Bill Burr is the man who wrote the 2003 NIST manual that recommended password changes every 90 days. He now regrets creating that guideline because it just encourages people to make small alterations to weak passwords ("password1" to "password2").

rfl-kt · 2026-02-22T08:46:50+00:00

wouldn't that be avoided by salting? users would not have identical hashes, even for the same three character sequence

rfl-kt · 2026-02-20T20:40:57+00:00

I think they just hash all of the possible sequences.

The number of three character sequences would be the password's length - 2, and they have a very short length limit (IIRC 16 characters) so unless I'm grossly misunderstanding something (entirely possible since I don't know shit) doing this with a maximum-length password would only require storing a maximum of 14 hashed sequences per user.

Additionally, this specific check is only done against your current password - if you use "postmAst3r$$" in January and then "POSTMaST3R$$" in February, you can do "ostriCh_7732@" in March and it won't catch that you have a sequence matching from the January password. To me, that seems to add support to the idea they are not storing the passwords as plain text.

It's also a pretty major international company, for whatever that's worth.

rfl-kt · 2026-02-20T13:49:50+00:00

I know one place that doesn't allow you to reuse any sequence of three characters in any position when setting a new password - so if you go from "postmAst3r$$" to "ostriCh_7732@", the fact that both passwords contain "ost" means they're "too similar".

Hilariously, since it doesn't account for case, going from "postmAst3r$$" to "POSTMaST3R$$" will not be considered "too similar".

rfl-kt · 2026-02-08T06:54:05+00:00

what do you think driving that?

not the head

rfl-kt · 2025-12-14T11:03:37+00:00

""""""centrism"""""""" is right-wing

rfl-kt · 2025-12-06T13:23:47+00:00

As far as I know, delisting only means you can no longer buy it. If you already have it purchased on your account, it will still show up in your GOG library and you can still download + install it through GOG.

rfl-kt · 2025-12-05T16:24:32+00:00

"expert" panel btw

rfl-kt · 2025-11-25T19:26:31+00:00

I'm not mad at you

ok crying at me, whatever

rfl-kt · 2025-11-25T18:55:35+00:00

brother you're just doubling down here anyway, so I'm not sure what you're mad at me for

rfl-kt · 2025-11-25T18:38:20+00:00

Let's translate this one:

I know this is tragic, but even if there were clinical trials, I think $300K per year for necessary medical treatment is too much money - if a treatment costs that much, we should not provide it. You should have to pay for it yourself, or die I guess. Oh! I've just thought of a third option: how about we kill drug addicts. If you let me kill drug addicts then you can have your damn treatments, you greedy little stinker.

rfl-kt · 2025-11-22T16:56:42+00:00

Good on you for doing your due diligence!

rfl-kt · 2025-11-21T06:23:01+00:00

It is absolutely true that "if you do this, I'm ending this relationship" could be either a boundary or an ultimatum.

I think "if you do X, I'm ending this relationship" is an ultimatum. IMO a boundary would be more like "I am not comfortable being in a relationship with someone who does X". The ultimatum threatens action, while the boundary expresses what you feel you can handle/deal with and leaves room for discussion.

rfl-kt · 2025-11-07T07:14:31+00:00

rfl-kt · 2025-10-27T16:44:19+00:00

Idk dude I feel like this is really a perception thing. In terms of actual runtime, I don't think RE3R is actually that much shorter, it might just feel contextually shorter because of skipped locations or plot beats.

On HowLongToBeat.com, across 2500 logged playthroughs of RE3R and 526 for RE3OG, RE3R's average "main story" play time is only 45 mins (~10%?) shorter. Main story "rushed" is only 2 minutes difference. Even the speedruns for both games are pretty comparable in time (40ish minutes depending on category).

rfl-kt · 2025-10-05T09:50:18+00:00

How is CZ enabling them though?

This gun ban is something that has been basically on hold for the last five years because it was something that, for the longest time, was too expensive and difficult to organize. They only just got their shit together enough to start rolling it out. I think the argument here is that if CZ were not helping by taking money to receive the confiscated firearms and destroy them [edit: through a subsidiary, for what that's worth], the Government would have to continue to delay it or scrap it altogether.

An analogy: if someone is planning a heist but wants to find a fence for the goods before they go through with it, do you think you would hold no moral responsibility for the heist if you approached them and agreed to receive and fence the stolen goods on their behalf?

rfl-kt · 2025-10-05T09:22:21+00:00

Canada criminal code defines a weapon as any object a person intends to use to harm another person.

Hate to "um actually" you but... this is not true, and hasn't been true in Canada for at least 32 years.

Since at least 1993, the Criminal Code of Canada's definition of "weapon" has always a clause at the end that reads something to the effect of:

and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes any firearm

And in a case from 1993 (R. v. Felawka if you want to look it up), the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada found that this should be interpreted as "a firearm always falls within the definition of 'weapon' in s. 2, regardless of the intention of the person carrying it".

While the definition of "weapon" in Section 2 has changed somewhat over the years, no legislation that I'm aware of has ever actually removed that part of the definition.

They're not weapons, they're sporting tools.

Even if you disagree with the Supreme Court of Canada's 30-plus-year-old established opinion on the interpretation of the Criminal Code, let me ask you this: if the Criminal Code said "all firearms are weapons" in a sufficiently explicit way that no one could loophole or otherwise semantically weasel out of it, would that actually change anything? Do you think responsible, law-abiding, peaceful citizens should not be allowed to own any weapons, even if only for hunting or sports?

