Hello hello hello hello.

I wonder a bit why people/companies/etc are fussing a lot about the strength of passwords. Is it because security experts get anxious about all the ways that they can seemingly be hacked?

Though, it seems rare to me that the weakness of passwords contributes a lot to the actual damage that hackers actually do. Maybe it's because I am a tech layman, but I've never even heard of a company/etc having problems because the passwords were too weak. Rather, it's almost always a malicious worker, someone bringing viruses in via a laptop, keyloggers, hackers impersonating IT staff on the phone, or even the very simple shuffling through the garbage. NONE of which a strong password will do anything against, ever.

After all, trying to brute force, hack, or guess a password is generally very hard.

Problematically, the comparison between 'liberal' and 'conservative' is a false dichotomy anyway.

This is because the terms don't have any specific meaning, and are just flung onto people as some sort of arbitrary separation or disparaging remark (Oh, he's a liberal and you know what that means.)
Even within the ambiguity of the terms, people like Michael Moore wouldn't be well classified into them. 'Liberal' simply doesn't describe anything notable about him as compared to 'Bush hating' and 'anti-corporate;' neither of which are necessary for liberalism or progressivism as they are basically defined. Fox News also doesn't fit into any traditional sense of the word 'conservative,' and it would make more sense to think of terms like 'pro-Republican' and 'sensationalist.'