You've got it backward. The plaintiff won the defamation case; it's been proven that the review was false. That part of the case was done and over with, they went to court and proved it is false and defamatory, libel.
Yelp's position is "yeah it's it's libel, so what? We don't have to remove it unless she pays us for advertising."
The law they are relying on is designed to protect Yelp (and Slashdot) for being sued for damages over the content of what people post - you can't sue Slashdot if I give bad security or legal advice here. The legal term is "liability", Slashdot isn't liable for any damages you have from my bad advice. Yelp argues that because they can't be sued for money damages, a court can't order them to remove the libelous post. Or more accurately, the court can order them to, but they can ignore the court and the court can't do anything about it.
I would say they *can* be penalized for contempt of court, they say such a penalty would be holding them liable for the content of the review. They can't judge the truth of each review, they say Not so, I say - they don't have to even read the review. They can just follow the court order and remove any review that the court orders them to remove. From their position, it doesn't matter what the review says. The court already ruled that the review is false and defamatory, nobody is asking Yelp to make that determination. Plaintiff is asking Yelp to do what the court has ordered them to do and remove it.
> the quality of Yelp as a resource diminishes, and people will stop using it.
Which reviews Yelp chooses to show is based on whether or not the business pays Yelp, so it's already complete bull. Yet people still use it. Presumably they are unaware that it is strictly an advertising platform.
If you want to see for yourself, post a review of business that doesn't exist, one you completely made up. Include the phone number of the "business" (your phone number). Enjoy talking to the Yelp thugs^H^H^H^H salespeople when they call you.
When you turn on the football game and see an NFL quarterback who looks just like Tom Brady, 99.99% of the time, it's Tom Brady.
Those of us who work in network security day after day, year after year, get to know the other people involved, including the opposition. I can often spot a root kit hidden on a Linux server within seconds of logging in. In those first few seconds I haven't absolutely proved it. I still have to confirm the root kit, but so far I've never been wrong when I spotted the clues. Not because I'm genius, but because after 20 years you get to know your job. Just like the auto mechanic with 20 years of experience can hear your spark plug missing as you drive up to the shop.
In medicine they say "when you hear hoofbeats in the night, look for horses - not zebras." Theoretically, what appears to be Tom Brady playing in the championship game could actually be John Elway come out of retirement wearing a Ton Brady mask. That's physically possible. But you know what, Tom Brady played in the AFC championship yesterday, it wasn't Elway in a mask.
You can't prove it was really Tom Brady in the game yesterday, and I can't prove it was really Iran. But it was Brady, and it was Iran. They are both pretty easy to recognize if you know what you're looking for.
As you suggested, it definitely depends on how much. A five-second ad before the show, or at the end, is a lot different than a two-minute interruption in the middle of the show.
I'm sure a lot of people would rather pay less and have ads. The fact that most YouTube viewers choose ads over paying $10 is evidence of that. The cool thing about streaming vs broadcasting is that different viewers can have a different experience. Some can choose free with ads, others can choose to pay monthly. Different bitrates / quality are available, and a small reduction in quality can significantly reduce bandwidth / costs (including hardware throughput etc.)
Personally, I'd much rather see a short ad for a new Raspberry Pi shield or budget 3D printer than a Massengil ad, and streaming allows for users to see ads that might actually interest them. I might personally prefer relevant ads of interest to me over paying cash.
Yeah ransomware will encrypt any file shares it can, so push backups are no good. Actual live bad guys also shouldn't have write access to your backups, so pull it is.
Also, I don't want to rely on the box to back itself up because that requires assuming that all of the machines getting backed up are always working correctly. If we're going to assume the computers never have problems, we wouldn't need to back them up in the first place. I prefer the backup system runs on one dedicated system. Additionally that has other benefits, like you don't have 100 machines all trying to push their backups all at once. The backup machine can pull them a few a time, getting each one done more quickly. At least that's how I wrote Clonebox.
Unfortunately for people concerned with Windows ransomware, Clonebox was/is another pull option for *Linux*. There are a few good options I know of, but they are all for Linux/ BSD. That'll work if your Windows is a VM running on a *nix platform. Theoretically the systems made for *nix would work for backing up files from Windows using Windows Subsystem for Linux. The backups probably wouldn't be bootable like they are for Linux, you'd have to restore the files after a fresh install of Windows. That's a reasonable approach, though. About 10 years behind what you can do with Linux, but 10 years behind is about average for Windows when it comes to system capabilities (as opposed to applications).