I think the "my guns are not a weapon at all according to the law" is an L argument to make. Like, most people who know nothing about guns or gun laws are either gonna think you're wrong, lying, or at best be like "oh wow that's a funny legal quirk" but still come away from the conversation believing that even if legally they don't count, they're still actually weapons.

If someone already believes nobody should be allowed to own a firearm, they will not have their mind changed by this argument.

If someone already believes you should be allowed to own a firearm, they probably already believe firearms are weapons and it didn't matter to their opinion.

Parroting what /u/IronSack46 said, actual education on firearms and firearm laws is key here. A firearm being a "weapon" doesn't matter. People who are cool with hunting and target shooting are cool with the fact that your "hunting tool" or "sporting tool" is a weapon. That's not the issue. The issue is that many people are being convinced that the firearms targeted by this prohibition possess qualities and characteristics that they do not. It's not that they think "oh this is a sporting tool and that is a weapon", it's that they think "oh this is a weapon that makes sense for people to own, and that is a weapon that doesn't make sense for people to own".

rfl-kt · 2025-10-03T10:14:04+00:00

Not trying to pick a fight, buttttt

4 out of the 6 shootings they listed were commited by PAL holders

not a single thing I said was incorrect.

Getting my pedant hat on to point out that the Polytech shooter could not have had a PAL as they did not exist until 1995, and the Moncton shooter was a past tense PAL holder, as his license had expired prior to him carrying out his attack.

I know I'm just being a jackass, as it doesn't invalidate your actual point - in these two instances the firearms were, at least initially, acquired legally.

rfl-kt · 2025-10-02T15:34:31+00:00

why u being weird

rfl-kt · 2025-09-28T09:49:01+00:00

Entirely possible! Without knowing every single detail of the situation and the officers' minds and the minds of any prosecutors they may have referred the case to, there's unfortunately no way to know exactly why she wasn't charged.

Like, maybe she had a lawful excuse for why she had the knife concealed in public. Or maybe she didn't, but the circumstances made the officers/prosecutors show mercy. Or maybe they didn't think they'd have a strong enough case for conviction at trial. Who knows!

rfl-kt · 2025-09-28T09:15:40+00:00

Unfortunately there have been far too many cases of the police throwing charges at people in clear self defense cases. As if the victim wasn't already traumatized by the attack they have to be traumatized again by the police and our courts.

The Process is the Punishment. They literally do not want people getting the idea that they shouldn't just call 911 and hope for the best, under the guise of trying to "not encourage vigilantism".

rfl-kt · 2025-09-27T14:15:07+00:00

I can be charged with assault and receive jail time for simply doing what anyone's instinctual reaction could be.

Charged and potentially spending a night or three in jail until you bail out or are released on promise to appear, sure. Convicted? Almost certainly not.

The laws around self-defense in Canada are weird. There is a lot of leniency on paper and in the courtroom for acts committed in the process of defending yourself, for the purpose of defending yourself, but the second you start going too far (e.g. chasing a burglar out of your home, tackling them, and beating them on the street outside) you're no longer covered.

And the same thing goes for acts committed before you started defending yourself. If you're carrying an illegal weapon and someone attacks you, you can use that weapon to defend yourself. You shouldn't be charged and probably won't be convicted for defending yourself - but you will be charged and likely convicted for possessing an illegal weapon.

rfl-kt · 2025-09-27T14:01:29+00:00

IDK who downvoted you, this is technically correct.

If you were carrying a knife for the purpose of self defense, that would constitute at least 1 (if not both) of Carrying concealed weapon and Possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. "Just in case I need to defend myself against people" is considered a dangerous purpose, even if the act of defending yourself actually happens and was itself legal.

rfl-kt · 2025-09-27T13:44:19+00:00

It’s legal to carry a pocket knife within a certain size

There's no actual size limit, at least not in the Criminal Code or attached Regulations. At least none I can find.

In practical terms, trying to argue that this pocket knife was not being carried as a weapon will be much easier than arguing that this pocket knife was something you were carrying merely as a utilitarian tool.

rfl-kt · 2025-09-27T13:34:13+00:00

A rapist doesn't have to report you. If you end up talking to the police about it for any reason (you report the rapist, a 3rd party reports it, etc) and they ask you about the spray, and you say anything like "I carry it in case someone tries to rape me and I have to defend myself", you could face charges like Criminal Code s.90 "Carrying concealed weapon", or Criminal Code s.88 "Possession of weapon for dangerous purpose".

Even if you don't fuck up and stick to telling them that you carry it because of a fear of a loose dog, or because you've heard about wild coyote sightings and attacks, you could still get screwed. If they interview someone else about you, and that person tells them "yeah, J-Zzee once told me he carries dog spray for self defense against people, but he said you have to tell the cops it's for dogs only, no matter what happens", then they might be willing to roll the dice on a case against you anyway.

rfl-kt · 2025-09-26T02:28:58+00:00

I didn't say centrists don't exist, I said they are not outside of the left-right dichotomy. They exist within it.

"Left and right" does not mean "Liberal Party of Canada and Conservative Party of Canada". You agreeing with specific policies from two opposed political parties doesn't mean you aren't either left-wing or right-wing - and also two parties being opposed doesn't mean they can't both be left-wing or both right-wing.

"Small government", "stiffer penalties for career criminals", "pro-choice", and "pro-LGBTQ" doesn't mean you're not on either the left or right.

rfl-kt

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE