I thought we were already working on immortality. On the other hand, waiting 80 years doesn't seem like much. It's not like we are going to be 'out for lunch' if there is an answer.
The login you use with lesspass doesn't need to match your actual login on a web site. In fact, nothing needs to match anything real. You could use any url or alias for the service you want to access ie "Google" and you can use your real login or any other text, it doesn't matter as far as you remember it (You could use 'me' for every site, I don't know why this field is required)
Okay, but now I have to remember 3x as many things as with a managed password manager. And how do I handle having multiple accounts on the same website?
"You can put whatever you want in field X" is not a solution to the problem IMO.
> how do I handle having multiple accounts on the same website?
You use the url of the site and your different logins to generate different passwords. What's so difficult about it.
Anyway, I don't think there is a problem at all.
Imagine this: I have 3 google accounts, which I use mainly for my gmail, another one for google play on my android and another one for my kids (google play, youtube). I could use the following setup: Gmail + me + masterpassword for the first one, Google Play + me + masterpassword for the second one, and Google Kids + kids + masterpassword. Another configuration could be: google + mail + pass, google + play + pass and google + kids + password. I actually would use my real login, since my accounts are already like this: username.mail@gmail.com, username.play@gmail.com, username.kids@gmail.com.
First there is nothing new to remember here, I already rememeber that I have 3 different accounts and what they are for.
Second, it doesn't matter how many accounts you have on a site or how many sites you can access with the same account.
You can use the url of a site and a different login for several accounts. You can use a description/purpose of your accounts and the same or different logins for several accounts on SSO services.
> You use the url of the site and your different logins to generate different passwords. What's so difficult about it.
Your suggested solution of "not using your actual login" requires me to remember something that is not related to my login. This means that for multiple different accounts I need to remember twice as many things. Which makes it impractical (they can't be linked to my account or else my profiles will reveal the information).
> Imagine this: I have 3 google accounts, ...
I have ~8 different gmail accounts, all of which are used for emails. Yes, they're for different purposes but your scheme won't help differentiate them without also giving away my logins.
You could change your master password from time to time and you chould increase the counter (which changes your password) for a given site from time to time.
Well, you are not forced to use a specificic url or your real login details to generate the password. You could do it with "My Personal Bank Account"+"My alias (not the same as my login)"+MASTER_PASSWORD. It's the same with SSO. You can use "Google Private" or "Google Public" and any login you want to generate a password for your google accounts, without using a real URL nor your real credentials.
Most of these are very obvious (like move your expensive code out of loops when possible). Some of them are just wrong. And the rest are very basic stuff and even nonsense (like avoid empty static blocks, who would write an empty static block?).
That on top of the fact that the examples use the slower StringBuffer instead of StringBuilder.
Well, just after I read this, a magnitude 6.2 earthquake hits very close to Florence.
Fortunately, David survived.
"Amatrice, Accumoli and Arquata del Tronto. Three towns north of Rome reduced to rubble by an earthquake today. People dead. Lives ruined" (https://oilandmarble.com/2016/08/25/earthquake-in-italy-why-...)
Your comment and the parent really surprise me.
Passing such moral judgements based on the diet of a species seems a bit 'youtubish'.
Using the same logic one could argue that humpback whales are the real assholes since they protect those seals and sea lions so they can prey on those tiny, little penguins which are the cutest.
> Passing such moral judgements based on the diet of a species
Causing harm to social intelligent species, such as by eating them, is objective. In theory another species could eat plants and also attack mammals for fun all the time. That species would also be assholes. This isn't a judgement based on 'diet', it's a judgement based on how they interact with others.
> since they protect those seals and sea lions
That's not the same logic. The same logic might lead you to call seals and sea lions assholes, but it wouldn't extend to the whales.
I think I agree with you 100% based on what I think your comment reveals about your ideas.
The point I was trying to make is that it's too often that we judge animal behavior based on our mental constructs, when I think it makes no sense at all even for the most intelligent of the animal species.
Somebody pointed out that we are not so different from animals, and so it shouldn't be a big stretch to apply our labels to animal behavior. But I think we are so far from animal behavior that it makes it very difficult to analize/understand it without a really big effort and a long time of study. Scientists get very close, but internet comments are too often narrow-minded.
Orcas are not 'killers', at least not more than any other predator. They are very intelligent and gregarious, and they eat other animals. Jumping from this to 'they are assholes' was, in my opinion, not called for. In what 'interaction with others' was this based on? I think a real judge would have a hard time trying to distill intent from animal interactions.
Your second point is completely right.
But as a matter of fact, I think that both whales, seals, sea lions and all animals in general are all fine gentlemen. I have my doubts about that monkey pulling the legs (literally, and the tails) of two tigers, though.
Well, thank YOU!!! Now I can't get a meaningful answer when I want to translate roman numerals and use a similar search. All I get are links about this grandma and her search.
