Ah, thanks. Pretty sure the PHP 4 docs in 2004 recommended individual salting. Save each salt alongside the hash. A global salt is just a really odd combination of doing a little more but still being lazy. They probably did it to make their study achievable.

My friend in high school made a website and rolled his own hash function. I was able to brute force every password in a reasonable amount of time with interpreted PHP code on a 667MHz Celeron. It didn't help that he failed to sanitize inputs; the ASCII null character really sped up finding collisions.

Do you have an example?

Conceptually, with enough computing power, it should be possible to simulate a human brain. That would give a computational basis for human behavior.

Back in 2004 or 2005, when I was just some kid in high school playing around making a little website with PHP, I used salted hashes for password storage because that's what the PHP 4 docs recommended. It's not that hard.

My first question on reading the summar was whether the hashes were salted or not. I followed some of the references in your link and ended up at https://securelist.com/password-brute-force-time/112984/, which indicates that these password hashes are indeed salted.

I haven't looked into this stuff in a long time, but I think best practice nowadays is to use a salt, a more secure hashing algorithm, and possibly multiple rounds of the hash to slow down attacks.

SoftwareArtist probably disagrees with the bolded part of what you wrote.

I say this because they wrote,

I'm sure many people have arguments for why God exists despite the present-day lack of such evidence; I'm only trying to explain where SoftwareArtist seems to be coming from. I will further claim that, for some major religions, it's possible to prove their deity doesn't exist if they define the deity clearly enough and the definition conflicts with other, well established facts.

Regarding trying to pin down definitions of athiest and agnostic, it seems that most people, especially non-academics, use these terms somewhat loosely. That's just something that happens with human language.

Do you understand how acting like an insufferable ass leads to poorer conversations?

So do low budget film makers.

1) Which*
2) This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It seems pretty obvious that you wouldn't give an award to a machine because there is simply no purpose in it. How would that even work? Would someone bring up a server rack to the stage? This is really a no-brainer.

Hey, don't lump us stupid and incompetent basement dwellers in with those fascist assholes!

Do they? People want actors and writers that will do it for less money and those seem to be in short supply.

This is not how technology has traditionally been used.
* Car destroyed the horse market
* The printing press put scribes out of work
* Photocopy machines put typists out of work
* Computers eliminated the card catalog
* Electronic synthesizers are steadily eliminating the use of musical instruments

Why did these all happen? Because they are cheaper solutions to problems that were already solved. So tell me, what makes you think it should be any different for actors and writers?

Don't get me wrong, I think this is an idiotic use of the technology and a total waste or resourced but I also cannot deny the reality that economics is the driving force of technology.

The truth is out there. [hums X-files theme]

AI agents should be exploited by websites because AI agents themselves are exploiting the websites. I see no downsides to someone causing an AI agent to self-destruct.

Anonymous shitposting is a human right. I hold this truth to be self-evident.

If a virus only infects 50% of people, that doesn't mean "nobody is getting infected". The inability for people to see nuance is annoying. 50% certainly is not 0% and it is not 100%. The idea that "perfect is the enemy of good" still applies to modern life, even if you don't understand it.