OpenStars

Yeah I thought about adding a note that it's pretty outdated - and dictionary based scans were always possible even if less common in the old days - like those infamous passwords "God", "Love", "secret", or like "admin".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.

To be fair, those are good faith arguments with the goal being to determine the real, objective truth. Hopefully.

That is not how this tool would be used, in the hands of people not trained in the art of socratic discourse. Just imagine how the situation in Gaza would end up being described.

Avoiding conflict is not always a useful aim.

Android does not work either. At a guess, desktops seem highly likely to be affected as well.