> Coders are useless without good specifications, good practices and good languages.
Good practices make a world of difference. Peer review, for example, is huge.
Good specifications, or requirements, are critical. Just as good developers learn how to write particular functions, they learn methods of finding out exactly what the requirements are. So "the requirements weren't clear" isn't an excuse for a a software engineer to have done poorly, it's what they did poorly. There are good ways of getting the requirements defined, and it is the programmers job to learn those methods and use them.
I'd say "good languages" are overrated by many. "It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools." One language has benefits and drawbacks compared to another, and being able to choose the language (and style of language) that best fits a given task is useful. If the code is crap, though, it's not because the language sucks, it's because the programmer did a poor job. It is true that trying to write code to query set-based data in Python instead of SQL is likely to result in crappy code.
> Test driven design beats most other forms.
Test driven development is at least a consciously-chosen process. That's certainly better than no methodology, just writing whatever code and throwing it on production with no thought to process.
> , what modern tech hasn't evolved in that timeframe? We've even done away with BIOS at this point, I'm trying to think of something else that's deeply computer integrated and has remained largely unchanged in the past 20 years
Mice, keyboards. I have Model M (1984) on my wishlist, as an upgrade from my current keyboard.
ASCII is still king - over 95% of web pages are ASCII. In the Unicode wars, UTF8 (which is ASCII, plus more) won because it's technically superior in a strict sense - it does everything better than competing encodings do.
On a midi-related tangent, I have a box with about 20 midi cables, still unopened in original packaging. Perhaps someone who clicked on this midi article has a use for them?
> Medium of exchange refers to being a universally accepted token of value, unlike a barter economy where you need to find someone who has what you want to barter with.
Right, universally accepted value. The key words being "accept" and "value". Meaning most people (universally) will say "I'll _accept_ 20Money for this item I'm selling". Most people don't in any way accept *coin, or even appear to accept it. Those that appear to don't accept *coin at a certain _value_. Some online stores use a payment servicer that processes via *coin, but the _value_ they offer to _accept_ is "$20 worth of *coin". The _value_ they put on it is denominated in US dollars.
Money is defined as a) a store of value and b) a medium of exchange.
Store of value means I can put $2,000 in the bank today in order to pay my mortgage next month. Crypto faux-currency doesn't do that. You put aside a Randomcoin today, no telling what value it'll have next month, if any.
Medium of exchange means you can advertise your services at $25/hour, or sell tables at $100/table, and then someone who wants a table goes to work, earns $100, and uses it to buy a table from you. *coin doesn't work that way. Something that costs 0.5BTC this morning (actually $1,700) may very well cost 0.7BTC tonight (still $1,700).
> But to make that happen, Sun has to get mainstream people like the 100 million BitTorrent users to trust cryptocurrency, even after a coin market slide that has wiped out billions in value, including taking Tron's TRX market value down from near $20 billion to $1.6 billion today.
Getting most people to trust cryptocurrency isn't going to happen, unless you assume most people are stupid. Fortunately for him, it seems most people are indeed stupid. Just watch the mindless herds of millions of drones the first Tuesday of November.
Looking at the news* on CNN.com today, I see that about 85% of people are politicians, and almost all are doing something crazy today.
Or maybe it's called NEWs because it's something NEW, something at least somewhat unexpected.
Neither the popular press nor the science news reported "the sun rose today - in the morning!", precisely because that's not surprising. "Guy goes to work, does his job, and gets a paycheck" isn't surprising - and therefore you don't hear about it. "Boss gives every employee a $20,000 bonus" is new(s), it's surprising, and therefore you hear about it.
* Whether what CNN reports is actual news vs propaganda is a different discussion.
Actually this is about DNS extensions, or EDNS. Guess what the original DNS extension was? You got it, DNSSEC. Guess what DNSSEC does? Yep, it prevents a man-in-the-middle altering DNS responses, which in turn makes further MITM more difficult.
It's everybody who whinges about "Socialism" and "Venezuela" who is ignoring the reality of the country being an oppressive and exploitative tyranny just like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Russia, China
You're contrasting Russia and China with socialist countries?
Egypt too, the government owns the large companies and means of production.
Because real human beings seek to take care of themselves and their families, because they don't like to have the fruits of their labor taken from them, socialism requires "an oppressive and exploitative tyranny" to force socialism on the people. Socialism is *why* the countries you listed have "an oppressive and exploitative tyranny". If people are free, they'll support their families, including by buying and selling stuff - capitalism.
