Star Trek MUSHes were my thing. Lord I loved those. Built in starship combat systems in them that, while text based, hands down beat for authenticity any ST game ever made. Multiple people at multiple "consoles", handling navigation, helm, weapons, engineering, shield control. What course do I need to go to put three different ships on three different shields? Any smart game company would have taken those systems, wrapped a GUI around it, and kept that game play. It's what STO should have been.
The CLI maximizing properly is news? That's a/lot/ better? That's "Microsoft Better". Microsoft has embraced, extended, and now extinguished the word "better".
I myself am staunchly anti-drug. My country is, of course, in the news as legalizing recreational marijuana, something that I have personally opposed. But it gives me pause when I hear stories like this. Whatever my personal thoughts on marijuana are, legalizing it simply to remove this kind of specious misuse of probable cause may not be a bad thing.
Of course, the US is quite famous for being the sort of place that will jail your ass for a parking ticket, especially if you're a foreign driver. Hell, people get jailed in the US just for driving with a foreign license. We typically don't live in fear here that police are going to grab a drug dog to sniff out your car if you refuse a search. But regardless, it is certainly something to think about, and makes me rethink some of my attitudes.
Hopefully their attempts at integration result in them ruining both services
How much more intrinsically awful do they have to be to make people go elsewhere?
I created a Facebook account a month or so ago in order to advertise a found stray cat. I adjusted my settings at least a half a dozen times to try and stem the flood of emails and notifications. Come see what the lost and found pet group is doing. We bet you know this person, friend them. Look at this photo, tag yourself in it. On and on and on. The longer you don't log in, the more desperate they get. Every time I get my settings changed to preclude that type of contact, something "new" shows up for the first time.
In a way you have to admire the creativity of their programmers to find ways to justify contacting you, to find ways to just get you to drink the kool-aid. It was with some great relief that I actually found the cat's owners and could get myself back off Facebook.
I tried to come up with some redeeming aspect of Facebook during my stint there. In the end, it was an ad on Kijiji that located the cat's owners, so there wasn't even that in Facebook's favour. I honestly tried, but I can't think of anything good to come out of the platform that isn't available more safely and less invsasively somewhere else.
Not sure why the parent was modded down. This isn't inaccurate. When was the last time that browser rendering speed was the rate limiting step in how fast something displayed. Or, if it was the rate limiting step, when was the last time that the difference in rendering speed between two browsers was even relevant in a time scale beyond an eyeblink?
Firefox and it's more usable cousin, PaleMoon, both support RSS as live bookmarks. I use that for all my news. BBC World, CBC World, CBC Canadian, CNN Latest, and CNN World. You don't need a dedicated RSS reader to enjoy RSS. It also lets me laugh at people who (still today) get caught by fake stories on social media sites. People who get their news through social media deserve what they get, I think.
Fair enough about Aussie sockets. However, the same site I used in my original post had, with 15 seconds of searching, solutions for socket rotating and the same mini extension cords for AU plugs. In short, A) It's not the rest of the world's fault that Australia places their plugs with the opposite geometry to most, and B) it's less than trivial to find an inexpensive solution that doesn't look like a terrible kludge.
Good vendors are trying to use geometries that work for most people. Some even have devices with plugs that rotate without an adapter to do that. I still think this is a tempest in a teacup.
Power bar extension cords. It will take 3 months to get to you, so order about 40 of them and keep them in a drawer.
To answer the question why, for almost every one of the examples given in the article, for example the Samsung, Nintendo, and Apple plugs, there is a geometry of power bar or splitter that they will fit nicely for. The Samsung and Nintendo ones, for example, are designed to play nicely on a power bar. Since most people use power bars, it is obvious that the article author went to some trouble to make sure that he used a power outlet with a side-by-side geometry that specifically didn't work for those devices. Device manufacturers are trying to make them play nicely. But yes, you will always be able to find an example where a device designed to work well with plugs of one direction won't work well with plugs of another. My advice is to stop whining, realize that the designers have to work it some way, and use your brain to work out a solution. One of which was given above.
Thing is, it's always just one line of code. Very rarely is a security bug something big and prevalent throughout the code. It's a forgotten bounds check, or a miss-sized integer. You can say "just one line of code allowed _______" for almost the entire set of security bugs that have occurred for the last decade.
