You're very much not alone, this comes up frequently here at hn, because other sites also frustratingly block this behaviour often by popping up "tweet this" links after highlighting.
787 karma · joined July 5, 2016
Now that is propaganda.
https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/visual-basic-dotnet/
There is no way that in reality visual basic is surging up the charts and more popular than most other languages, instead I would guess they are attributing some .Net results to VB instead of C#.
for comparison, this is the google trends chart of visual basic: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=visual%2...
if I sell 100 tokens for a dollar then convince someone to buy 1 token for 10 dollars, if I run off with the money I've not run off with $1000 even if it feels like it for the people left with tokens.
That is what this article is about, and methods to deal with that.
2. A fingerprint hash isn't a cryptographic hash because you need to be able to match to nearby matches. A small variation in input needs to have a small variation in the hash so a distance function can be applied.
Those are terrible properties for a password.
edit: The original headline before being changed, "Web standard brings password-free sign-ins to virtually any site", and contained a paragraph espousing fingerprints in place of passwords.
How does cascading make sense at all if lower-down rules don't supersede higher rules?
My multiset was:
a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, j, abc, def, asd, asds, 3g46stb6vy6vsyosyvosfsdfsdsah, oooooooooooooooo
I assume this is just a javascript bug in implementation, because previously the filter said it might be in the set, actually adding it to the set then gave a false negative when trying it again.
Obviously this would need a white-list (and a pair<from,to> whitelist, not just "this domain is OK list) to allow SSO scenarios.
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/39849/does-bcry...
Given this, it seems reasonable to restrict input below a length where the password will become (effectively) truncated by blowfish.
That length is also well above 10 characters however.
For that you'd need multiple displayport cables.
Personally I managed to keep up with the global optimums early on in the shenzhen campaign but as it went on my solutions were progressively worse than the population. (Or least the portion of it left still completing those puzzles.)
The personal satisfaction is still the main driver of course, I think having the base binary "solved or not" solution is a good way to gate progression as you can choose to optimize as you go through or do a success pass and then revisit for optimisations which suits different play styles. (Personally I like to optimize as I go).
The game itself is was fun, more than tricky (almost impossible for the 9 or 10 we were at the time) and there aren't many games which combine all it's best elements. As the book says, the custom spell rune system was a treat. Creating a spell which shot a missle which exploded and also fired other missles around it was really fun.
This is why percentage is a bad measure when it can represent two things (percentage or percentage-points).
I like log-odds as a scale to use to represent adoption, going from negative infinity with no adoption through zero (at 50%) to positive infinity at full adoption, but with a typical range of -2 (~1%) to +2 (~99%) when using base e. (Although you can use any base).
By that scale it went from -0.95 to -0.65.
There's a reason that cyber is used, because you need something to disambiguate it from all the other kinds of security.
Imagine you're a policy person at the pentagon (or equivalent), if someone talks about security then that doesn't narrow it down to all the other kinds of security going on there.
You could use "info sec" but there are agencies who deal with a lot of information which doesn't necessarily mean this space either. They've been dealing with information security since their inception most of which I suspect is focused around people and not machines.
Cyber security makes it clear to those people what you're talking about.
To someone who works in SV and spends all day with developers the context is other way around, and in that context cyber sounds asinine and if you talk about security someone immediately knows it's security in your space.
That's my guess at why you tend to see 'info-sec' in the private space and 'cyber security' in the public space.
That's particularly ironic, since a lot of ML can treat it that way.
You start off selling maybe 100 bitcoins which you've 'created', so the value of bitcoins on your exchange is 100 higher than in your 'wallet'. No-one can audit that and no one will notice because it's a tiny amount compared to the total volume. The more you do this, the more popular your exchange looks and the more you can repeat it and get away with it.
Eventually you be holding only a tiny fraction of the exchange book in actual bitcoin having cashed out 90% of it generating large amounts of money for yourself in the process.
If it ever looks like there's a run and you can't provide people with their bitcoin you claim "hack".
By the time you exit scam and claim "hack" the missing coins are gone but really they didn't exist so there's nothing to trace.
A consequence of making that formal is that the total owned amount of bitcoin would be more than 21m, because the hacker would own bitcoin and the users would own bitcoin on the exchange.
As long as there isn't a bank run, that discrepancy would not be a problem, but it would deflate the currency, also seen as unacceptable to bitcoin purists.
edit: access -> accept.
If a bank said that customers were responsible for the money stored in the bank and that the bank could not undo transactions (from the POV of the genuine client) then we'd be demanding much stronger banking passwords.
Firstly, it'll keep prompting even if you choose "restart later".
Secondly, unlike most linux environments, it doesn't perform the updates which take effect next restart, it actually performs the update next restart.
That means if you find yourself needing to restart forgetting you've updated, you can find yourself suddenly having to wait a very long time before your computer is usable again.
They often take multiple 'restarts' to apply, typically you might have to wait the first shutdown, then when it boots back up it'll be "applying updates", then it'll restart again having done those updates. Occasionally you'll even get a third restart.
That's compared to 'nix applying the updates but them not having taken effect until a restart which isn't normally noticeably slower than any other restart.