I dunno, all I do is hit copy, then go to the website and hit paste, and that's pretty easy as well:-P.
I do need to step up my game for work though, b/c it keeps asking me a password multiple times a day so if I could rattle one off that would be better than having to open up my password manager and get it.
I mean, we do hold leadership to a different, higher standard, that much is true. But is this man not the foremost world-class expert authority aka leader of his own life at least? And if not him, irt to that super narrow niche, then who else would be considered the leader of his own life?
Imagine if you will a scenario of a Doctor on television, let us call him Oz, who gives patently false advice that literally gets people actually killed. It is not okay for the TV station to air whatever film was handed to them, but how does that absolve the responsibility of this Doctor Oz from his own measure of responsibility, one may even say culpability (or perhaps criminal liability?) in this whole affair?
Again, there is more than one way to be incorrect, and by extension they both were partners in this crime against journalistic integrity.
Yeah I thought about adding a note that it's pretty outdated - and dictionary based scans were always possible even if less common in the old days - like those infamous passwords "God", "Love", "secret", or like "admin".
The artist is pretty smart most of the time though so I presume they were aware of that possibility and meant that on a more basic level there are multiple ways to make passwords easier for a user to remember, not necessarily just this one rather simplistic take but as part of a whole approach. Then again, they didn't say that, and instead said this, thus the controversy.
Personally I gave up entirely and now I don't even know what any of my own passwords are, though my password manager does:-). I guess... if you cannot beat them, join them!?:-P
Your own wording softens the blow too much, imho. How is it "fairness" to point out that he may or may not have been lying (you seem to think not but... how can you tell, really? after all: his answers were prepared in advance, thus the fact that they were not inconsistent is not a surprise?)
Also, even if like you say he is massive unintelligent, he still collects a paycheck to do the job - how then is he not a liar, either way? When people get into a plane, it is with the expectation that the "pilot" knows how to fly the plane. Then, if someone passes themselves off as one, how is that not a lie?
There are so many more ways than one to be incorrect. For example, just b/c they don't slant the coverage as much overtly towards Trump does not mean that it is unbiased for it to have been slanted away from Biden.
The job of a newspaper is to tell the unvarnished Truth. Whether it fails to do so for reasons of profit, or b/c of Russian interference, or they are merely unintelligent, or whatever - does it matter? Whether it is a "lie" (and that fact demonstrable in a court of law) or not, it is not the Truth, and thus fails the criteria of being "news", and remains mere opinion instead.
Are you sure that you meant that to respond to me - and not e.g. the xkcd comic one below?
Fwiw I totally agree with you, and I think that's a fantastic example that you brought forth - kudos b/c I think a specific example really does add something to this conversation. Just as it does so on many wikipedia pages. There are ways to phrase most things that can be agreed upon by most people, by wrapping it in the proper context.
At a guess then, they do not think that the language describing communism is extreme enough, and so want to bypass working together to achieve consensus and instead strike off and make their own internet. But I could be wrong. Then again, the burden of clearly explaining what they want to do is on them, so if so, I don't take all of that blame.:)
As long as we are still talking about Reddit, I want you to have Huffman's anus as well:-). Have you tried sending him a picture of you dressed up as Elon Musk? Maybe you could become friends with Musk first, by sending him a picture of you dressed up as Donald Trump? :-P
I would love to read both a marxist.wiki/article/communism and a libertarian.wiki/article/communism - opinions are great, fine & dandy, but at the end of the day, I don't want a marxist/grasshopper vs. a libertarian/grasshopper, and I DEFINITELY do not want a conservative/vaccine vs. a liberal/vaccine each feeding misinformation from a slightly different and both-sides-incorrect approach. The enormous EFFORTS that go into finding neutral and balanced information are worthwhile, imho, as is having a central repository that would not need to be individually updated hundreds or thousands of times.
A mirroring/backup process would just as easily perform the same stated goal of preserving human knowledge - and these are already done. Arguably the federation model works best for social media, a bit less so I am told for Mastodon, but I think would not work well at all for an encyclopedia style.
But don't mind me, I am simply grieving the death of facts and reason over here... - the fact that we would even want to contemplate different "alternative (sets of) facts" at all means that we already have lost something that was once good. :-(
They baited you by saying "wikipedia", but then they switched to what looks like the wikia software. Notice how they are from lemmygrad? I hope you get my point.
I am okay with bias in my social media.
Far less so in my encyclopedia.
A mirror would accomplish the main stated aim of backing up information just as well if not better.
Whereas as you implied, allowing multiple sources of information seems vulnerable to disinformation campaigns, and even more simply bias.
This presumes that all people are informed. New people, by definition, are not that. Arguably their fault for (checks notes) getting on a social media site then?
I am saying that it is easy for a day-1 noob to feel "dunked on" based on this absolute rush of feedback, especially for e.g. someone on the wider Fediverse who was not even aware that hexbear was that way, so especially they had no chance to consent to that - no pop-up messages appeared, nothing really unless you hunt around dig and also scroll down to see it, underneath the community, they just saw a post and replied as normal but then WHABOOSH!
Also you did not explain how the person you were responding to was not merely "wrong" but rose to be fully "disingenuous". Sadly this is something I notice often with hexbear - the culture seems to value "fights", which ngl could be helpful if the goal were to use socratic discourse to achieve some end goal like Truth and/or Compassion, but far more often it looks to me, from the outside, like people who just enjoy fighting/dunking for its own sake.
You are free - and I will fight to the death for your rights to do precisely this - to do as you please, as it pertains to yourself, but when it crosses over to affect other people, then different rules come into play. Specifically, if people from hexbear will not control themselves, then that leaves others to have to do it for them - e.g. warn people what to expect from hexbear users. i.e., it is not "disingenuous" to say that hexbear users seem to be spoiling for a fight, if that is literally what happens.