Mussolini was at one time the head of the Socialist party in Italy, and was a follower of Georges Sorel. So pointing to Mussolini and pretending he was somehow the opposite of socialist or communist is a bit bizarre. That's kinda like:
Republicans do this... And Reaganites don't?!
Fascism is what happens when socialist meets reality. Socialism is a fiction book has an imaginary race of people with no instinct for self-preservation or self-interest. Real people try to take care of themselves and their families, so fascism is required to force socialism on them.
Others have posted plenty of long-term stable open source projects with no direct funding to the project. So what's different about MongoDB? The MongoDB company, which is trying to make money from the project. *Making money* from open source requires that someone pay money, for something.
Plenty of open source projects work fine without anyone funding the project in any significant way - a developer who wants or needs a feature codes it, and makes a pull request. That developer might be at work or at home, but nobody pays the project anything.
The question is how can the Mongo company get money from someone. There are many options. An open source project called Moodle has an interesting method. Their project page lists companies who provide Moodle services - hosted copies, custom development, training, etc. "Official Moodle partners", I think they are called. Those companies are allowed to use the Moodle trademark in their marketing if they want to, and they pay a percentage of revenue for being listed as an official partner.
> they seem to have all sorts of fancy certifications which I have no idea what mean, but surely they mean something?
Mostly they mean that you can depend on it running perfectly reliably, so you can trust your $300 million space probe to ThreadX.
You may have also noticed ThreadX takes 2KB of memory.
When your system requirements are the kind of thing ThreadX is designed for, you don't have a ton of options. Maybe three will be worth considering, and likely one will be the best fit, just on technical considerations.
Speaking of other password managers, a few months ago Corporate Security at the company I worked for chose an official password manager for employees to use. The problem is, we're a security company, full of people who look for security flaws for a living, I've been told that choosing one was rough because people kept pointing out known flaws in each option. It couldn't have been nearly as bad as after they announced the choice, though. We ripped into it. Employees all over the company not only demonstrated why the chosen password manager was totally unacceptable, but so was every option that Corp Sec had suggested for consideration. It was brutal. Almost everything had known flaws - not to mention probably unknown flaws.
They finally ended up suggesting, but not requiring, 1Password. You do have vendor lock-in with 1Password, I think. With KeePass you don't, so that's one I've used personally.*
* Mostly I use one based on gpg which I wrote. Writing one is a really bad idea for most people. Only people who do cryptography and security for a living should even think about writing one. It just so happens I've been doing it professionally for 20 years.
KeePass is a good choice. "Or similar" leads to many bad options unless you're very, very careful.
I'd still keep my banking and email password only in my head. Email is important because it can be used to reset all of your other passwords.
Length of passphrase is more important than including punctuation or even randomish-case. Certainly adding a digit on the end and a punctuation mark doesn't help much, because everybody does "Whatever1!".
That particular example doesn't matter, I don't have a horse in that race.
I will note that you can't estimate the value of the company based on how many apartments they had - you have to subtract the mortgages on those apartment buildings. If the company buys a building for $20 million (because the competing bidder only offered $17 million), using a mortgage of $17 million, the value of the company is somewhere between $0 and $3 million. $20M asset - $17M loan against it = $3M value.
Also note that Donald Trump was the president of the company in 1973, so it wouldn't be accurate to choose that as the "before Donald" valuation.
But again that's because the point. The point is, of the ultra rich: More ultra-rich had broke parents than had ultra-rich parents. Most ultra-rich people started with a business their family had and grew it.
Which again is kinda beside the main point, because I don't think many of us want to be obsessive about money, which seems to be key to becoming ultra-rich. We want to be comfortable, money-smart without being totally money focused.
The current official guidelines, and what I've been saying for a long time, is don't change most passwords regularly. Exactly because you need to remember them.
We can conveniently separate passwords into low-impact (Slashdot) and high-impact (banking and email). Frankly, my Slashdot password doesn't need to be super secure. It can even be the same as my Discus password.
We want high-risk sites to have long passwords, and while we need to remember the password, there is some advantage to occasionally updating it. A way to achieve both is to *add* a couple characters every year or so. Maybe in 2005, a passphrase of "yummY pickle leaf$" was good enough. In 2006, I'd make it "yummY pickle leaf$ cake" or "yummY red pickle leaf$". I've changed it, but I'm leveraging my existing memory of it.
