5,819 karma · joined June 18, 2011
Why it’s great for camping: 1. Indestructible 2. Cheaply found at a garage sale (no worries if it gets lost in a pile of camping gear) 3. Takes up less volume than a French press 4. When camping, everything tastes better. Even “ok” coffee is a luxury
All this to say: a $500 device is a tough sell for camping
Not sure the safety track record, but if it’s favorable, perhaps this kind of program could be expanded.
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-office...
In my opinion, drug testing should only required for certain roles (like driving or operating machinery). And it should only look for active intoxication.
(Separately, regarding business and political leaders in particular) I’m not in favor of the “blackmail vulnerability” arguments in this discussion. Substance use should not be stigmatized.
If it’s a problem, it’s a minor problem, not justifying the attention. Elon has a lot of major problems that this distracts from, and creates the suspicion of a media bias against him, which is harmful.
Even when Patagonia is closed, their items are being sold by other retailers, so it seems like a way smaller sacrifice than REI closing on Black Friday when it will lose sales to competitors. Patagonia's thirst for PR annoys me and detracts from their credibility (some of their products are pretty good though..).
"If your brains are still too small to process such esoteric terms"
"It’s a crazy thing to try, when even your own local predictions are so far from perfect accuracy."
"I cannot quite remember why I thought this would be a good idea. I blame the pronatalist influencer conspiracy."
1234websitename is objectively better than 1234.
I'll go with NIST on this one (yes, and have a minimum length too):
> When processing requests to establish and change memorized secrets, verifiers SHALL compare the prospective secrets against a list that contains values known to be commonly-used, expected, or compromised... If the chosen secret is found in the list, the CSP or verifier SHALL advise the subscriber that they need to select a different secret, SHALL provide the reason for rejection, and SHALL require the subscriber to choose a different value.
By the way, I don’t feel paranoid to flag bad passwords on login (perhaps triggering an email OTP and forcing a password reset), personally. I responded to this thread because a commenter made an unfounded implication about using HIBP data to reduce vulnerability to credential stuffing.