This Terry Pratchett (GNU) quote pretty much explains it (he uses the term “(Discworld) elves”, but given that Lords and Ladies is clearly based on A Midsummer’s Night Dream the quote equally applies to any kind of fae, and not necessarily, for instance, to Tolkien or DnD elves):

Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.

The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

No one ever said elves are nice. Elves are bad.

Looks like some kind of fae. Run.

You have a Schrödinger’s cat. It needs to be observed in order to collapse its wave function, or it can’t know what state it’s in.

You should probably get another one so they can observe each other.

Maru’s channel is great to have at hand when you’re having a bad day.

Maru is mostly fluff, though.

He’s been shown wet in some videos and he’s really quite slim under the hair.

(You can also see in this gif that he easily fits into the wrappers until he’s going slow enough for friction to catch.)

I can have 20,000 character long passwords with a password manager

Sure. Most websites will either truncate them or outright reject them due to being too long, but sure.

Most users, however, will use the 12 to 16 characters auto-generated ones, though, which are sufficiently hard to crack (though not as much as an easy to remember passphrase, not that it matters; the easy to remember part is what matters about passphrases).

that makes it significantly less secure

No it doesn’t. Even if a few of the passphrases leak, your algorithm, if well chosen, shouldn’t be easy to reverse engineer… and unless someone is specifically targeting you (and has access to enough of your passphrases) there’s much easier fish to catch; if a leaked passphrase doesn’t work in other sites, no one will waste time trying to figure out if it has some logic to it.

I could have 20,000 character completely unique passwords with a password manager

No you couldn’t. You’d have one password and one password manager (which would have all “your” other passwords; as would anyone else with access to your password manager).

Until you lose access to your password manager, of course… which is bound to eventually happen, due to hardware or software issues or loss of the device if it’s local, or due to network issues, the provider discontinuing the service, or inevitable enshittification if it’s online.

And, of course, you’ll have a single point of attack from which your password can be leaked (or sold, if it’s an online service) or stolen.

vastly more complex passwords

Complexity is practically irrelevant when compared to length when it comes to passwords. That’s the point of passphrases.

do you actually expect people to remember 100+ unique phrases

You can have a small number of passphrases and simply choose one and add a word or two based on the site. It’s trivial to “remember” an infinite number of unique passphrases if you’ve got an algorithm. 🤷‍♂️

This assumes a) passwords, and b) poor passwords at that.

Passphrases are easy to remember, extremely hard to crack, and easily customisable for every site, and you don’t need no fucking password manager to store them.

Though I’ll give you this: password managers are not, after all, necessarily single points of failure.

If you need a password manager to manage your passwords you’re a much more vulnerable point of failure than your password management bloatware itself.

My brain. A password manager seems like a completely unnecessary single point of failure.

In my case they’re facing a 100% revenue reduction regardless of when (or whether) it’s cracked.

I’m never going to buy denuvo infested malware, and developers and publishers who try to pull this shit go straight into the blacklist.

Those eyes! Blurriness was clearly about to take place!

Firefox with uBlock Origin and NoScript.

I don’t like ads, or websites using JavaScript for anything I don’t approve of, or unnecessarily.

Turning off or rebooting your computer isn’t good for it.

(It’s not as bad as turning it on, of course, but once you’ve made that mistake you should leave it on.)

Ears forward, eyes half closed, relaxed position… that cat is loving it, and probably purring like a lawnmower.

Just checked. Mine still say this:

Comment redacted in protest against Reddit’s deranged attacks against third party apps, the community, and common sense.

See ya’ll in Lemmy or Kbin once this embarrassment of a site is done enshittifying itself out of existence.

Monetize this, u/spez, you greedy little pigboy. 🖕

(I edited them manually, though, so maybe it’s that…)

English ain’t my first language, but I’ve often seen “cleaning” being used without a direct object, either because it’s implied (“put away after cleaning”) or because the action is meant to be generic and not limited to a specific object (“I’m going to do some cleaning”)… in this case it could be both (specific: the cat itself, or specific parts thereof, generic: the cat itself, the other cat, the coach, anything within reach; cats can often get carried away, when cleaning).

Ears forward. Eyes half closed. No teeth to be seen… I don’t think the video has audio, but probably purring like a lawnmower.

That cat is chill as fuck, and loves the little human.

Unamused cat would have its ears back. Nervous or hostile cat would have its eyes open. Annoyed cat would be batting that kid like they would an annoying kitten. Really annoyed and nervous cat would be hissing, and probably already out of the chair and hidden somewhere the baby couldn’t reach.

Happier coders probably write better code, though.

(Not that writing better code will help if ES6 is still running on Morrowind’s relabeled gamebryo engine like everything they’ve released since Morrowind, of course, but one can hope…)

Y’know that physics principle called the lever principle, or principle of moment…?

Thing is, if you grab a bottle by the neck and try to tilt it, you have to deal with the whole momentum / mass of the bottle, which is a significant amount of torque on your wrist, especially if you’re awkwardly trying to hold a cap that’s clearly not designed to be held this way at the same time.

If you instead violently rip the cap out in an entirely justified fit of righteous rage and grab the bottle by it’s center of mass, as normal people do and have done since bottles have existed (well, except for the cap bit; that shit is rather new), you can effortlessly spin it to whatever angle you want, with perfect control all the way.

Of course you can always hold it with two hands, which might be what you meant, but that’s a rather stupid waste of a free hand when most bottles are designed to be holdable with one single hand.

Luckily I’m not American, but I’ve never seen one of these contraptions that didn’t spin freely (and most of the ones I’ve seen spin freely and dangle all over the place, since the cap is tethered to the ring with a flexible strip of plastic).

It’s a weight attached to a ring placed around a cylinder, after all. It’s bound to spin freely, it’s inherent to the design.