Skimming through the giant wall of gibberish the crux seems to be about feeling depressed after a series of one night stands that the author apparently thought would be longer term relationships.

I would suggest that if this has become a regular occurrence for the author it suggests there's a problem with their approach to dating. Maybe don't go looking for long term relationships at bars and clubs, or hookup focused "dating" apps.

That would run face first into proprietary info and corporate classified info.

Behold all the fucks I do not give. If it's that critical they lose all claim to being proprietary. It's just like patent, there's no such thing as a secret patent, so anything that safety critical doesn't get to stay secret either.

Regulation won't detail what a company does to that level. They might say something like "fasteners shouldn't come loose" but it wouldn't have a torque spec.

It doesn't now but it's utterly trivial to fix that. Just make the regulations say that components must meet the manufacturer specifications and require manufacturers to publish and maintain all the specifications of all safety critical components. If they want to keep it secret then that means it's not safety critical and they're responsible for any accidents resulting from its failure.

It's OK for manufacturers to say using aftermarket parts voids the warranty, it's not OK for them to prevent using them entirely. Likewise if there's a safety concern that should be handled by regulation and things like safety inspections, not by forcing all repairs to go through the manufacturer. If whatever it is is that critical to the safe operation it should be publicly documented so that third parties can manufacture it correctly to the needed tolerances.

It's because layering doesn't really gain you anything so it only has downsides. It's important to differentiate encryption and hashing from here on since the dangers are different.

With hashing, layering different hashing algorithms can lead to increased collision chance and if done wrong a reduced entropy (for instance hashing a 256 bit hash with a 16 bit hashing algorithm). Done correctly it's probably fine and in fact rehashing a hash with the same algorithm is standard practice, but care should be taken.

With encryption things get much worse. When layering encryption algorithms a flaw in one can severely compromise them all. Presumably you're using the same secret across them all. If the attacker has a known piece of input or can potentially control the input a variety of potential attack vectors open up. If there's a flaw in one of the algorithms used that can make the process of extracting the encryption key much easier. Often times the key is more valuable than any single piece of input because keys are often shared across many encrypted files or data streams.

Banks usually have the absolute worst password policies. It's typically because their backend is some crusty mainframe from the 80s that limits inputs to something absurdly insecure by today's standards and they've kicked the upgrade can down the road for so long now that it's a staggeringly monumental task to rewrite it all. Thankfully most of them have upgraded at this point, but every now and then you still find one that's got ridiculous limits like a maximum password length of 8 and only alphanumeric characters (with no 2FA obviously).

Trimming whitespace from the start and end of a password is fine but you absolutely should not remove whitespace from the middle of a password.

The rest of that sentence is important. Hashing passwords is the minimum practice, not best practice. You should always be at least hashing passwords. Best practice would be salting and peppering them as well as picking a strong hashing function with as high a number of iterations as you can support. You would then pair that with 2FA (not SMS based), and a minimum password length of 16 with no maximum length.

A KDF is not reversible so it's not encryption (a bad one can be brute forced or have a collision, but that's different from decrypting it even if the outcome is effectively the same). As long as you're salting (and ideally peppering) your passwords and the iteration count is sufficiently high, any sufficiently long password will be effectively unrecoverable via any known means (barring a flaw being found in the KDF).

The defining characteristic that separates hashing from encryption is that for hashing there is no inverse function that can take the output and one or more extra parameters (secrets, salts, etc.) and produce the original input, unlike with encryption.

That's a pepper not a salt. A constant value added to the password that's the same for every user is a pepper and prevents rainbow table attacks. A per-user value added is a salt and prevents a number of things, but the big one is being able to overwrite a users password entry with another known users password (perhaps with a SQL injection).

Hashing passwords isn't even best practice at this point, it's the minimally acceptable standard.

Which shouldn't even matter because passwords are salted and hashed before storing them, so you're not actually saving anything. At least they better be. If you're not hashing passwords you've got a much bigger problem than low complexity passwords.

I mean, it's about time, and I'm glad they're finally realizing the thing they should have realized like... half a century ago, but this really shouldn't be a new idea for them.

An underground campaign. They went complete scorched earthworm.

Putin would be very angry and threaten to use nukes... so basically just another Tuesday.

Ultimately that's the problem, the evidence isn't very compelling either way. Could it have happened exactly the way Trump claimed? Yes, it's certainly possible, and Trump also isn't likely to sign off on someone actually taking a shot at him. On the other hand that gaping hole on the secret service security perimeter is very suspicious, and Trump is exactly the kind of person to fake an assassination plot to drum up support. Lastly the bleeding ear (which Trump hammed up considerably in the following days) could be explained either by a very small graze or a blood pack.

It's just a very weird situation with lots of upsides for Trump but one possibly very bad downside if things go wrong. Trump is a natural born grifter so it's very easy and tempting to assume anything shady and beneficial to him that he could have had a hand in, he did.

Religious exemption from taxes needs to go away period. If a church wants tax exempt status they should file as a 501c3 or whatever and just follow the same rules as everyone else.

Which makes sense as they're the cornerstones of Fox News and Trump is just a walking talking distillation of all the worst parts of Fox News. At least he was at the start. Now Fox News isn't cutting it so he needed something harder and started doing OAN, and most recently has been dabbling in uncut Facebook and Twitter.

Better headline would be "Debunking false Harris cheating conspiracies", but if they did that no one would bother reading it. The conspiracy believers will ignore everything that goes against their conspiracy (including ironically this article even if they read it), and everyone else will ignore it because of course she didn't "cheat". It's pure clickbait.

This is the most blindingly stupid conspiracy theory yet. How the hell do you even rig a debate? Trump got his ass handed to him because he's a moron, so unless they're accusing ABC of feeding Trump lead paint chips a couple decades ago there's no way to claim ABC rigged this.

He was very popular which made him that much more dangerous. His trickle down economics lie has done more to destroy the US economy than just about anything else. To this day there's still people who feel it's a viable model despite nearly half a century now of showing it doesn't work. He and Nancy Reagan are also responsible for continuing the culture war against minorities that Nixon started.