CVE-2016-6210. ask sshd about a user that doesn’t exist and it says no instantly, cause there’s nothing to hash. [The solution is] sshd grabs some other account’s salt and hashes your password anyway

I’m not sure how this is relevant to what caused this bug. Seems to me like a random point that was added by the AI writing this blogpost without human review.

I agree with you. But I disagree on this rule avoiding confusion. I think it does the opposite. I think that’s why most speakers ignore it.

just because a native English speaker ignores a rule in their own language that doesn’t really speak much about the language, it says more about the speaker

It doesn’t. If the speakers of a language ignore a “rule”, that says more about the rule itself. Eventually, a rule like the one we’re discussing will cease to exist since it only complicates communication, as has happened to past rules and words.

I also have an issue with calling it “standard”. “Standard” is whatever everyone uses. Following rules that no one else does makes you sound robotic. It’s why so many guides on pronounciation in English fail. They go off of how the word is spelt and ignore how people actually say it.

This guy’s being pedantic. I say “a software” all the time.

It’s important to understand how a language works, but don’t let grammar Nazis trick you into caring about minor rules even English speakers ignore.

My guess is people who export food to Europe did this to export more food

each of the profiles would be their own instance

So each author would need to host their own infrastructure? I’m not sure I follow

The real question is who’s willing to help develop this software if someone were to start work on it

Magistrate Sandra De Maio sentenced Dong to nine months in prison and fined him $5,000 for breaching orders.

The RSPCA had estimated Dong could have made $1.17 million from puppy sales.

He made more money than he lost. He and like-minded others will learn nothing from this sentence

And there is a last reason, which is less rigorous but matters to us just as much. We write software because we enjoy writing software […] We are not interested in optimizing away the reason we do this.

This is world news!? Really!?

Man, that’s a shame

It’s one thing to think AI is good. It’s another to call others stupid for rejecting it

Is this a new activity to you? You will get used to it

Is this news? I would be more surprised to see news of a developed country not in demographic decline

If pro queer policy costed more instead, would we avoid implementing them?

I can’t really articulate why but I do think this should be in /c/piracy

Are evil people negative? Pretty sure they are positive in a toxic sense

I’m not always home though… It’s nice to have good food in the city without worrying about meal prep

There are alternatives like go-away, iocaine, etc.

You could also just send them a PDF or HTML file explaining how Anubis works, and refuse to send the URL or mascot until they are convinced to implement it.

I have so many filters just to block depressing news… Also to block strange hive mind posts about beans etc.

That’s one thing you can do here that you (no longer) can on Reddit

Dyslexic fonts don’t help dyslexia, and the internet’s idea of how dyslexia works is wrong.

https://dyslexiaassociation.org.au/do-dyslexia-fonts-work/

But the new fonts—and the odd assortment of paraphernalia that came before them—assume that dyslexia is a visual problem rooted in imprecise letter recognition. That’s a myth, explains Joanne Pierson, a speech-language pathologist at the University of Michigan. “Contrary to popular belief, the core problem in dyslexia is not reversing letters (although it can be an indicator),” she writes. The difficulty lies in identifying the discrete units of sound that make up words and “matching those individual sounds to the letters and combinations of letters in order to read and spell.” In other words, dyslexia is a language-based processing difference, not a vision problem, despite the popular and enduring misconceptions.

Researchers put the font to the test, comparing it with two other popular fonts designed for legibility—Arial and Times New Roman—and discovered that the purportedly dyslexia-friendly font actually reduced reading speed and accuracy. In addition, none of the students preferred to read material in OpenDyslexic, a surprising rebuke for a font specifically designed for the task.

The idea of making fonts more legible is good, but it doesn’t help dyslexia specifically.