• 0 Posts
  • 58 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle



  • The etymology might help break down some of the nuance here

    According to etymonline the etymology for expatriate (often shortened to expat) is:

    “to banish, send out of one’s native country,” 1768, modeled on French expatrier “banish” (14c.), from ex- “out of” (see ex-) + patrie “native land,” from Latin patria “one’s native country,” from pater (genitive patris) “father” (see father (n.); also compare patriot). Related: Expatriated; expatriating. The noun is by 1818, “one who has been banished;” main modern sense of “one who chooses to live abroad” is by 1902.

    Immigrate, is similar, but is more used to describe moving to a place:

    “to pass into a place as a new inhabitant or resident,” especially “to move to a country where one is not a native, for the purpose of settling permanently there,” 1620s, from Latin immigratus, past participle of immigrare “to remove, go into, move in,” from assimilated form of in- “into, in, on, upon” (from PIE root *en “in”) + migrare “to move” (see migration). Related: Immigrated; immigrating.

    The closer synonym to expatriate would probably be emigrate, the opposite of immigrate, to leave a place.

    As to why one might use expatriate over emigrate; consider the sentence “I’m an American immigrant”. It’s kind of unclear if you’re trying to say that you are an American that has migrated to another country (as in “I’m an American immigrant living in Brussels”*), or someone who has migrated to America (as in “I’m an American immigrant from Slovakia”). Using expatriate removes the ambiguity: “I’m an American expatriate” and makes it clear that the speaker is trying to convey where they are from.

    * technically, using emigrant here would be more clear, but English is a lawless and lazy language



  • Just to key in on the overlap between FOSS and privacy, because the source code for the software is open, it means that anyone can take a peek at how everything is running under the hood (among other things). It becomes possible to verify that software is storing data locally and properly encrypting when applicable (as opposed to blindly trusting the software’s author and or lawyers).

    It may also be a fun fact that best practice in encryption is to open source your algorithms. The helps safeguard against backdoors and mistakes/ errors that could compromise the security of the algorithm. Much for similar reasons as above, as it allows the security community to check your math (in a field where it is incredibly easy to get your math wrong).






  • Assuming that’s it’s just the normal force of Earth’s gravity at work on the witch, it’s just a case of working Newton’s second backwards with the gravitational “constant” acceleration ≈ 9.8 m/s²:

    F = ma

    980 N = m × 9.8 m/s²

    980 / 9.8 = (m × 9.8) / 9.8, units omitted for text clarity

    100 kg = m

    In other words, op is assuming that an average size witch masses approximately 100kg (or about 220 lbs in fingers, knees, and toes units).




  • I don’t know about a min length; setting a lenient lower bound means that any passwords in that space are going to be absolutely brute force-able (and because humans are lazy, there are almost certainly be passwords clustered around the minimum).

    I very much agree with the rest though, it’s unnerving when sites have a low max length. It almost feels like advertising that passwords aren’t being hashed, and if that’s the case there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that they’re also salted. Really restrictive character sets also tell me that said site / company either has super old infra or doesn’t know how to sanitize strings (or entirely likely both)…






  • Nope. Everyone’s entitled to theirs opinions, but I downvoted them for being wrong (and because I thought their comment was kind of dumb).

    It’s no pinnacle of storytelling, but it reads exactly like a parent telling a casual mini-story about their kid to strangers on the internet. It’s a recounting of someone else’s words, but being a creep is a totally reasonable conclusion for a ten year old to reach and it’s also not all that uncommon for parents to praise and reward children for being able to think for themselves or at the very least form a “good” opinion. Ergo, OP’s comment does not read like they’re trying to pass off a tall tale or spin out bullshit.

    Now if the kid had allegedly said something like “the guy’s emblematic of everything wrong with celebrity culture and philanthropy as entertainment is a scourge on society”, we’d be having different conversation.