Agreed. I just navigated to my home page on desktop and I see the following categories:
- A section with 8 of my recently played playlists
- A section of "Made for <my name>" with 6 Daily Mixes (which I generally like), Discover weekly (which I like now that it's tailored to me: I used to hate that it only contained pop/hip hop hits), Release Radar (love it), and the AI DJ (which I find very annoying)
- A section called Recently Played which looks like all legitimate things I've played
- "New Releases for You", which are all by artists I've listened to very recently
- "Jump back in", which has several playlists and artists I've listened to recently
- A sidebar of all of my playlists I've created or followed
Of the ~50 actionable items on the page, the only one I dislike is the AI DJ, but it by no means feels forced on me since it's just a single square.
This, unfortunately, seems like the most plausible explanation. "President" Musk is dicking with the system, like S3XY. Remember that he's gaining control and also believes reality is a simulation, and keeps a Vajra on his night stand. I see him as a future Ashoka, who, waking up to the harm he has manifested goes all in on the Triple Gems.
I used to be able to solve the 3x3 in high school using memorized algorithms and then I lost interest since there was no reasoning involved. Your comment makes me want to pick it back up and learn 3-style, so thank you for the clear explanation!
Like you, I learned the 3x3x3 in high school via memorized algorithms, and that was only so interesting. Years later my brother got me a Megaminx (the dodecahedron equivalent to the 3x3x3 cube, third one in the top row there) and I was absolutely fascinated by learning to solve that by porting what I knew from the cube. From there I got all those other shapes as well. The most interesting ones to search by name: Dayan Gem 3 (the one that looks like the Star of David), Face-Turning Octahedron (last one in the second row), Helicopter Cube (to the right of the 3x3x4), Rex Cube (right from the Helicopter Cube).
Even with CFOP, there is a large amount of intuition needed in order to break below the 25 second limit, mostly because of lookahead. During that phase, you need to train your fingers to do moves while your brain anticipates the next moves. There are no real formulas involved, it's really about intuition, pure skill, and multitasking.
If you haven't played Rez/Rez Infinite yet, you owe it to yourself to. The game is 22 years old and it's still leagues ahead of most games in terms of what a game can do, what it can express. Rez is... difficult to describe but a start might be, it's Polybius (legendary arcade game) if it were developed by raver hippies. Its purpose seems to be inducing an altered mental state of "flow" and the joy that comes therewith.
Rez has the property of being so good that other developers (expectedly) made games that try to do what Rez did, missed the mark completely, and still ended up with really cool games. Thumper, Aaero, and Sayonara Wild Hearts come to mind, as does Jeff Minter's take on Polybius.
I've always joked that Sayonara Wild Hearts is a dimensional incursion from a reality where the Feel The Magic DS games never stopped coming out. It's interesting, the way influences collide in new works.
Paper's Please as well. Blows my mind that what look like a mundane puzzle game can evoke such a strong feelings in me. And that was the beta build of the game, barely any storyline just from the mechanics and design alone.
It seems like many recommendations are to use at least 75-100, or even 128. Being fairly conservative, if you had 10k hosts hashing 1B passwords a second, it would take 7.5 years worst case to crack [1]. If a particular site neglects to use a slow hash function and salting, it's easy to imagine bad actors precomputing rainbow tables that would make attacks relatively easy.
You can rebut that that's still a crazy amount of computation needed, but since it's reusable, I find it easy to believe it's already being done. For comparison, if the passwords have 100 bits of entropy, it would take those same 10k servers over 4 billion years to crack the password.
I think the assumption is that this is going into a somewhat modern hashing algorithm like argon, bcrypt (created 1999 - that's a quarter-century ago), or scrypt with salt. With those assumptions, the calculations aren't reusable, and definitely not 1B passwords / second.
If that's not true and the password is being stored using MD5 (something that's been NIST-banned at this point for over a decade), then honestly all bets are off, and even 128 bits of entropy might not be enough.
If you have an adversary that can afford to tie up 10k servers each capable of doing gigahash per second for 7.5 years go ahead and use a stronger password. And while you're at it you better buy the best physical security that money can buy.
reply