When does something become an OS feature and when is it an add-on? Consider the use case. If you need to make a backup or restore data from one, by having this as part of the OS it is always available. It's line having vi installed; it comes with every Linux distro, but a lot of folks use Emacs. It makes sense that this should be a system component.

Yup, that is true. Didn't know that you were only referring to the Documents case, although the number referenced would have made that clear if I thought about it.

It's 91 now.

Hacker vs. cracker. Hack isn't a nefarious term, or at least it shouldn't be. Hacking is just using something in an unintended way. The problem is with how DMCA made that am illegal thing to do if there was a digital lock. While intended to mean you can't bypass CSS to rip movies from DVDs, it's been used to block the right to repair and other things completely anti-consumer. But you probably know this.

The Crumb compiler is written in C. Now they need to take the next step and bootstrap to have a Crumb compiler written in Crumb. It can be done...

If they aren't getting paid, might that instigate some revolt as well?

In case of the US I’d say something must be done, either build more, or adjust economy in order to the middle class to be able to purchase in cities again.

Building more doesn't solve the problem. There is vacant real estate already. If you don't have a tenant for a property, you're operating at a loss. A loss is a tax write off. With some creative accounting, it might be better to keep a place empty and increase the rate no one will pay you.

My solution is to devalue money.

A network of businesses and merchants that based on income, estate assets, and their contribution to the wield as recognized by the network, add a fee or a discount.

If you are living up to your potential doing good things, you can afford to spend less. If you have no income, but you are doing good to your abilities, potentially all basic needs are covered.

If you are hording value and causing harm, then you pay additional fees.

Combined, the fees cover the discounts. The economic gap grows smaller.

Even if it were inspired, it is significantly different the way it's written. I've hit these same challenges before, so I'm more inclined to think it is independent discovery.

Someone on Reddit once thought I was a bot because I use proper grammar. 12 years of comment history would have demonstrated otherwise, but it wasn't a battle worth fighting.

That's one way it is weaker, but moreso because it reduces the entropy. If a user can provide a password which uses 26 letters, upper and lowercase, 10 numbers, and an unrestricted set of symbols, but for the sake of argument we'll say 10, then there are a lot of possible combinations. If you are limited to only 12 possible at max, it is 46^12. Now you impose an artificial requirement that it is one of each, then it actually weakens that further by making the hacker know that there is one of each in there so it is 2626101046^8. Or roughly 910^19 vs. 1.3610^18. I personally try to use passwords which are between 16-20 characters long, or roughly 2*10^33. By restricting the total number of characters and forcing specific combinations, then the password is less cryptographically sound.

Using this calculator, https://bitwarden.com/password-strength/, it is a difference of 3 hours vs. centuries using the bank's mandate vs. only lowercase and 20 characters.

Edit: Something seemed off about the math. Should have multiplied instead of added, but still less sound secure because there are imposed requirements. The biggest issue is that there is an upper limit of 12 characters.

As a general rule of precaution, don't follow links in the email. Instead go to the website directly, maybe from a private or incognito instance, and reset it directly. If the email is valid, you're doing the same thing and if it wasn't you aren't drawing attention to anyone else.

Calckey surprised me. There are many different sites out there right now which has me more favorable about the future than I've been recently.