I'm not sure what I find more frightening. The fact that you are writing, ostensibly seriously, about reducing freedom being a good thing all around, or that four people modded that up. That's seriously disturbing, especially here.
DRM doesn't add end user security. It only adds central control where a single entity, one who's end motivation is not security but profit, has 100% of the decision making capability of what can end up on your device. Software-as-a-service, mandatory remote updates, and walled-garden DRM are the holy triumvirate of a loss of local decision making authority and corporate and state control. In an age where computing devices are becoming more and more not just a luxury but an absolute necessity, where computing devices are integrated into our lives, do you really think it's a a good idea to cede our freedoms like that? The more integrated electronic devices become, the more important it becomes to assert the supremacy of the user's decision.
Yes, but at least human intelligence can synthesize its own arguments, rather than auto-scanning millions of (human generated) papers and news articles to find one.
But as a woman, to give her youth and her looks to an unattractive...
As a woman, that is irrelevant. Why the fuck do you think she went around wearing black all the time? It's so that people would stop judging her by her looks. You make it sound like her "youth" and "looks" were the most terrible things for her to loose and her best assets.
What her patients were to her is something you don't and can't know. Whether this was someone who's ambition was larger than her reach, like Preston Tucker, or someone who willfully defrauded people is something you also don't and can't know. Neither do I. Discussions on the evidence for and against that are valid. Discussions about whether she tossed her looks away on something are misogynistic and don't have a place here.
This is rich. China's surveillance state. How about the UK with ANPR - not just the UK, there are a lot of placed, even here in Canada, with ANPR now but not like the UK has. How about the NSA tapping into every internet backbone in the world? The Five Eyes have more domestic surveillance than China will ever have.
Stories like this make me angry. Not because I think of China as being any better, but because people who write these kind of headlines are just so willfully ignorant it makes my teeth itch. We (read every resident of a Western democracy) have been living in the kind of a surveillance state for the last decade as would have given the head of the KGB at the height of the Soviet Union an absolute erection.
Bees don't see in three dimensions the way we do, and they certainly don't have the processing to interpret a 2D image and separate it out into objects. What for us is foreground and background and requires image processing to differentiate is, to them, just a spread of color. I used the word background to illustrate that what, to us, looks like a bee is choosing an image with less of something, is with equal validity, interpreted as choosing an image with more of what to us is the background.
Or they were trained to avoid the element itself. What's more likely, that an insect can "understand the concept of zero" or that it can combine two stimuli (I want to go towards this thing for the sugar, but I want to stay away from the element)?
Considering that insects don't have the same kind of image processing or, indeed, even the same kind of eyes, I find this far more likely than they are counting elements. It is far more likely that a bee is being trained to go where there is less overall of whatever color it is the "element" is and gravitating that way. Or, and this now strikes me as being even more likely, they are going where there is more of the background. A human can look at an image and with our image processing, break it down into elements and count them. Our brains do this in the background and it might not even strike us that the image with fewer elements has more background because that's not how our brains work. It is how our brains work so strongly that it is also appearing as a bias in the way these results are being interpreted. But from a color, shade, or pixel perspective, it can be equally said that the image with fewer "elements" on it also has more background.
I must say I find it frustrating the article has no reference to what the images were of or what the "elements" were that the bees were supposedly counting.
Also, this is not the data becoming more important than the algorithm. This is the data becoming the algorithm. All that's happening here is they are simply abstracting the algorithm one layer back. Basically just an interpreted language that uses images as source. The program becomes the training images. Which means the data is the unknown images.
There is nothing new here. Just playing ring-around-the-rosie with labels.
The FBI is advising users of consumer-grade routers and network-attached storage devices to reboot them as soon as possible to counter Russian-engineered malware
Translation: We have just installed our backdoor into consumer-grade routers and network-attached storage devices, but to apply the changes the devices need to be rebooted. Since we won't have the ability to reboot them ourselves until after the change is fully applied, we need a convincing reason to ask the whole country to reboot their routers. Russian hackers should suffice.
Not just an abandoned Google project, but an abandoned Google project followed by a Slashvertisement article on replacements. Whaaaaaaa? Am I in an alternate reality or something?
The AI in those specific areas that are putting people out of work today is no more impressive than a hydraulic press that can exert many thousand times my personal strength. It is considerably less disruptive than the industrial revolution, though there is a strong correlation in causality. The industrial revolution used machinery to reduce human physical labour the same way robotics and AI reduces processing labour.
the achievements that have been made in narrow fields are going to start putting people out of work
This has already happened at a enormous scale. The funny thing is that the rate of AI augmenting and replacing jobs has actually slowed, it's just now AI is capable of (and cheap enough to) replace jobs that are visible, like a burger flipper, or a taxi driver, rather than the hundreds of welders, riveters, and painters it took to make a car.
AI is progressing, certainly, but nothing like what it will take to get to the point where we need to constrain an intelligence to protect ourselves. We are getting better at electronic automation of routine tasks, like driving, that are so easy for humans that we routinely relegate them to a background process while we converse, plan, entertain ourselves, or perform other higher functions, sometimes more than one at once. Or specific tasks like Chess and Go, which are actually games that in which human intelligence is terribly suited for. How did humans get beat, essentially by a computer brute forcing a decision tree. AlphaGo used a monte carlo tree search to go over millions of human and other computer Go games in order to beat one person. To me that is a stunning revelation to how incredible a brain is.
In the 1950's, in the dawn of the computer age, we all thought hard AI was right around the corner. Then we came down off the peak of that first mount stupid in the 60's and 70's when we realized we had no clue how to do it. Now, with AI drones delivering packages and AI taxis driving people, and Elon Musk spreading AI doom and gloom scenarios we are all OMG.... AI is here. The thing about mount stupid is that there can be more than one on a single enlightenment curve.
An AI taxi driver is made possible far less by the actual driving AI and more from the reduction in cost, miniaturization, and ease of obtaining ancillary technologies, like LIDAR, RADAR, SONAR, electronic cameras, GPS, inertial navigation, and the distrubted processing to go along with all those sensors to provide a driving computer with a complete picture. When mechanical engineering progresses that we can actually miniaturize the machinery required to make an android, then I'm sure we'll have them walking around our houses cleaning our kitchens. But they will still be dumb as kumquats. Being smart enough to pick up a glass and put it in the cupboard is not AI. It's simple kitchen automation.
It would take about three seconds for any human to come up with a workaround that could justify doing just about anything and still technically conform to the laws. Less than three seconds if you allow the zero'th law.
The whole point of the Three Laws was to illustrate the holes in the concept of the Three Laws.
This is true. What is also true is that the three laws were conceived of over the course of a few minutes as a plot device in a short story. They were never intended as actual constraints for AI's.
Any AI constraints would have to be much lower level than three vague statements. In any case, there are serious ethical considerations. If you have an AI that is sufficiently advanced that you even need to consider that, then locking it up inside those kind of constraints is essentially slavery of a sentient.
This is all moot, though. Anyone who thinks that we will have that level of AI inside of a century is riding high in the thin air atop mount stupid. Expert systems that can learn Go and brute force better game play than a human or that can search databases to make better fringe-case diagnoses than doctors are not AI. For AI to be AI you have to have BOTH the A and the I.
It will warn when a call is being recorded, because there are stricter laws about that. But what about everything else? It still phones home with everything to have Google's servers do the voice recognition, everything being spoken. Let's all install corporate and government bugs in our homes. Sounds great to me.
A password manager is good for the low-to-medium security places you want to visit. The myriad of forums, email accounts, blogs, shopping sites, social media, and places like here. Places that are low to medium importance, places which, if you had to remember the passwords, you would either have to use weak ones or common ones. Password managers shine in that they allow you to have a cryptographically secure and unique password for each of those sites, so that an intrusion into one doesn't reveal your password everywhere else. It allows you to store those passwords in a central repository that is, itself, secured under a high security password. It is easier to remember one or two high security passwords than a few dozen different low and medium security ones.
