drathvedro

What've learned the hard way the last time I had prolonged diarrhea is that it's better to wash as soon as possible because having your buttcheeks soaked in stomach acid can irritate the skin even more than the toilet paper. It's no wonder F22 took issue with this as she has vectored thrust and hypersonic missles while M28 doesn't. He's just out of her league, she's gotta dump him and date SU27 instead.

Dunno, just my personal observation is that the heavier the phone is the more likely it is to crack, just from the sheer amount of mass the case has to dampen. I've seen heavy phones, in protective cases and even those marketed as "rugged" crack from minor falls, and lightweight cheap shit survive the nastiest of falls. What you're probably referring to is those cases with thick rubber pads on the corners, but most cases are like half a mm thick wraps, which, IMO, won't help squat in a fall.

Sure, but I don't carry a sewing needle with either. Probably should, actually. The reason toothpicks are there is because it's the only thing at hand in those rare case when you need it, mostly middle of fuck nowhere and far away from home, when only one of the phones has charge but the other has reception.

Never. My current and all previous phones have toothpicks stuck in the holes and knife marks all around the sim tray.

I don't find them useful. Unless you're talking about a huge sponge of a case, or those crazy corner ball ones, it doesn't really make a difference. If a phone is prone to cracks it's going to crack, with or without the case.

imagemagik

Yes, but it's more of the middle wide block of the picture. Under it, there are quite a few tools that have been maintained by some lonesome guys since 90's and some that haven't been updated for years. Sometimes both. Learned about that the hard way, unfortunately.

they’re saved as notes in my phone, and no I don’t type the whole password in

Then I must have misunderstood your approach. Is it like a single note with all the keywords only, then?

I guess I’m not understanding how this is functionally different from what I already am doing. Why would your 12 character solution be more secure than my 14 character example

Yeah, it's because it's close to the associated domain. The way I see it, this bastardization adds little entropy (there's only so much possible variations) but also rather easy to forget. And a huge problem, in my opinion, is it's using your mental capacity for per-site suffixes rather than master password.

A possible attack I see, is if I set up a site, say a forum called MyLittlePony.su with no password protection whatsoever, and lure you to register on it. If I scroll through the accounts and notice your password to be "hunter2MyLittlePenis", I might go to paypal and give it a shot with "hunter2PenisPal". Or, somebody whom I sold the database to, might. It's extremely rare that anyone would even look at your password specifically unless you are some kind of celebrity, but it's still a possibility. Maybe some future AI tech would be able to crack your strategy (I've tried, ChatGPT told me to fuck right off and FreedomGPT is not good enough yet)

Though you've said you also keep notes, which deals with the easy-to-forget part of the problem, so my first thought was to get rid of bastardization and add fuck-all amount of entropy by using a truly random suffix. That'd deal with the above problem. But, that'd mean that it's your master password that is the suffix now, and you wouldn't be able to access sites without the notes at all, hence it'd be easier to go with password manager at that point.

I'd say the approach is potentially vulnerable, but the tech isn't quite there. The modern approach to password cracking is to take a huge dictionary, and run permutations on it, like change a's to @'s, capitalizing first letters or adding numbers in the end. Any cracker worth their salt will have something like "add _netflix" as a permutation, too. I don't think that anyone would have "NutFlex" in there, yet, but it's possible if one of them stumbles on your leaked password from somewhere else.

As for "basic text", do you mean like .txt's? And do you store the entire password there? We do have viruses that scan for crypto wallets and it's seed phrases already. It's not too far fetched to imagine one that would cross-match any txt's contents in the system with browser's saved logins.

The most glaring issue I see is that the bastardization is effectively part of your password. With 1000+ passwords it's going to be easy to forget (was it nutflix, sneedtflex, nyetflex or something?) and it's going to be hard to find it if you don't manage the codes properly. I recently had to scan over every single of my password manager entries (forgot a 100% random login, password and domain), and let me tell ya, It wasn't fun.

You could possibly switch to a "client-side salting" approach, having a strong consistent password in you head, and storing a short but truly random suffixes for each service. e.g. text file named "Netflix" containing something like "T3M#f" and the final password would be something like "hunter2T3M#f". At least that's what responsible sites do to protect people who have simple/matching passwords. You could even store those suffixes somewhere semi-openly, like in a messenger as messages to yourself. But at that point, it's probably easier to go with a password manager. Though that's an option if you don't trust those.

No we don't

Try copying an image from image search. On Chrome there's newer UI where you can long-press an image and save it or copy the url. While on Firefox without addons it opens up a legacy UI that blocks long-presses. You either have to visit the site itself and fish out the image there, or press share, open the link yourself, which opens even older image page, where you can copy the url from "Full-size image" link. Google claims that Firefox lacks some abilities necessary to display Chrome's UI, but there's a simple addon called "google search fixer" that just mimics chrome's user-agent and proves that this is not at all the case.

Not really relevant anymore, almost everything is chromium nowadays and if you do responsive design in the first place the only thing you gotta test against is Firefox and maybe in some rare cases Safari on a 2 generation old iPad. The rest just works ™

What this meme originally alluded to is the time where it was rather common to check useragent on initial request and serve a completely different site, HTML, CSS, and everything, based on which device you visit from. So you'd have like a site for Chrome, and for Opera, for Firefox, for Edge and every IE, a Mac version, one for iPad, and a separate version for each iPhone model following the everchanging style guides, also a WAP site, a site for playstation, xbox and wii, and also a few Android ones. But the only company I know that still does this is Google, who serves a broken version of it's search to mobile Firefox users, just because they can.

Here are a couple argument why it shouldn't be legal:

• Patreon: In the real world, you can't just give money to a business for nothing, there has to be some kind of value exchange. Patreon probably has some bullshit in their TOS that you're not actually donating, but buying some "perks", but that's not what a lot of youtuber's convey in their messages. To accept donations the "right" way, they would have to register a non-profit entity, then they'd have to publicly report exactly how much they received and spent, from where and on what. If they also do ads they'd have to also have a separate for-profit entity, and overall they'd have to be very careful with how they use the money as the non-profits can't just give money away either. None of the youtubers I've seen actually do this.

• Ad integrations: It should definitely be against Youtube's TOS to have ads inside the video (and possible other sponsored deals), because most major channels can easily find their own funding, disable google's ads and use their infrastructure without paying squat. And if they don't, by doing advertisement themselves they're still Google's competitors, as you can't shove infinite amount of ads in a video - the viewer's patience is limited and they tend to either leave the platform or set up ad-blockers, both of which cut into Google's revenue. So what I meant by "charging creators" initially, was some kind of deal among the lines of "If your video reaches 100.000 views, you owe us $0.10 per 1000 views over that, unless your video has ads enabled and not demonetized" or something like that.