For low-risk sites, one can have a shared base passphrase and add an extension. So:
Somebody who has saved up over a million dollars is probably not someone who is going to spend every penny of their investment income as soon as they hit retirement. Having an income of $60,000 doesn't mean you spend $60,000 every year (that's a habit broke people have - spend all of their income or a little more, like I've done before).
So yeah, you probably wouldn't want to spend $60,000 - that doesn't mean your income isn't $60,000. It just means you decided not to spend 100% of your income.
But just for fun, pretend you had zero rate of return for twenty years of retirement, which has never happened in the US, and you decided to spend $50,000 every year even with zero income. You've STILL got money to do that for twenty years. You'd end up not leaving anything to your kids, if in fact your retirement was a 20-year recession.
I wouldn't PLAN to spend my principal most years, but if you've got $1,000,000 at age 55 and $900,000 at age 65, you're still quite okay. You certainly CAN stabilize your income and allow your principal to go up and down a bit with the market.
> It represents about $30-40k per year in retirement income (increasing with inflation).
Long term average market return is about 10% minus average inflation is 3.2%. Annual return without depleting your nest egg = $68,000.
It turns out that returns tend to be higher in years that inflation is higher and lower during periods of low inflation, so the real return (net of inflation) is more stable than you might think.
Put part of your money in safer, less volatile investments like bonds (not bond funds) and money market funds and you can easily figure on $50,000.
When average life span was 72, somebody 60 years old had a pretty short investment horizon, so they'd have more than half their money in bonds. These days, even a 70 year old plans for 15 years out, so more stocks makes sense. If you invested for 20-30 years while working, you've got a million so significant drop one year would just mean you spend $30,000 of the principal that year and your kids only get $970,000 when you die. Oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got it backward. The plaintiff won the defamation case; it's been proven that the review was false. That part of the case was done and over with, they went to court and proved it is false and defamatory, libel.
Yelp's position is "yeah it's it's libel, so what? We don't have to remove it unless she pays us for advertising."
The law they are relying on is designed to protect Yelp (and Slashdot) for being sued for damages over the content of what people post - you can't sue Slashdot if I give bad security or legal advice here. The legal term is "liability", Slashdot isn't liable for any damages you have from my bad advice. Yelp argues that because they can't be sued for money damages, a court can't order them to remove the libelous post. Or more accurately, the court can order them to, but they can ignore the court and the court can't do anything about it.
I would say they *can* be penalized for contempt of court, they say such a penalty would be holding them liable for the content of the review. They can't judge the truth of each review, they say Not so, I say - they don't have to even read the review. They can just follow the court order and remove any review that the court orders them to remove. From their position, it doesn't matter what the review says. The court already ruled that the review is false and defamatory, nobody is asking Yelp to make that determination. Plaintiff is asking Yelp to do what the court has ordered them to do and remove it.
> the quality of Yelp as a resource diminishes, and people will stop using it.
Which reviews Yelp chooses to show is based on whether or not the business pays Yelp, so it's already complete bull. Yet people still use it. Presumably they are unaware that it is strictly an advertising platform.
If you want to see for yourself, post a review of business that doesn't exist, one you completely made up. Include the phone number of the "business" (your phone number). Enjoy talking to the Yelp thugs^H^H^H^H salespeople when they call you.
When you turn on the football game and see an NFL quarterback who looks just like Tom Brady, 99.99% of the time, it's Tom Brady.
Those of us who work in network security day after day, year after year, get to know the other people involved, including the opposition. I can often spot a root kit hidden on a Linux server within seconds of logging in. In those first few seconds I haven't absolutely proved it. I still have to confirm the root kit, but so far I've never been wrong when I spotted the clues. Not because I'm genius, but because after 20 years you get to know your job. Just like the auto mechanic with 20 years of experience can hear your spark plug missing as you drive up to the shop.
In medicine they say "when you hear hoofbeats in the night, look for horses - not zebras." Theoretically, what appears to be Tom Brady playing in the championship game could actually be John Elway come out of retirement wearing a Ton Brady mask. That's physically possible. But you know what, Tom Brady played in the AFC championship yesterday, it wasn't Elway in a mask.
You can't prove it was really Tom Brady in the game yesterday, and I can't prove it was really Iran. But it was Brady, and it was Iran. They are both pretty easy to recognize if you know what you're looking for.
As you suggested, it definitely depends on how much. A five-second ad before the show, or at the end, is a lot different than a two-minute interruption in the middle of the show.
I'm sure a lot of people would rather pay less and have ads. The fact that most YouTube viewers choose ads over paying $10 is evidence of that. The cool thing about streaming vs broadcasting is that different viewers can have a different experience. Some can choose free with ads, others can choose to pay monthly. Different bitrates / quality are available, and a small reduction in quality can significantly reduce bandwidth / costs (including hardware throughput etc.)
Personally, I'd much rather see a short ad for a new Raspberry Pi shield or budget 3D printer than a Massengil ad, and streaming allows for users to see ads that might actually interest them. I might personally prefer relevant ads of interest to me over paying cash.
Yeah ransomware will encrypt any file shares it can, so push backups are no good. Actual live bad guys also shouldn't have write access to your backups, so pull it is.
Also, I don't want to rely on the box to back itself up because that requires assuming that all of the machines getting backed up are always working correctly. If we're going to assume the computers never have problems, we wouldn't need to back them up in the first place. I prefer the backup system runs on one dedicated system. Additionally that has other benefits, like you don't have 100 machines all trying to push their backups all at once. The backup machine can pull them a few a time, getting each one done more quickly. At least that's how I wrote Clonebox.
Unfortunately for people concerned with Windows ransomware, Clonebox was/is another pull option for *Linux*. There are a few good options I know of, but they are all for Linux/ BSD. That'll work if your Windows is a VM running on a *nix platform. Theoretically the systems made for *nix would work for backing up files from Windows using Windows Subsystem for Linux. The backups probably wouldn't be bootable like they are for Linux, you'd have to restore the files after a fresh install of Windows. That's a reasonable approach, though. About 10 years behind what you can do with Linux, but 10 years behind is about average for Windows when it comes to system capabilities (as opposed to applications).
> Coders are useless without good specifications, good practices and good languages.
Good practices make a world of difference. Peer review, for example, is huge.
Good specifications, or requirements, are critical. Just as good developers learn how to write particular functions, they learn methods of finding out exactly what the requirements are. So "the requirements weren't clear" isn't an excuse for a a software engineer to have done poorly, it's what they did poorly. There are good ways of getting the requirements defined, and it is the programmers job to learn those methods and use them.
I'd say "good languages" are overrated by many. "It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools." One language has benefits and drawbacks compared to another, and being able to choose the language (and style of language) that best fits a given task is useful. If the code is crap, though, it's not because the language sucks, it's because the programmer did a poor job. It is true that trying to write code to query set-based data in Python instead of SQL is likely to result in crappy code.
> Test driven design beats most other forms.
Test driven development is at least a consciously-chosen process. That's certainly better than no methodology, just writing whatever code and throwing it on production with no thought to process.
Universal in this sense means within a certain economy, such as the US. Compare Marvel universe, DC universe.
Everybody in the US either a) has to pay taxes or b) buys things frim someone who has to pay taxes, so everybody has a need for dollars.
> , what modern tech hasn't evolved in that timeframe? We've even done away with BIOS at this point, I'm trying to think of something else that's deeply computer integrated and has remained largely unchanged in the past 20 years
Mice, keyboards. I have Model M (1984) on my wishlist, as an upgrade from my current keyboard.
ASCII is still king - over 95% of web pages are ASCII. In the Unicode wars, UTF8 (which is ASCII, plus more) won because it's technically superior in a strict sense - it does everything better than competing encodings do.
On a midi-related tangent, I have a box with about 20 midi cables, still unopened in original packaging. Perhaps someone who clicked on this midi article has a use for them?
There is something Denmark would like you to know:
https://www.thelocal.dk/201511...
Forbes explains it further:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
I didn't do a great job of making my point clear.
> Medium of exchange refers to being a universally accepted token of value, unlike a barter economy where you need to find someone who has what you want to barter with.
Right, universally accepted value. The key words being "accept" and "value". Meaning most people (universally) will say "I'll _accept_ 20Money for this item I'm selling". Most people don't in any way accept *coin, or even appear to accept it. Those that appear to don't accept *coin at a certain _value_. Some online stores use a payment servicer that processes via *coin, but the _value_ they offer to _accept_ is "$20 worth of *coin". The _value_ they put on it is denominated in US dollars.
That was funny, thanks.
