially it's own continent wide production factory while it could do what it does best at home (it's military). And until Russia invaded Ukraine, nobody could even begin to sell the idea of more defense spending to the people, as that would too have increased prices for the US. And the US could have escalated if more defense spending was a dealbreaker to them, but they did not until Trump, because it would have just been a bad change without the hindsight of 2021.

    Frankly, this notion that the EU took advantage of the US is really just MAGA propaganda. The same way Trump is now making the despicable claim that EU soldiers didn't die enough for when the US, the single country that ever invoked NATO's article 5, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. When the US under Trump realized they could just not uphold their part of the system in place, as Trump does not understand diplomacy and soft power, that's what he did, and defense spending was just the easy excuse if you ignore all that historical context.

  • As a European, I do somewhat respect Zelensky's courage here. He knows full well that Trump might very well drop him like a brick for some stupid reason at any time, and that Europe has been there to help him in those cases. Yet this needs to be said. Like a true friend he can tell us the harsh truth even if it could strain the relationship, because while lying would be easier in the moment, it would not be better. Holding his words to avoid conflict would be... the same mentality as trying to appease a dictator to avoid conflict.

    Let's do better Europe.

  • That's in part because they see their future through the lens of them oppressing objective developments, so EVs and batteries will never happen in that fantasy. They took a liking to AI for example despite it being relatively new development purely because it helped them in that department. They will only embrace something if it's 'their' idea, and they have a lot of shitty ideas.

  • Not sure why you are getting downvoted. What wonderingwanderer says is true as well, but honestly not relevant to this comic. Comics with this type of messaging often very explicitly call out men (even those that don't treat women as such), which leads to a hostile counter response. This one just says "you're a dummy if you treat women like this", which yeah. You probably are, if not worse. But unlike many other examples it could literally also apply to other women, (eg. lesbians), non-binary, or other folks who objectify women. They are exceedingly rare I would bet, but things like TERFs exist too sadly.

  • While that's true, it clearly worked and massive channels used it. So why is YouTube's avoiding any responsibility and trying to kill it as quickly and silently as possible? Like, I get that sometimes you'll have to drop support for things (even things you unofficially support), but there should be a phase out period during which people can either backup and re-upload videos with those captions to preserve them. They could and should honestly provide a heads up for that or even help them out.

    Now they are literally decimating people's hard work and on top of that pissing off actual partners. Not saying it will be successful, but cutting into people's business like that is the kind of thing you can get sued over. So it doesn't even make sense to take that risk from what we know.

  • I am sure our Belgian brothers will be fine with it if we say we came from Antwerp instead, it's only 70 km away from Rotterdam :^)

  • This isn't a conspiracy, nor a secret, and nobody is claiming it is. It's just psychology for the sake of profit maximization, which literally every company that likes to make a profit participates in. Why are you winding yourself up so much over something so uncontroversial?

    You should go work in retail for a year or two, because then you will know this isn't exactly uncommon knowledge and even the people stocking the shelves know about it. Hell people that understand psychology need to shop too, so they know it too as they move through the store. If it's a conspiracy to you, that says more about you than anybody else.

  • A disgrace. This has to be fought or it will not end here.

  • Safety

    Jump
  • I think that's a good way to put it. You can't do much about someone else crashing into you (Unless your husband is Mr Incredible), but you can do a whole lot more when selling/buying something to/from a stranger to avoid that turning nasty.

  • Which is the stupid part, because the peace prize was her only leverage. It's pretty clear she's purely trying to play the book of appeasing him to get him help her, but failed to actually secure that part in some under the table quid pro quo.

    Now Trump gets to pick and choose between two people that are willing to sell out their country to appease him, except one is actually in control of said country while the other handed him a peace prize (her only leverage) and hoped for him to 'do the right thing'.

  • Unfortunately the committee can't rescind it (by their own rules), just like she can't transfer it to Trump, but only one of those two cares about upholding truth and value.

  • You are not everyone. It doesnt have to work on everyone to be effective. And at the end if you want to reject it or not, it's there, you can read up on it if you didnt already make up your mind. For grocery stores, ignoring the science is playing with large sums of money, so they do care.

    EDIT: I'll give you a start: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950329318302374

    A possible strategy to increase the bread consumption is to make bread more attractive, for example by using bread aroma. Supermarkets and bakeries have long been using bread aromas to facilitate sales of bread in general. The smell of freshly-baked bread is supposed to guide consumers towards the bread department and increase sales. Even though this kind of use of aromas has to the best of our knowledge not been scientifically tested, other effects of bread aroma such as improving mood have been demonstrated (Zhou, Ohata, & Arihara, 2016). More in general, food aromas have been shown to increase food appetite for congruent products, in terms of both taste and energy density, irrespective of hunger state (Zoon, de Graaf, & Boesveldt, 2016). Food aromas also affected food choice, where for example exposure to citrus aroma reduced selection of cheese (de Wijk & Zijlstra, 2012). Also, aromas have been found to affect behavior in restaurants (Guéguen & Petr, 2006), and shops (de Wijk, Maaskant, Kremer, Holthuysen, & Stijnen, 2017). The reported effects of aromas on food appetite, food choice and behavior in an eating environment motivated the hypothesis that bread aroma may increase bread liking and wanting, and affect choice behavior of bakery products.

    Or if you want a video with sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL8pVOe_8zQ

    EDIT2: One of the papers also mentions this:

    Although the marketing systems and displays within grocery stores were comparable between the United States (US) and Switzerland, the Swiss system was found to exhibit fewer profit-based marketing tactics. Moreover, strategies that are used in Switzerland were found to be less forceful

    So you should also take into account that you may simply live in a place that doesn't push these tactics too hard. But that is irrelevant to if they work or not.