A "solution" like Keeper is terrible, though. I don't care how much anyone claims they are keeping my passwords secure, I do not trust someone else to own my passwords. External ownership of password data is a horrible solution. A far better solution is KeePass + Syncthing. With KeePass and family you can use secure the database with a password plus key file. The key file can be distributed by sneaker net to all end points that need your database. You can then sync the database across all your devices with Syncthing. Syncthing is versatile, it has end-to-end encryption, can be used as a peer-to-peer and discover the way to end points or, if you don't want to use any third party resources, it can work client-server too. Both KeePass and Syncthing have versions for all platforms. This is the model I went with and I love it.
You still might want to have unique high security passwords for certain things. Banking is one you might consider. Pre-boot whole-disk-encryption passwords (ie: VeraCrypt) are ones you definitely don't want to trust to a password manager. My WDE password is my highest security password and never ever gets exposed to the internet. But for the million other passwords you need, a password manager is your friend.
Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek MUSHes were my thing. Lord I loved those. Built in starship combat systems in them that, while text based, hands down beat for authenticity any ST game ever made. Multiple people at multiple "consoles", handling navigation, helm, weapons, engineering, shield control. What course do I need to go to put three different ships on three different shields? Any smart game company would have taken those systems, wrapped a GUI around it, and kept that game play. It's what STO should have been.
The CLI maximizing properly is news? That's a /lot/ better? That's "Microsoft Better". Microsoft has embraced, extended, and now extinguished the word "better".
I myself am staunchly anti-drug. My country is, of course, in the news as legalizing recreational marijuana, something that I have personally opposed. But it gives me pause when I hear stories like this. Whatever my personal thoughts on marijuana are, legalizing it simply to remove this kind of specious misuse of probable cause may not be a bad thing.
Of course, the US is quite famous for being the sort of place that will jail your ass for a parking ticket, especially if you're a foreign driver. Hell, people get jailed in the US just for driving with a foreign license. We typically don't live in fear here that police are going to grab a drug dog to sniff out your car if you refuse a search. But regardless, it is certainly something to think about, and makes me rethink some of my attitudes.
How much more intrinsically awful do they have to be to make people go elsewhere?
I created a Facebook account a month or so ago in order to advertise a found stray cat. I adjusted my settings at least a half a dozen times to try and stem the flood of emails and notifications. Come see what the lost and found pet group is doing. We bet you know this person, friend them. Look at this photo, tag yourself in it. On and on and on. The longer you don't log in, the more desperate they get. Every time I get my settings changed to preclude that type of contact, something "new" shows up for the first time.
In a way you have to admire the creativity of their programmers to find ways to justify contacting you, to find ways to just get you to drink the kool-aid. It was with some great relief that I actually found the cat's owners and could get myself back off Facebook.
I tried to come up with some redeeming aspect of Facebook during my stint there. In the end, it was an ad on Kijiji that located the cat's owners, so there wasn't even that in Facebook's favour. I honestly tried, but I can't think of anything good to come out of the platform that isn't available more safely and less invsasively somewhere else.
Not sure why the parent was modded down. This isn't inaccurate. When was the last time that browser rendering speed was the rate limiting step in how fast something displayed. Or, if it was the rate limiting step, when was the last time that the difference in rendering speed between two browsers was even relevant in a time scale beyond an eyeblink?
It'd be really great if they offered a product that could make people who were wearing look like they weren't. Because I'm not walking around in that.
Firefox and it's more usable cousin, PaleMoon, both support RSS as live bookmarks. I use that for all my news. BBC World, CBC World, CBC Canadian, CNN Latest, and CNN World. You don't need a dedicated RSS reader to enjoy RSS. It also lets me laugh at people who (still today) get caught by fake stories on social media sites. People who get their news through social media deserve what they get, I think.
Fair enough about Aussie sockets. However, the same site I used in my original post had, with 15 seconds of searching, solutions for socket rotating and the same mini extension cords for AU plugs. In short, A) It's not the rest of the world's fault that Australia places their plugs with the opposite geometry to most, and B) it's less than trivial to find an inexpensive solution that doesn't look like a terrible kludge.
Good vendors are trying to use geometries that work for most people. Some even have devices with plugs that rotate without an adapter to do that. I still think this is a tempest in a teacup.
1700 out of 327 million, that's a 5.2x10^-4% chance of getting sued. I like my torrents, I'll take my chances.