> Please explain to me the exact way that our current money system works
Okay:
https://www.class-central.com/...
> and why it is better than crypto currency!
Money is defined as a) a store of value and b) a medium of exchange.
Store of value means I can put $2,000 in the bank today in order to pay my mortgage next month. Crypto faux-currency doesn't do that. You put aside a Randomcoin today, no telling what value it'll have next month, if any.
Medium of exchange means you can advertise your services at $25/hour, or sell tables at $100/table, and then someone who wants a table goes to work, earns $100, and uses it to buy a table from you. *coin doesn't work that way. Something that costs 0.5BTC this morning (actually $1,700) may very well cost 0.7BTC tonight (still $1,700).
> But to make that happen, Sun has to get mainstream people like the 100 million BitTorrent users to trust cryptocurrency, even after a coin market slide that has wiped out billions in value, including taking Tron's TRX market value down from near $20 billion to $1.6 billion today.
Getting most people to trust cryptocurrency isn't going to happen, unless you assume most people are stupid. Fortunately for him, it seems most people are indeed stupid. Just watch the mindless herds of millions of drones the first Tuesday of November.
Looking at the news* on CNN.com today, I see that about 85% of people are politicians, and almost all are doing something crazy today.
Or maybe it's called NEWs because it's something NEW, something at least somewhat unexpected.
Neither the popular press nor the science news reported "the sun rose today - in the morning!", precisely because that's not surprising. "Guy goes to work, does his job, and gets a paycheck" isn't surprising - and therefore you don't hear about it. "Boss gives every employee a $20,000 bonus" is new(s), it's surprising, and therefore you hear about it.
* Whether what CNN reports is actual news vs propaganda is a different discussion.
Actually this is about DNS extensions, or EDNS. Guess what the original DNS extension was? You got it, DNSSEC. Guess what DNSSEC does? Yep, it prevents a man-in-the-middle altering DNS responses, which in turn makes further MITM more difficult.
It's everybody who whinges about "Socialism" and "Venezuela" who is ignoring the reality of the country being an oppressive and exploitative tyranny just like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Russia, China
You're contrasting Russia and China with socialist countries?
Egypt too, the government owns the large companies and means of production.
Because real human beings seek to take care of themselves and their families, because they don't like to have the fruits of their labor taken from them, socialism requires "an oppressive and exploitative tyranny" to force socialism on the people. Socialism is *why* the countries you listed have "an oppressive and exploitative tyranny". If people are free, they'll support their families, including by buying and selling stuff - capitalism.
Mussolini was at one time the head of the Socialist party in Italy, and was a follower of Georges Sorel. So pointing to Mussolini and pretending he was somehow the opposite of socialist or communist is a bit bizarre. That's kinda like:
Republicans do this ...
And Reaganites don't?!
Fascism is what happens when socialist meets reality. Socialism is a fiction book has an imaginary race of people with no instinct for self-preservation or self-interest. Real people try to take care of themselves and their families, so fascism is required to force socialism on them.
Others have posted plenty of long-term stable open source projects with no direct funding to the project. So what's different about MongoDB? The MongoDB company, which is trying to make money from the project. *Making money* from open source requires that someone pay money, for something.
Plenty of open source projects work fine without anyone funding the project in any significant way - a developer who wants or needs a feature codes it, and makes a pull request. That developer might be at work or at home, but nobody pays the project anything.
The question is how can the Mongo company get money from someone. There are many options. An open source project called Moodle has an interesting method. Their project page lists companies who provide Moodle services - hosted copies, custom development, training, etc. "Official Moodle partners", I think they are called. Those companies are allowed to use the Moodle trademark in their marketing if they want to, and they pay a percentage of revenue for being listed as an official partner.
> they seem to have all sorts of fancy certifications which I have no idea what mean, but surely they mean something?
Mostly they mean that you can depend on it running perfectly reliably, so you can trust your $300 million space probe to ThreadX.
You may have also noticed ThreadX takes 2KB of memory.
When your system requirements are the kind of thing ThreadX is designed for, you don't have a ton of options. Maybe three will be worth considering, and likely one will be the best fit, just on technical considerations.
Speaking of other password managers, a few months ago Corporate Security at the company I worked for chose an official password manager for employees to use. The problem is, we're a security company, full of people who look for security flaws for a living, I've been told that choosing one was rough because people kept pointing out known flaws in each option. It couldn't have been nearly as bad as after they announced the choice, though. We ripped into it. Employees all over the company not only demonstrated why the chosen password manager was totally unacceptable, but so was every option that Corp Sec had suggested for consideration. It was brutal. Almost everything had known flaws - not to mention probably unknown flaws.
