They demand a lot of loyalty from people they'd cut up and sell for organs if they thought it would be profitable. I'm actually mildly surprised Amazon hasn't tried this yet. Like if you get killed in the warehouse Amazon gets dibbs on your organs kinda clause.

So much so that they even have a name for it: Maskirovka. The term was originally used just for camouflage, and the uses of it seem entirely in keeping with ordinary warfare. The disinformation campaign around D-Day would have been a brilliant example of maskirovka.

But the Russians do it before a war, and even during active hostilities as a way to demand that they be treated as if they were non-combatants. It's going on right now, pretending that they aren't engaging in war against Ukraine. It's so traditional in the culture that it's not even really something we can blame them for, exactly. But it means that our actions and reactions have to be calibrated around the fact that this is part of the way they view the world.

After 5 years you can still read it and understand what it was supposed to accomplish, and it does so.

Why don't you hire women?

Correct. Rational evaluation will lead you to this result.

We're not rational, because our genes (who drive our evolution and thus our minds) don't give a fuck if we survive or not, only if they survive. To them, your kid is more valuable then you are.

This is total bullshit, and dangerous at that.

Firstly, a lot of software out there still has password length limits, sometimes silently discarding additional characters. You will still need ordinary passwords now and then.

Secondly, no normal human will type a five, six or more words passphrase every time they want to unlock their screen. They will do it for three days while they're hyped on how secure they are now, and then it'll become something they hate, and then they'll change it back to "123".

Thirdly, this is a bit more tricky, the real world security of almost every password scheme I've come across in 15 years of IT security experience is several orders of magnitude lower than the mathematical assumption. Because we consistently forget to take the human factor into account. Maybe some extreme nerds will actually follow this guideline, more normal people will discard words they can't remember for words they can, change things "a little" for convenience, and generally sabotage the whole system without even realizing it. It's the same as with passwords, all over again. Yes, on paper, a password has on the order of 10^16 possible combinations. But in reality, taking into account how people actually choose passwords (even ignoring the whole "password" and "123456" problem!) the actual diversity is more on the order of 10^9. Same here. You think using dice removes the human factor. omg do you underestimate humans!

Maybe there aren't any workers. Is the CEO sporting a shiny new $9 billion iWatch by any chance?

I have upgraded 4 computers from HDD to SSD's since Christmas. They were all from 2 to 5 years old, and all of them run like they're a brand new computer. They boot amazingly fast, and they launch programs really fast. Compiling is much, much better too. I wouldn't ever go back to a rotating hard drive for anything other than long term archival storage now. Maybe I'd do a hybrid drive, but really around $100 or so for 240GB is a really nice sweet spot at the moment.

This is right, but depends a lot on your threat scenario. For many applications where security really matters, both online and offline cracking are by far not the biggest risks.

In fact, they're ridiculous. I've given a couple presentations on password strength, and password meters are to password strength what the TSA is for air travel security - a better-than-nothing baseline approach that is mostly for show.

The problem is that we have nothing better to offer at this time, even though most security experts agree that passwords are a solution whose time is over.

Or maybe it would follow better moral reasoning. Ours is not perfect, it's just whatever evolution came up with that gave us the best species survival rates. That doesn't mean it's really the most ethical solution.
For example, in a post-feminist society, let's assume for arguments sake that gender discrimination has been overcome, wouldn't we also do away with "women and children first" - which is a suitable survival approach in a species fighting for survival in the african prairie, but hardly for the dominant species that already is overpopulated.

Most of those web sites are not one's I'm likely to return to anyway. Like a corporate web site for some company I clicked on a job posting for. And now it's asking me to create an account with my E-Mail address and a password. The only information in the account that the password is protecting is an E-Mail address, and I'm not likely to ever return to that site. At this point I'm already pretty sure I don't want to work for that company. If they bitch at me about the strength of the password I chose, that's really just going to make up my mind for me at that point. If I ever DO return to the site, I'm not even likely to remember that I ever created an account there, much less what the password was, so I'm just going to have to click on the "forgot password" link, anyway. I've had sites like this send me the original password in plain text, too.

So, was there a non-disclosure agreement? You don't have a statutory right to not have your ideas stolen.

Because history shows us that it turns out bad. When bigots are a small minority, it's ok to let the free market deal with the problem. When they are in the majority, or when they wield a majority of the power, the free market gets ugly. Just look at pre-civil rights era segregation.