You can have my Brother laser printer when you pry it from my cold dead hands, and because it's not an HP, I'm sure it will still work when you do.

Gotcha so you're abstaining this election. That's fine and your choice not to vote, but it also means you don't get to complain if Trump wins (or Harris for that matter).

As long as we have first past the post, we will never have a 3rd party candidate win.

And you'll be dead in the same amount of time.

If you honestly believe Harris would do as much damage to this country as Trump would, you're either one of the dumbest people I've ever met and there's nothing more to say, or you just woke up from a coma that started in 2016 and haven't caught up on anything that happened since then.

Our voting system is first past the post which means there are only two political parties, Republican or Democrat. If you happen to like the Republican or Democrat congratulations you get to actually vote for someone. For the rest of us our only option is voting against someone. If you hate the Republican more vote Democrat. If you hate the Democrat more vote Republican. If you don't actually care whether the Democrat or Republican wins you can abstain by either staying home or voting 3rd party, the outcome is identical either way.

If you don't like this there is exactly one solution and that's supporting efforts to get rid of first past the post voting, anything else is useless.

If the Dems will not and cannot save us, if we have a gaping bullet wound and all they can offer is a wet band-aid, then we must find another solution.

I'll take the wet bandaid over the guy reloading to finish the job thank you very much.

Yeah, never use a work device for anything you're not actually getting paid to do. To do otherwise is just stupid. Save non-work stuff for your own devices.

Sounds like all the meetings should just be done by video and nothing would be lost.

Yeah it's 50/50 because the executives really don't like it, but the actual data supports remote work being far more efficient. They're working really hard to cook the books to make it look like the opposite to appease the execs but they can only do so much. Give them a few more years to cherry-pick data and bury inconvenient results and they'll be back to the same bullshit that justified productivity destroying (but cheap) choices like hot desking and open plan offices.

Quality programmers are a finite resource. Amazon chewed through the entire unskilled labor market with their warehouses and then struggled to find employees to meet their labor needs. If they try the same stunt with skilled labor they're in for a very rude awakening. They'll be able to find people, but only for well above market rates. They're highly likely to find in the long run it would have been much cheaper to hang onto the people they already had.

I've said it before I'll say it again, churches shouldn't automatically be tax exempt, if they want tax exempt status they should have to register as a 501c3 or similar like any other organization and follow the same rules. Automatically qualifying for tax exempt status allows them to get away with so much shit.

I mean I'm sure that's what their leader told him to say, and by their leader I mean Putin. It's basically the worst kept secret at this point that Hungary isn't actually its own country anymore but a Russian territory.

Remember huffing? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

Skimming through the giant wall of gibberish the crux seems to be about feeling depressed after a series of one night stands that the author apparently thought would be longer term relationships.

I would suggest that if this has become a regular occurrence for the author it suggests there's a problem with their approach to dating. Maybe don't go looking for long term relationships at bars and clubs, or hookup focused "dating" apps.

That would run face first into proprietary info and corporate classified info.

Behold all the fucks I do not give. If it's that critical they lose all claim to being proprietary. It's just like patent, there's no such thing as a secret patent, so anything that safety critical doesn't get to stay secret either.

Regulation won't detail what a company does to that level. They might say something like "fasteners shouldn't come loose" but it wouldn't have a torque spec.

It doesn't now but it's utterly trivial to fix that. Just make the regulations say that components must meet the manufacturer specifications and require manufacturers to publish and maintain all the specifications of all safety critical components. If they want to keep it secret then that means it's not safety critical and they're responsible for any accidents resulting from its failure.

It's OK for manufacturers to say using aftermarket parts voids the warranty, it's not OK for them to prevent using them entirely. Likewise if there's a safety concern that should be handled by regulation and things like safety inspections, not by forcing all repairs to go through the manufacturer. If whatever it is is that critical to the safe operation it should be publicly documented so that third parties can manufacture it correctly to the needed tolerances.

It's because layering doesn't really gain you anything so it only has downsides. It's important to differentiate encryption and hashing from here on since the dangers are different.

With hashing, layering different hashing algorithms can lead to increased collision chance and if done wrong a reduced entropy (for instance hashing a 256 bit hash with a 16 bit hashing algorithm). Done correctly it's probably fine and in fact rehashing a hash with the same algorithm is standard practice, but care should be taken.

With encryption things get much worse. When layering encryption algorithms a flaw in one can severely compromise them all. Presumably you're using the same secret across them all. If the attacker has a known piece of input or can potentially control the input a variety of potential attack vectors open up. If there's a flaw in one of the algorithms used that can make the process of extracting the encryption key much easier. Often times the key is more valuable than any single piece of input because keys are often shared across many encrypted files or data streams.

Banks usually have the absolute worst password policies. It's typically because their backend is some crusty mainframe from the 80s that limits inputs to something absurdly insecure by today's standards and they've kicked the upgrade can down the road for so long now that it's a staggeringly monumental task to rewrite it all. Thankfully most of them have upgraded at this point, but every now and then you still find one that's got ridiculous limits like a maximum password length of 8 and only alphanumeric characters (with no 2FA obviously).

Trimming whitespace from the start and end of a password is fine but you absolutely should not remove whitespace from the middle of a password.

The rest of that sentence is important. Hashing passwords is the minimum practice, not best practice. You should always be at least hashing passwords. Best practice would be salting and peppering them as well as picking a strong hashing function with as high a number of iterations as you can support. You would then pair that with 2FA (not SMS based), and a minimum password length of 16 with no maximum length.

A KDF is not reversible so it's not encryption (a bad one can be brute forced or have a collision, but that's different from decrypting it even if the outcome is effectively the same). As long as you're salting (and ideally peppering) your passwords and the iteration count is sufficiently high, any sufficiently long password will be effectively unrecoverable via any known means (barring a flaw being found in the KDF).

The defining characteristic that separates hashing from encryption is that for hashing there is no inverse function that can take the output and one or more extra parameters (secrets, salts, etc.) and produce the original input, unlike with encryption.

That's a pepper not a salt. A constant value added to the password that's the same for every user is a pepper and prevents rainbow table attacks. A per-user value added is a salt and prevents a number of things, but the big one is being able to overwrite a users password entry with another known users password (perhaps with a SQL injection).

Hashing passwords isn't even best practice at this point, it's the minimally acceptable standard.