“How to lobotomize your car” could become a whole new genre on youtube.
“How to lobotomize your car” could become a whole new genre on youtube.
Well, you CAN actually use that 18 years old hardware with a PC. Try it on a PS5.
I can still be confident that when I buy a game for my PlayStation it’ll actually boot, I won’t need to use third-party software for controller support, and I won’t need to tinker with drivers.
Sounds like your last pc gaming experience was in the 90s.
It would be so funny if the EU decided Sony was a gatekeeper on the consoles without disc drives and forced them to allow 3rd party app store on them.
Hey, a guy can dream.
On the other hand, if it was 107°C outside, the outrage would be so much more justified.
Cable breaking from being bent in a weird way for too long.
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.
No it doesn’t. It reduces the possibilities to less than the 52x52 possibilities that would exist if you allowed all possible combinations of upper and lower case letters.
You are confused because you only see the two options of enforcing or not allowing certain characters. All characters need to be allowed but none should be enforced. That maximizes the number of possible combinations.
that passwords should all require certain complexity, but without broadcasting the password requirements publicly?
No, because that’s still the same. An attacker can find out the rules by creating accounts and testing.
By adding uppercase letters (for a total of 52 characters to choose from), you get 52 * 52 = 2704 possible passwords.
You don’t add them, you enforce at least one. That eliminates all combinations without upper case letters.
So, without this rule you would indeed have the 52x52 possible passwords, but with it you have (52x52)-(26x26) possible passwords (the second bracket is all combinations of 2 lowercase letters), which is obviously less.
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
Wrong. In your example, for any given try, if you have put a lowercase letter in spot 1, you don’t need to try any lowercase in spot 2.
Any information you give the attacker eliminates possible combinations.
Which is funny because those strict rules reduce the number of combinations an attacker has to guess from, thereby reducing security.
Normal people have friends and family and would like to use social media to stay in touch with them.
Normal people stay in touch with their loved ones even if they are not on the same platform. You do not need everyday group chat noise for that.
Oh come on, that’s like “all politicians lie”. There is “I record every millisecond of your private life to sell to anybody with a fat enough wallet” evil and there is “I am raising prices this year because I can” evil. The two are not the same.
I’m convinced they’ll never figure out a practical solution to take technical drawings out to construction sites digitally (battery life, limited screen size, dirt, hazardous atmospheres, the unwillingness of my boss to pay for expensive specialized hardware …). Other than that I’m with you.
It takes way more effort from the user and leads to more people dropping out.
Then make it 0 to 3 or 0 to 1 for all I care. You missed the point, which is: If I want or don’t want feature A doesn’t influence if I want or don’t want feature B, and linking the two distorts the results of the poll.
in the end, the result is the same in Aggregate.
Not if you include the human factor of the decision maker, who can twist “wanted less” into “still wanted a bit” as a justification if they want a certain feature for different reasons than user benefit (like, say, a “privacy friendly” but indeed not at all privacy friendly mechanism to give data to add networks). That doesn’t fly with “0 points”.
The person evaluating the poll will take away “person likes option 1 most” not “person absolutely wants none of these in their browser, ever”. That’s the issue. You should not phrase questions in a way that assumes parts of the answer, at least not if you want useful results.
A better way would have been to let us rate features 0 to 10 and just accept if people thought their feature ideas are all shit.
That’s already suggestive. What if you want none of them, and strongly so?
Wear earplugs at loud concerts and parties and at work if you have a noisy job.
People will make fun about you, but believe me, permanent tinnitus really sucks.
People should know basic concepts about tools without which they can’t do any part of their job.
Your colleague will learn this terminology at some point. I’m sure her job isn’t litterally juggling these three terms all day every day, otherwise I’d expect her to already have come in with that knowledge too.
Is it?
I don’t have a ps3 controller to try, but the internet seems to say no pretty unanimously.