darken

I suspect balancing "speed to degrade" with "stability when used" is something that will consistently improve with technology. (Not to mention manufacturing.)

The problem with trash isn't the space it takes up while it breaks down. It's that you're taking all the leftovers from petrochemical processing, making them into disposable products, and them dumping them en-mass into the "biosphere". (I consider a dump effectively the "biosphere" when compared to "a mile under rocks sequestered for millions of years after growing from CO2 with solar power".)

Not only does this mean there's more carbon on the surface, but there's all the gross stuff that came up with the oil that has a tendency of not breaking down in the environment, bio-accumulating, etc. (It didn't break down in the first million years... But stuff that never breaks down is such great packaging!!!)

This is where the whole `sustainable` resources concept really tips the scales.

Taking oil out of "underground vaults" is taking long-sequestered CO2 and moving it into the atmosphere/"carbon cycle". It's plastic that has to be dealt with, or CO2 from burning, or it's carbon dissolved in he ocean, etc.

Growing plants takes energy from the sun to condense CO2 into complex higher-energy compounds. This can be converted, with use of (possibly clean) energy into useful goods. If these goods end up being burned, the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. If buried, the CO2 is (at least temporarily) sequestered.

Either way, there's no net use of carbon. Yes, the input energy could be from carbon fuel sources, but energy will just get cleaner and cleaner until that's no longer necessary. Even the water needed to grow "biodegradable materials" is plentiful given you have the energy.

The fission process releases neutrons, so you effectively "add neutrons" by concentrating self-fissioning material in a small space.

To put another way: If you increase the size of a sphere of fissionable material, its rate of "natural" decay stays the same, but more of these decays lead to neutrons triggering additional fission reactions. So doubling the size of the sphere leads to >>2x fission events due to neutrons having more fissile material to hit on the way out.

A large fission reactor is just a scaled up version of this with control rods to adsorb extra neutrons to control secondary "induced" fission.

That's an acutely toxic simple anion (CN-), in random things like e.g. apple or peach seeds (#evolution) and commonly byproduct of breaking down more complex atoms.

Versus C3H8NO5P (with additives to multiply the effectiveness), which sounds less inherently safe...

This justification actually makes some sense to me (Software engineer familiar with crypto.)

If an attacker already has access to the password hashes, then yes, they can brute force any 8 character case-insensitive password easily.

However, a brute force "try to login to their site" attack isn't feasible without hitting a rate limit or alarm: (26+10)^8 = 2.8*10^12 is still a lot of attempts to login to an account.

The weakness to this model is the password. It is easiest to guess your password if it was the same one on your Sony account (i.e. leaked). However, if you're forced to pick a unique password just for Schwab, it's immune from the most common [citation needed] attack on passwords. Also, it makes the Schwab password useless for hacking other databases, making user passwords a less valuable target for hackers.

If the tradeoffs are worth it: I have no idea, but it's not without merits. I personally like using a password manager with 2-factor authentication and generating all new random PWs for my accounts. I generally don't use more than 8-character passwords, since they're isolated from each other anyways. I would be negligibly less secure using this with Schwabs constraints than other sites, as the security lies in isolating passwords. (I use https://lastpass.com/)