Cable breaking from being bent in a weird way for too long.
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.
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.
Nope. You cannot.
Of course they are. You can pay or consent to tracking.
You called bullshit on it being common on the continent, I provided examples from the continent.
At least one German outlet has been shown to still track you after paying. Just a bit less. So they use a rubber with a few holes poked in.
the user can simply choose not to read the article, so there’s an option where they don’t get fucked.
We are rapidly nearing a point where you can’t read online news from any major (ergo “widely considered somewhat credible”) source without one of those schemes. So I’d argue that the alternative is to just not get access to online news, and that may be considered too much pressure to still consider consent as voluntary.
Sadly, newspapers are not considered “platforms”. A platform is a site that publishes user generated content, so lemmy or facebook. And not all platforms are large platforms too.
So while this is a good first step, it doesn’t cover all online services.
It’s not a grey area, it’s clearly illegal (consent has to be given voluntarily. If you can’t use the site without paying, that’s not voluntary). Agencies so far just decided to look the other way and play dumb. There are lawsuits ongoing.
German news outlets all do it. The data protection agencies have sadly so far ruled it’s ok (there are still ongoing lawsuits afaik).
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.
Only 63%?