That’s not the issue. You can attempt as many passwords as you want in actually secure password managers as well. KeepassXC for instance IS secure, you can still brute force the password, but because of the hashing algorithm they use it’s extremely hard. With PKZIP if you know some of the words in the file, you can easily guess the password in just a few hours because the encryption algorithm it uses isn’t secure

Seconded, and added Haier to my mental list of companies to never buy from.

I prefer the extremely intuitive:

[C-R]=system("grep -P "PPid:\t(\d+)" /proc/$$/status | cut -f2 | xargs kill -9")

or

i:!grep -P "PPid:\t(\d+)" /proc/$$/status | cut -f2 | xargs kill -9[esc]Y:@"[cr]

It just rolls off the fingers, doesn't it?

Edit: damn it lemmy didn't like my meme because it assumes that characters between angle brackets are html tags :( you ruined it lemmy

EDIT 2: rewrote it, just assume that square brackets are buttons not characters

This is someone you can never count on to do anything they don’t want to do. Someone who will destroy things if they don’t get their way. Triple letters won’t touch him.

definitely, but people can change

a lot of this was social engineering

people always have a high and mighty mentality when talking about social engineering, most attacks today use some form of social engineering and have for a long time, if not always.

I agree with you in principle, you are definitely objectively correct, however people can redeem themselves.

To name two:

• Mitnick (RIP) started as a black hat
• Gollumfun started as a twisted criminal

Against all odds, open source hackers keep outfoxing one of the wealthiest companies.

sigh developers will ALWAYS be able to outsmart companies stealing from others.

But ultimately, the F in FOSS doesn’t really mean “Free”. It means “Free to the end user”.

The F in FOSS does NOT mean gratis. I absolutely hate that we decided to call it Free. There have been attempts at saying another word like libre (aka FLOSS) but those haven't worked out.

I don't agree with the FSF on a lot, but their definition of free software is as follows:

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

In other words software can be paid and still be FOSS. In fact, I want to see MORE paid software that's FOSS.

Gratis software only works in very rare cases, when an entity other than the user of the software pays for it, but that is NOT the case with FOSS.

I want more FOSS software that is monetized. Charging for FOSS software is not only permissible but desirable. This model ensures that developers are compensated for their skilled labor, fostering an environment where innovation is rewarded. It's about creating a sustainable ecosystem where the values of open-source are upheld without sacrificing the financial viability of the developers.

When software is open-source and monetized, it strikes a critical balance. Users gain the freedoms associated with FOSS – the liberty to run, modify, and share – while developers receive the financial recognition for their contributions.

Paid FOSS software also opens doors to more professional and polished products. When developers are remunerated, there's a greater incentive to maintain, improve, and support software. This, in turn, encourages wider adoption, as users are more likely to rely on software that is regularly updated and supported.

Moreover, a paid FOSS model disrupts the surveillance capitalism model. It negates the need for monetizing user data, as the revenue comes directly from the users in exchange for the software. This aligns perfectly with the principles of respecting user privacy and data ownership.

I WANT to pay for FOSS software that respects my rights and freedoms. The payment becomes an investment in a world where software is not just a tool, but a statement of principles. It's a declaration that I support an ecosystem where the power and control lie with the users, not in the hands of a few large corporations.

By paying for FOSS, we're contributing to a marketplace that values ethical practices over profit maximization. We're fostering a space where software developers don't have to resort to underhanded tactics like data mining or invasive advertising to make a living. Instead, they can focus on creating quality, user-respecting software.

This isn't to say that all FOSS should come with a price tag. There will always be a place for gratis FOSS, especially in educational and non-profit sectors, tho in such cases developers should strive to ask for donations. But for the software that powers businesses and our daily lives, a paid model is more sustainable and ethical.

The beauty of this approach is its alignment with the principles of free-market capitalism. It's a voluntary exchange where value is given and received. Users pay for the freedom, quality, and respect that FOSS offers, while developers are compensated for their ingenuity and hard work.

If somebody actually did that it would be grounds for removing their privileges to merge into master. THIS, THIS is why the JavaScript ecosystem has gotten so bad, people with mentalities similar to his.

I get movies and TV shows from the digital high seas because it’s easier, and I openly admit this with my real name on my Lemmy profile.

Currently, I'm subscribed to four streaming platforms: Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Crunchyroll, and Disney+. Despite this, I resort to pirating every piece of content I watch.

The simplicity of searching a title on Radarr or Sonarr and clicking 'add' vastly outshines the cumbersome process on legal platforms.

These sites are all flawed, tend to harbor more spyware than Windows and present a usability nightmare compared to the streamlined interface of Jellyfin.

In terms of ethics, my conscience is clear. If a movie or TV show isn't available on the platforms I subscribe to, it's a clear sign they aren't interested in my money.

I see absolutely no problem with paying for what I watch; financial constraints aren't the issue. The crux of the matter lies in the user experience, which is undeniably superior and hassle-free on the open waves of the digital ocean.

Let's not make this sound worse than it is. We don't need to devolve into Stallman everytime we see software that's not 100% in agreement with the GPL or other extreme licenses. Let's celebrate some great software, nitpicking like this is not productive. Their license is perfect for their product; at the very least they're HONEST unlike big tech companies. I'd rather have "source available" code than proprietary bullshit that can only be understood by spending months looking at it with ghidra

you're posing an unfalsifiable statement as a question

"prove to me that you don't have an invisible purple unicorn friend that's only visible to you"

sigh 'member when computers were there to serve you and not the other way around? pepperidge farm 'members