c0wb0yc0d3r

I'm guessing that the person you replied to is referring to the same.

When I did some crawler experimenting in my younger years, I thought I was pretty clever using sites that would let you perform a random Google searches. I would just crawl all the pages from the results returned.

Your method would undoubtedly be more interesting I think. It would certainly lead to interesting performance problems quicker, I bet.

Do they? I haven't cheated in games for years, but the only game I can think of that took any immediate action was StarCraft: Brood War. There were a few hacks that would result in your removal instantly. You were not banned, just disconnected.

Halo 2, WoW, RuneScape all banned cheaters in waves. As far as I know they did this as a measure to further impede the cheaters trying to run tests about what actions and behaviors result in negative consequences.

My (naive) approach would be short lived tokens, and a mechanism for disabling and accounts ability to refresh said tokens. I wouldn't mix account management and billing with gameplay. This would in turn force users to open a different session when trying to access this authenticated data and effectively block bad actors immediately.

In my (cynical) opinion we won't see a good tool, library, service, etc. Until we can find a way to make money (or prevent missed returns) while doing it, it will be a nearly vertical battle. People are too detached from one another to care.

There is a [KB article](https://bitwarden.com/help/article/import-from-lastpass/) about exporting your LastPass vault and then importing it into Bitwarden.

It only took a minute or 2.

The most annoying thing for me is that Bitwarden doesn't have support for all of the extra "credential types" that LastPass has. They are still imported, but everything that isn't supported is imported as a secure note.

So far the only issues I have had logging in anywhere has been logging into my firefox account (in a new browser), and home assistant.

I'm curious why you say LastPass is awful from a privacy perspective?

Is it because you send your passwords to a service controlled by a 3rd party? Something more dubious?

Would you say the same about Bitwarden if you were hosting it yourself? Or the built-in browser manager (with syncing disabled)?

I have been thinking about the particular issue migrating identity too.

My thoughts are mostly around additional keys. Realistically, you have more than one device. You could associate (some or all of) them with an account. This, to me, feels like it's more inline with key based auth.

My other thought was something like the list of codes you have with other 2FA solutions.

I don't think we will ever eliminate passwords in the sense that a person will never need a password ever again, but I think the solutions above definitely get us to the point where we literally never need to share a password.

Sorry for being snarky. The point is people are going to be drawn to those that are experts in just about anything they care about or are interested in.

All my other settings seem fine, however.

Edit: For what it is worth, you link serves over https, too. Just not by default.

According to the most recent census data I could find (2015), there are approx. 27M businesses in the US[1]. Assuming half those businesses are wage thieves, that would mean 13.5M businesses are currently in violation of the the law. The DOL can place a $10k sanction on the business owner for a first infraction[2]. This would then mean that the US gov't stands to make $135B by placing sanctions on these businesses. To catch each business, let's say it costs the DOL $2500/business. After looking into each and every business, they would run a total of $67.5B. Now they have made $67.5B after all expenses have been made. To put that in perspective, the US gov't has put aside $9.7B for the DOL in 2018[3]. As you might figure on your own, $67.5B is nearly 7 (6.9587628865979381443298969072165 if you want to be super accurate) times the DOL's 2018 budget. Now if you mean to tell me that the gov't is going to leave that sort of money on the table, then you and I need to figure out how we benefit from this.

You might well be thinking something along the lines of "The gov't is inefficient, etc. There is no way they could reclaim all that." You're right this is definitely a perfect world scenario, but even if they could only claim 1%. That still makes up a 10th of next years DOL budget. For the gov't , these numbers only get better as more businesses commit these crimes.

Now we have to look at this from the perspective of a business. Again there is only roughly 27M in the US. To make it fiscally responsible to take the $10k bet of sorts the business must save at least $10k/violation, obviously. For the sake of this argument let's say violations are handed out per person per month. ((404)7.25)+(((3024)-(404))(7.251.5)) = $7250, that is how much you make at minimum wage including overtime... If you worked literally every hour of every day for a month (30 days, technically). So if we assume the business thinks a person is going to report the violation, they are better off just paying minimum wage upfront. Let's reel this in a bit and say you work 40/wk/mo in overtime. ((404)7.25)+((404)(7.25*1.5)) = $2900. So now the business definitely comes out ahead. They would risk $7000 by trying to save, what, $1000? Remember, this is an extreme case, not everyone is going to work 80 hours a week. Even if a business isn't more likely to hire another person to cover your 40 hours of overtime a week, they can only save $580/mo compared to the $10k/violation.

I know that there are businesses that will literally do anything under the sun to make a buck, but I find it hard to believe that even half of businesses would go against some of the math above.

[1]: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2015/econ/susb/2015-susb-...

[2]: https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/minwage.htm#Penalites

[3]: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/FY2018BIB_0.pdf

The problem is that calculating such an amount is more than tricky. Consider that inflation changes "constantly" or whether newly enacted bills are factored in. From my quick research, it appears as though the affordable care act made the assumption that minimum wage already factored in mandatory health insurance.

Now consider what does it mean to say a person is "living." Are you living if you have a roof over your head and food in your stomach? Is the food being considered, the same meal morning noon and night, or a variety of foods? If you are making minimum wage are you eligible for SNAP (a.k.a.food stamps)?

What about access to the Internet, OTA television, radio broadcasts, or entertainment of some sort? Biologically none of these are needed to live, but I bet an argument could be made.

I agree with you that no one should work for minimum wage, always the maximum. I think simply raising the minimum wage amount is treating symptoms of bigger issues.

I made no claim that $7.25/hr is a livable wage. That is the current federal minimum. Employers are required to pay the minimum, if they aren't, they're breaking the law.

Money management is certainly no silver bullet, however, it plays a role. If you net $13k/year then you have to manage that money so you don't spend more than $13k/year. Most would agree that it is extremely tough to live on $13k/year. No matter the difficulty the money still has to be managed.

In my student loan example, if you have a loan schedule of 30 years @ 6% you will pay $46k in interest on a $40k loan when only paying the minimum of $240. That same loan if paid off @ $440/mo, nets you $33k over that time period. Here you would manage your money so that you can pay as much as possible on that loan as often as possible.

Making more money doesn't solve money issues, it just covers them up. Saying that there nothing to be done because the amount spent is greater than the amount earned seems rather foolish. I'm not saying that in any given situation there exists an outcome where you can manage spending less than you earn, but managing money wisely will always improve the situation.

That is interesting. As I understand it now, the way tips are factored into wages, it benefits the employee more so than the employer. Society loses because the employee is supposed to report tips so they are taxed, the employer loses because they still have to pay minimum wage, and the employee wins because they are paid minimum wage and get their tips tax free.

Maybe I'm just being dense, but how would this elimination be beneficial?

I think the bigger issues are at play whether it's is the fact that minimum wages need to be adjusted, a more modern solution is needed to replace minimum wages, whether a job in question is simply suitable for a human to perform (in this case a doorman, they don't really have them where I live so I don't know their purpose), or maybe children (even adults) need to be taught better money management skills.

I personally think that an area for quick improvement would be helping folks with managing their money. Anecdotally, I know people who haven't paid more than the minimum on student loans because they that they will automatically be forgiven in 20 years. On a $40k loan, they have easily squandered away a down payment on a house or money they could have otherwise put in their 401k.

P.S. Sorry if this post is a bit of a ramble I'm still waking up.