They aren’t preventing you from entering, they are accepting your entry and taking you into border patrol custody for failure to comply.

I don’t actually know the proper terminology, but there’s nothing stopping them from arresting you for non compliance. They have broad power within 100 miles of a border crossing.

They won’t try to crack your pin at airports either, they just force you to enter it against your will, under threat of arrest.

Yes, but they typically don’t just run the whole building, only vital stuff and emergency lighting.

So a simple power outage or broken networking hardware would be enough to kill people in your hospital?…

Yeah, if you’re using common words or variants thereof, you’re gonna have a bad time. But a 128 character string of random characters is going to be functionally safe from such an attack, for now.

I don’t believe this is the case. 3 is fairly robust, and 2 is still just brute forcing, though rapidly on a local CPU. The one that’s trivial is trivial to crack is WEP.

There’s pretty much only one place that line pertains to, and it’s China. I don’t believe it’s happening anywhere else.

IIRC it’s because China has deemed “game addiction” a health concern, and forces companies to put in place either blocks on progress/rewards or just completely prevent game access.

In case you’d not heard, these concerns are overblown. People read a line about “if required by local law we will ask that you provide government ID” and ran to Twitter decrying the Chinese company stealing your government ID.

The irony is, they wouldn’t have your ID (or any other info in that list) unless you give it to them.

This is terrible.

You should never rely on a browser interpreting a non standard use in a specific way. It can change at any moment, and wouldn’t be reliably reversed because it’s inherently non standard.

Go spend a bit in hexbear and it’ll happen. Unless you whole heartedly adopt their thinking, at least.

??? Some people don’t like to hear “you shouldn’t sexualize children” does that mean we need to accommodate them to make sure they feel safe and cozy? Fuck no. Same deal, different opinion.

Yeah, what? 3.1 not getting updates has nothing to do with this. Software developed for 3.1 can still be updated. This article is just silly.

I doubt many Lemmy servers are running enterprise level antivirus.

… what?

<.< My friend, look at the first of the two presented options.

Yes, most here will self host it. The app at least presents the concept of a centralized host as an option.

Why would Microsoft tell him what he wanted?

The spelling mistake isn’t the problem, it just makes no god damn sense.

Potentially but would you not expect one drive to at least remove the ones that it has access to?

Yeah, that doesn’t really apply to the story I was replying to. The complaint was about Microsoft not believing the user owned the account.

It’s tangentially related to the overall topic, and that could indeed be the root cause, but “they didn’t give him access because he didn’t know the new password” is security 101.

I’m honestly not even certain what you’re trying to say in that first sentence.

Almost always != always, and an individual falling for a scam where they hand off their password would typically fall into the category of “unable to prove ownership”.