And “save as” every few times (or every time if the document is important).
I lost a lot of work hours once because I was using a program that saved a backup copy every time you saved (so that you'd always be able to recover the previous version), and the damn thing crashed while saving, thus corrupting both the save file and the backup. Never. Again. Hard drive space is less expensive than my time and what's left of my mental health.
This means you can access your account form a public device without that device ever knowing your credentials provided you and your secure device are physically presen
My secure device is in my other pants, though. I misplace my brain much less often.
It makes your passwords easier to brute force
Passphrases are by definition hard to brute force.
The formula should not be obvious. Don't just put the site's name in the passphrase, put a similar sounding but easy to remember word, something that rhymes, the first and last letters of the site's name plus the number of letters in the domain name, whatever.
An attacker would need to specifically target you and have more than one of your passphrases using the same formula in order to try to figure it out. Too much work. If they're that interested in your password it's easier to beat you up until you tell them.
And what happens if the password is breached? Do you change the formula? What happens if a site requires a password change?
You can have a couple different formulas or variations.
how do you remember which iteration you’re on?
Same way you'd remember the password you used for a site if you reused two or three different passwords.
And if you use the wrong one just try again; sure, passphrases can be a bit long, but having to type them multiple times is a good way to make sure you remember which one you used, lest you have to type it again.
unless someone looks at a password breech list and figures out your super simple pattern.
Don't simply put the site's name there. Put a similar sounding easy to remember word, a synonym, rhyming slang, the first and last letters of the site's name plus the number of letters in the domain name, whatever.
Just use a simple formula to make the passphrase unique to each site. 🤷♂️
There's no way for the average person to keep up with remembering unique, strong passwords for all the sites that require them.
Passphrases with a simple formula to make them unique for each site.
You just have to remember the formula, you get a strong unique password for each site.
Easy and safe, and doesn't tie you to a single point of failure like a specific device or a password manager.
Add two factor authentication on top (with multiple options, of course, otherwise you'll get locked out once you inevitably lose the second authentication method), and you can even safely use it from third party devices which you don't want to remember how to access your accounts.
there’s nothing you have to remember which makes it more convenient for you to use
Unlike my devices, I always have my brain on me. Devices are much more easily lost or stolen than memories. I often might want to access sites using my account from third party devices which I don't want to be able to use my accounts when I'm not using them.
I just can't understand how using passkeys (or password managers, for that matter, massive single points of failure that they are) is supposed to be in any way shape or form more convenient than simply remembering a passphrase (which can easily be customisable for each site using some simple formula so that no two sites will share the same but it'll still be trivial to remember).
Both password managers and passkeys seem like colossal inconveniences and security risks to me when compared to passphrases, frankly. And if you want extra security there's always two factor authentication (with multiple alternatives in case you don't have access to one of them, of course; otherwise you might as well delete your account).
implemented in the real world
They never were intended to. They were specifically designed to torment Powell and Donovan in amusing ways. They intentionally have as many loopholes as possible.
Remove the first law and the only thing preventing a robot from harming a human if it wanted to would be it being ordered not to or it being unable to harm the human without damaging itself. In fact, even if it didn't want to it could be forced to harm a human if ordered to, or if it was the only way to avoid being damaged (and no one had ordered it not to harm humans or that particular human).
Remove the second or third laws, and the robot, while useless unless it wanted to work and potentially self destructive, still would be unable to cause any harm to a human (provided it knew it was a human and its actions would harm them, and it wasn't bound by the zeroth law).
first three
No, only the first one (supposing they haven't invented the zeroth law, and that they have an adequate definition of human); the other two are to make sure robots are useful and that they don't have to be repaired or replaced more often than necessary..
Main problem I see with this is that when the AI girlfriend company inevitably eventually folds, or dumbs down the product, or makes it start pushing ads instead of loving words, or succumbs to enshittification in any other way (which has already happened with at least a couple of models people were using as AI girlfriends) the users have to deal not only with going back to loneliness, but with the equivalent of the death of a loved one to boot. It's not unlikely that some will end up hurting themselves or others as a consequence.
I mean, this is Lemmy, for fuck's sake. I think we can all here agree that the whole concept is abhorrent, exploitative, and doomed from the start. What we evidently need are self hosted, open source AI companions, backed by a healthy community developing forks and extensions to cater to any and all imaginable (or unimaginable) kinks and / or fetishes, not this cloud based corporate-driven dystopian AI nightmare we seem to be heading to.
Exactly. I don't want my computer doing things without me telling it to. If I want it to save the file I will tell it to save the file. If I don't tell it to save the file, I most definitely don't want it to save it behind my back. Auto save is an anti-pattern, especially if it overwrites your manual save files.
(Saving an independent recovery file, preferably including undo and redo history, might come in handy in case of crashes, sure, but it should be optional and never on by default, out of privacy concerns; other users might use the computer, and it's safer to assume that the previous user might not want others to see the documents they had open last time.)