They finally ended up suggesting, but not requiring, 1Password. You do have vendor lock-in with 1Password, I think. With KeePass you don't, so that's one I've used personally.*
* Mostly I use one based on gpg which I wrote. Writing one is a really bad idea for most people. Only people who do cryptography and security for a living should even think about writing one. It just so happens I've been doing it professionally for 20 years.
KeePass is a good choice. "Or similar" leads to many bad options unless you're very, very careful.
I'd still keep my banking and email password only in my head. Email is important because it can be used to reset all of your other passwords.
Length of passphrase is more important than including punctuation or even randomish-case. Certainly adding a digit on the end and a punctuation mark doesn't help much, because everybody does "Whatever1!".
That particular example doesn't matter, I don't have a horse in that race.
I will note that you can't estimate the value of the company based on how many apartments they had - you have to subtract the mortgages on those apartment buildings. If the company buys a building for $20 million (because the competing bidder only offered $17 million), using a mortgage of $17 million, the value of the company is somewhere between $0 and $3 million. $20M asset - $17M loan against it = $3M value.
Also note that Donald Trump was the president of the company in 1973, so it wouldn't be accurate to choose that as the "before Donald" valuation.
But again that's because the point. The point is, of the ultra rich:
More ultra-rich had broke parents than had ultra-rich parents.
Most ultra-rich people started with a business their family had and grew it.
Which again is kinda beside the main point, because I don't think many of us want to be obsessive about money, which seems to be key to becoming ultra-rich. We want to be comfortable, money-smart without being totally money focused.
The current official guidelines, and what I've been saying for a long time, is don't change most passwords regularly. Exactly because you need to remember them.
We can conveniently separate passwords into low-impact (Slashdot) and high-impact (banking and email). Frankly, my Slashdot password doesn't need to be super secure. It can even be the same as my Discus password.
We want high-risk sites to have long passwords, and while we need to remember the password, there is some advantage to occasionally updating it. A way to achieve both is to *add* a couple characters every year or so. Maybe in 2005, a passphrase of "yummY pickle leaf$" was good enough. In 2006, I'd make it "yummY pickle leaf$ cake" or "yummY red pickle leaf$". I've changed it, but I'm leveraging my existing memory of it.
For low-risk sites, one can have a shared base passphrase and add an extension. So:
Slashdot: BarBoltCamSL
Reddit: BarBoltCamRE
Discus: BarBoltCamDi
That's not super secure, but I don't need my Slashdot posts to be super secure.
Somebody who has saved up over a million dollars is probably not someone who is going to spend every penny of their investment income as soon as they hit retirement. Having an income of $60,000 doesn't mean you spend $60,000 every year (that's a habit broke people have - spend all of their income or a little more, like I've done before).
So yeah, you probably wouldn't want to spend $60,000 - that doesn't mean your income isn't $60,000. It just means you decided not to spend 100% of your income.
But just for fun, pretend you had zero rate of return for twenty years of retirement, which has never happened in the US, and you decided to spend $50,000 every year even with zero income. You've STILL got money to do that for twenty years. You'd end up not leaving anything to your kids, if in fact your retirement was a 20-year recession.
I wouldn't PLAN to spend my principal most years, but if you've got $1,000,000 at age 55 and $900,000 at age 65, you're still quite okay. You certainly CAN stabilize your income and allow your principal to go up and down a bit with the market.
> It represents about $30-40k per year in retirement income (increasing with inflation).
Long term average market return is about 10% minus average inflation is 3.2%. Annual return without depleting your nest egg = $68,000.
It turns out that returns tend to be higher in years that inflation is higher and lower during periods of low inflation, so the real return (net of inflation) is more stable than you might think.
Put part of your money in safer, less volatile investments like bonds (not bond funds) and money market funds and you can easily figure on $50,000.
When average life span was 72, somebody 60 years old had a pretty short investment horizon, so they'd have more than half their money in bonds. These days, even a 70 year old plans for 15 years out, so more stocks makes sense. If you invested for 20-30 years while working, you've got a million so significant drop one year would just mean you spend $30,000 of the principal that year and your kids only get $970,000 when you die. Oh well.