A more compact space isn’t better, though, unless you’re dealing with a character limit. The longer the pass phrase the stronger it is, and you can memorize some seriously long phrases.

What you failed to demonstrate is that passwords are better than pass phrases, and that’s my point. In order to crack my pass phrase you have to have tons of additional information like the fact that I use a pass phrase, what the rules are for the words in my pass phrase, the list of words I draw from for my pass phrase, etc. Your suppositions are required to beat it.

Suppose you had a word list of 1,000 five letter words. Each of your passphrases is 5 words long. That means you have 1,000^5 possible combinations of passwords, which is an entropy of ~49.8 bits. Even though each passphrase is going to be 29 characters long (5 five letter words plus 4 spaces in between), the password wasn’t generated character by character.

That’s a lot of supposition.

The reality is the password guesser has a string of 29 characters. All they know is ***************************** - they do not know they are guessing individual words separated by spaces, and even if they know these are words they do not know what word list is being used so they have every word that has ever existed as part of a possible list, they do not know the length of any of the individual words being used, and to top it all off they do not even know if the words have conventional spellings or are English words or anything!

So actually, you have a string of 29 characters, and they might as well be random characters as far as a password guesser can guess.

Although I will grant that pass phrases are unlikely to use unconventional characters !$#@;<> etc so you have a point there.

A password “8pmfvt3bww7t” could be remembered as “8 pandas might find vases that 3 bears will wash 7 times.

You’re going to have to explain to me why the first password is more secure than the second pass phrase. The second has more characters and that’s the only thing someone trying to guess is going to possibly know. There’s nothing else to go off of, they don’t even know they’re trying to guess words in the first place. The longer string is always more secure afaik

I think a pass phrase is more secure than a password because you can memorize truly huge strings without worrying about ever losing it.

And yet when Huawei was flush with cash (after being forced to sell off assets destroyed by US sanctions) it distributed those billions in profits back to the employees.

It’s not a worker cooperative, there are problems with it like any employee owned company, but don’t be so cynical.

Huawei is a employee owned and communist state backed company - not very capitalist, at least by comparison.

They’re being hammered with export restrictions and sanctions and federal bans and executive orders to keep that from being a viable alternative in the US, but if you’re outside that might be an option.

¿Por qué no los dos?

🤡

Also doubles as a kill list for when they decide it’s time.

Legality can change, that’s literally what we’re talking about. It’s legal now, it doesn’t have to be.

Also just declare that cops don’t have a right to privacy. Easy.

I’m skeptical that actually deletes it. Seems trivial for them to have backups if the plan is to sell our old content.

Oi you got a loicence for that mask?

He “legitimately” lost after they handed Iowa to a nobody loser like Pete to render Iowa irrelevant in the future. You don’t really think Pete won, do you? Sure, they gave the appearance of “cleaning up” after Iowa, but that was always the plan! Now Iowa is done as a relevant caucus state.

I voted in Iowa. Getting my caucus vote made irrelevant showed me the Democratic Party is not a viable vehicle. They’ll literally throw out your votes if they don’t like it.

The reason you only get to vote for the “lesser of two evils” is because you don’t participate in primaries (assuming you are talking about the US system here)

Just popping in to remind you they destroyed the Iowa caucus to stop Bernie.

No, cracker, you are not the victim of racism.

Far be it from me to defend the concept of intellectual property, but if a chat bot can be argued to not plagiarize then that implies it has an intelligence. It really doesn’t. It’s plagiarism with extra steps.

What it does is use a large statistical model to determine which pixels it copies, but it’s still copy/paste with extra steps.

The tech requires huge amounts of processing power and loose laws to even exist. It could be banned quite easily.

It won’t be lol

Chat bots do not learn, stop anthropomorphizing them.

People make derivative works because they add their own ideas and spin. AI do not have ideas or spin, it’s copy-paste with extra steps.

All these AI do is algorithmically copy-paste. They don’t have original thoughts and or original conclusions or original ideas, all if it is just copy-paste with extra steps.

How come when I plagiarize other people’s creative content it’s illegal, but when AI does it it’s fine?

I think they’re saying the dumbest shit possible so Trump picks them for VP.

Hypothetically, a just system using this technology would be capable of a lot of good!

The system is unjust, so any good use is vastly outweighed by the horror and evil it will be used for - like how they use this to track uppity Palestinians and arrest/kill them.

Privacy has nothing to do with censorship lol

Damn thought that was a sick Ratchet &amp; pun

tbh I do it for their benefit lol

During a debate on Wednesday, MPs in President Emmanuel Macron’s camp inserted an amendment limiting the use of remote spying to “when justified by the nature and seriousness of the crime” and “for a strictly proportional duration.”

Are “nature and seriousness” defined in an objective or concrete way? And for a proportional duration to what?

Everybody sing along!