I’ve seen past discussions on this question, but no definitive answers. We can only guess, as I’m sure Fidelity themselves wants to say as little as possible.

I’m going to assume that Fidelity is storing a T9 string of your password as a kind of default “security question” prompt for phone calls. So Fidelity would be storing your password hash, and alongside it, storing your T9 string hash. If that is the case, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad practice.

Given that it’s handled by the automated system, and not by a live service agent, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are hashing your keypad entry and comparing it against a properly salted+hashed T9 string of your password. This is unlikely to expose your credentials during transmission, since this isn’t any worse than entering your password in a form field on the web.

But what about if Fidelity gets breached, and attackers get the hashes of not only your password, but also the T9 hash? Then, attackers could start trying to crack everyone’s T9 hashes, and using the T9, figure out the length and likely characters of your password. This would make cracking individual passwords faster.

But if Fidelity had a large scale breach tomorrow, and put out a statement that all of their password hashes were leaked, wouldn’t they already be fucked? Like, they would force a password reset on every account anyways. It’s not like the fact that attackers can crack passwords faster or slower than normal would change how they should respond to a breach where password hashes are stolen. The cat’s already out of the bag at that point.

TL;DR: As long as they are storing this T9 string separately from your actual password hash, it’s not likely IMO to make or break the security of your account

That’s a common misconception that’s been passed around the Internet so long that it’s become common knowledge. There’s a great (now deleted, but archived) writeup showing that the Wachowskis always intended humans to be batteries. The actual source of the “processors” idea came from a Neil Gaiman short story written to promote the movie at its release

It’s always crazy to come into threads like these and see people say “I would murder as many elites as possible” without batting an eye, and in the same comment say “I could never give up hamburgers.” It’s some kind of insane self-soothing to throw all of the responsibility for a global issue onto a few scapegoats. It also shows that people have no intention of doing fuck all about climate change beyond typing up snarky comments on the internet.

People can misquote all kinds of studies they half remember to pretend that they have no responsibility for making changes, but that doesn’t make it true. Just as one example, first world countries’ per-capita rate of meat consumption alone is enough to push the world over our 1.5C warming target. But because it’s an inconvenience to make any changes to my life, I’m going to pretend I would personally kill scores of people rather than make a new recipe for dinner. We’re fucked

Ok but remember this part?

We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers.

Maybe we can’t convince everyone to quit eating meat, but I would hope that we could appeal to self-described environmentalists, who have a stated interest in making sustainable changes.

That’s the OP’s point, after all. That the science unambiguously states that we need to stop eating meat if we care about meeting our climate goals. Any environmentalist who learns that this needs to happen and still chooses to eat meat is acting against their own ethics.

It has to be both. Our World in Data puts it one way:

We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers.

Or to cut through the flowery language - farms need to stop producing meat, and people need to stop eating it.

The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual.

Man I had to rephrase this a dozen times and I still don’t have a good way to communicate what I’m trying to say.

The goal of this kind of callout is to make vegetarians, people who already value animal welfare, aware that they may still be contributing towards animal cruelty. For example, I was a vegetarian for years and then got rocked by the realization that, “oh wait, vegans aren’t just crazies that I can blow off, it was me who was ignorant the whole time.”

So I anecdotally assume that a huge percentage of vegans are vegetarians who went from thinking “vegetarians and vegans are basically the same, besides vegans taking the idea too far” to “oh wait there’s a huge important difference between the two.” On vegan spaces, people often joke that “bullying worked on me lol” because the gentle approaches are easily ignored, but the really blunt “your actions don’t align with your stated ethics” is really difficult to brush off.

TL;DR yeah I think you’re right. The original announcement from the Reddit admin comment didn’t give any details, so I filled in the gaps myself and assumed “heart” would imply compassion, especially since I’ve seen that “stay for the empathy” tagline for so long. After all, why would the change from “front page” be necessary if “heart” of the internet gives a the same sentiment that it’s the core or cutting edge?

The contracted marketing team’s writeup has some limited insight into the reasoning:

…Reddit’s updated brand materials would all point back to four traits: inherently eclectic, positively different, delightfully absurd, and genuinely candid. These traits, along with the uniquely empowering foundation of Reddit as the best place to discover and participate through real conversation, led the team to a new, strategic description of Reddit as “the heart of the internet.”

I’m not experienced enough in marketing jargon to understand if this is saying that “heart” only implies that there are lots of communities available on the platform, or if “genuine” and “real conversations” should be factored in to imply that these conversations and communities should be heartfelt.

But all in all, it seems like the focus is on “you can discuss with lots of communities.” And since “front page” doesn’t imply discussion as much as it implies reading a newspaper, the change was needed.

I find it odd that they changed their tagline from “the front page of the Internet” to “the heart of the Internet.” Reddit is certainly a massive hub for discussion, but “compassionate” is not the first association I have with Reddit conversations. Smug condescension, certainly. Frothing mob mentality, often. But compassion? Rare, at best.

I suppose that Reddit may be trying to simply manifest their hopes for the platform into a reality, but I don’t think it’s that easy. The Reddit welcome banner reads, “Come for the cats, stay for the empathy,” but most people probably know Reddit for the Boston Bombing debacle, r/theDonald trolls, and other nasty news items. It’s hard to believe the cushy corporate messaging when Reddit has so consistently allowed horrible shit on their site until the media fervor gets so intense that they can’t ignore it anymore