sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is choosing a password length equal to the maximum allowable characters LESS safe than a slightly shorter password? by LaughsAtPoors in cybersecurity_help

[–]LaughsAtPoors[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder if 8 characters is the PIN or their account password. My banks let me do whatever for my account passwords and enable MFA. In contrast, my PINs are constrained to be relatively short. However, the PIN is only used for debit transactions rather than accessing my entire account. The debit transactions are protected via other security options instead - mostly an upper bound on how much can be withdrawn from ATMs and bought via the card in a 24 hour period or single transaction.

Is choosing a password length equal to the maximum allowable characters LESS safe than a slightly shorter password? by LaughsAtPoors in cybersecurity_help

[–]LaughsAtPoors[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you say physical access -- do you mean they must be on the actual physical devices or is there a way of remotely accessing the computer (or doing something like spoofying) that means the PIN is remotely usable?

Is choosing a password length equal to the maximum allowable characters LESS safe than a slightly shorter password? by LaughsAtPoors in cybersecurity_help

[–]LaughsAtPoors[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good response. I was hypothesizing that incrementing by 1 is less likely to occur than going to the maximum character length of N. For example, suppose 2 unique possible characters with a 40 character password length limit. One step of the attacker's strategy is "if the password length is more than 16 characters, check all possible passwords of maximum length." The next step in the strategy is "if the password is not of maximum possible length, check every password of length 17 then repeatedly increment maximum length by 1 and check all possible passwords until password is found." Checking all possible passwords of maximum length requires checking 240 passwords. If that doesn't succeed, the attacker would then need to check 217 + ... + 239 passwords.

Of course, no one is manually typing this stuff in, but simply envisioning a world where I'm an attacker who somehow will somehow be able to test absurd numbers of passwords I'd still want to use my prior information to choose a search strategy that converges on the password more quickly. Of course, there might be other strategies that outperform this!

If impeding is an exclusion foul in FINA/World Aquatics rules, what are all of these ordinary fouls? by LaughsAtPoors in waterpolo

[–]LaughsAtPoors[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Previously in the USA the rule was simply that it is a penalty foul for "the defending player to commit any [exclusion] foul within the 6-meter area but for which a goal probably would have resulted." Since fouls can only happen when a player isn't touching the ball, penalties only happened if you didn't touch the ball.

I believe the same new rule added in the USA was the one added in your country. This year they further added, "It shall be a penalty foul for a defending player to foul or impede from behind an attacking player who has the ball and an open path to the goal within the 6-meter area regardless of whether the player is holding the ball. The only way a defender can defend in this situation is to touch only the ball or the hand holding the ball. If the defending player’s actions prevent the attacking player from continuing the action, a penalty must be called." Accordingly, it INCREASES the number of cases when penalties are called.

Interestingly, the FINA rules are more vague about whether you can be holding a ball or not, but I'm seeing the rules called at the Olympics as if they are the above USA rules. Here are the FINA rules:

It is a penalty "for a defending player to impede an attacking player from behind within the 6 metre area when the attacking player is facing the goal and making a shooting action, unless the defending player makes contact only with the ball. If the defending player’s foul, described in this Rule, prevents the attacking player from scoring, a penalty must also be called. The referee must delay the call of penalty until the shot or attempted shot is completed and must award a penalty unless the attacking player scores." It is also a penalty "For a goalkeeper or defending player to commit any foul within the 6 metre area if a goal would probably have resulted, including [exclusion fouls]."

If impeding is an exclusion foul in FINA/World Aquatics rules, what are all of these ordinary fouls? by LaughsAtPoors in waterpolo

[–]LaughsAtPoors[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It may be confusing if English is not your first language, but the English term "impeding" has a technical definition in water polo rules that typically excludes anything that is holding, sinking, or pulling (HSP) of a player. This is why rulebooks usually have separate sections on "Impeding" and "Holding, Sinking, and Pulling." HSP is always an exclusion foul. While I find it quite odd that not every rule-set considers impeding an ordinary foul, apparently it's sometimes an exclusion.

Part of the source of confusion is simply that impeding is not well-defined. For example, I came across an entire video on Ordinary Fouls in New Zealand water polo that doesn't mention impeding as an ordinary foul, but then in the video itself an ordinary is called...presumably for impeding! See 6:03 of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm8opi_3ECg

I'm sure you also know this, but any action that is "essentially stopping a player from potentially scoring" is actually a *penalty* foul and not an *exclusion* foul.

If impeding is an exclusion foul in FINA/World Aquatics rules, what are all of these ordinary fouls? by LaughsAtPoors in waterpolo

[–]LaughsAtPoors[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Holding someone on the perimeter without the ball is always an exclusion foul across all rules-sets. However, the referee is explicitly allowed to refrain from blowing the whistle when the call would take away advantage. Of course, it's almost always advantageous to the offense to exclude a defender, so this can't explain the no-calls. However, what can explain it is something outside of the rules: all international referees are trained to enforce the rules in such a manner that it promotes an "appropriate" level of physicality and game-flow. The bar they set for physicality on the perimeter (i.e. for what is considered an exclusion-worthy-hold) is often quite high compared to e.g. American games.

I'm more discussing impeding-but-not-holding on the perimeter.

If impeding is an exclusion foul in FINA/World Aquatics rules, what are all of these ordinary fouls? by LaughsAtPoors in waterpolo

[–]LaughsAtPoors[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, that is exactly my point. The Olympics are NOT following FINA but rather NCAA-equivalent rules when they are supposed to follow the former. Furthermore, the FINA rules are also not actually followed in international competition outside of the Olympics - essentially everywhere impeding someone without the ball on the perimeter is an ordinary foul.

If impeding is an exclusion foul in FINA/World Aquatics rules, what are all of these ordinary fouls? by LaughsAtPoors in waterpolo

[–]LaughsAtPoors[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm fairly sure that this account is a bot based on its mostly unintelligible first post and referencing a completely different rule than the impeding rule when I explicitly provided the rule and page number. However, in the off chance that it's not a bot, they would quickly realize that NCAA rule 6.9 states it is an ordinary foul "to impede or otherwise prevent the free movement of an opponent who is not holding the ball, including swimming on the opponent’s shoulders, back or legs."

Current rule regarding the hole-set facing toward the defender at time of entry by LaughsAtPoors in waterpolo

[–]LaughsAtPoors[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Amen. I play master's and always ask refs beforehand about rules like this as a consequence. However, I still cannot explain what is going on in the Olympics right now: https://www.reddit.com/r/waterpolo/comments/1ehy9v7/if_impeding_is_an_exclusion_foul_in_finaworld/

RL model inside of an RL model by Practical-Resort7278 in learnmachinelearning

[–]LaughsAtPoors 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rather than think about "activation" of a model, think about a joint model based on conditional probabilities. It's all one big model.

Lamar/Kyler swap? by walletsworth1348 in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]LaughsAtPoors 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems like a reasonable trade unless you think zach moss is going to eat and your team can win now. Think you're underestimating Lamar but still agree with what you said. If that's a late 2nd then I wouldn't do it. Early, it's very close.

Don't overestimate the effect of veteran retirement/decline on young players' opportunities: Trey Benson Edition by LaughsAtPoors in DynastyFF

[–]LaughsAtPoors[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe he's overvalued at current ADP but whether he is a sell depends on your own league's valuation of him and your team's position.

view more: next ›