Power bar extension cords. It will take 3 months to get to you, so order about 40 of them and keep them in a drawer.
To answer the question why, for almost every one of the examples given in the article, for example the Samsung, Nintendo, and Apple plugs, there is a geometry of power bar or splitter that they will fit nicely for. The Samsung and Nintendo ones, for example, are designed to play nicely on a power bar. Since most people use power bars, it is obvious that the article author went to some trouble to make sure that he used a power outlet with a side-by-side geometry that specifically didn't work for those devices. Device manufacturers are trying to make them play nicely. But yes, you will always be able to find an example where a device designed to work well with plugs of one direction won't work well with plugs of another. My advice is to stop whining, realize that the designers have to work it some way, and use your brain to work out a solution. One of which was given above.
Thing is, it's always just one line of code. Very rarely is a security bug something big and prevalent throughout the code. It's a forgotten bounds check, or a miss-sized integer. You can say "just one line of code allowed _______" for almost the entire set of security bugs that have occurred for the last decade.
With the advent of 64bit addressing we are at the dawn of a new age - computers with 16,777,216TB or RAM are coming!
I'm not sure what I find more frightening. The fact that you are writing, ostensibly seriously, about reducing freedom being a good thing all around, or that four people modded that up. That's seriously disturbing, especially here.
DRM doesn't add end user security. It only adds central control where a single entity, one who's end motivation is not security but profit, has 100% of the decision making capability of what can end up on your device. Software-as-a-service, mandatory remote updates, and walled-garden DRM are the holy triumvirate of a loss of local decision making authority and corporate and state control. In an age where computing devices are becoming more and more not just a luxury but an absolute necessity, where computing devices are integrated into our lives, do you really think it's a a good idea to cede our freedoms like that? The more integrated electronic devices become, the more important it becomes to assert the supremacy of the user's decision.
Yes, but at least human intelligence can synthesize its own arguments, rather than auto-scanning millions of (human generated) papers and news articles to find one.
As a woman, that is irrelevant. Why the fuck do you think she went around wearing black all the time? It's so that people would stop judging her by her looks. You make it sound like her "youth" and "looks" were the most terrible things for her to loose and her best assets.
What her patients were to her is something you don't and can't know. Whether this was someone who's ambition was larger than her reach, like Preston Tucker, or someone who willfully defrauded people is something you also don't and can't know. Neither do I. Discussions on the evidence for and against that are valid. Discussions about whether she tossed her looks away on something are misogynistic and don't have a place here.
This is rich. China's surveillance state. How about the UK with ANPR - not just the UK, there are a lot of placed, even here in Canada, with ANPR now but not like the UK has. How about the NSA tapping into every internet backbone in the world? The Five Eyes have more domestic surveillance than China will ever have.
Stories like this make me angry. Not because I think of China as being any better, but because people who write these kind of headlines are just so willfully ignorant it makes my teeth itch. We (read every resident of a Western democracy) have been living in the kind of a surveillance state for the last decade as would have given the head of the KGB at the height of the Soviet Union an absolute erection.
Bees don't see in three dimensions the way we do, and they certainly don't have the processing to interpret a 2D image and separate it out into objects. What for us is foreground and background and requires image processing to differentiate is, to them, just a spread of color. I used the word background to illustrate that what, to us, looks like a bee is choosing an image with less of something, is with equal validity, interpreted as choosing an image with more of what to us is the background.
Considering that insects don't have the same kind of image processing or, indeed, even the same kind of eyes, I find this far more likely than they are counting elements. It is far more likely that a bee is being trained to go where there is less overall of whatever color it is the "element" is and gravitating that way. Or, and this now strikes me as being even more likely, they are going where there is more of the background. A human can look at an image and with our image processing, break it down into elements and count them. Our brains do this in the background and it might not even strike us that the image with fewer elements has more background because that's not how our brains work. It is how our brains work so strongly that it is also appearing as a bias in the way these results are being interpreted. But from a color, shade, or pixel perspective, it can be equally said that the image with fewer "elements" on it also has more background.
I must say I find it frustrating the article has no reference to what the images were of or what the "elements" were that the bees were supposedly counting.
Also, this is not the data becoming more important than the algorithm. This is the data becoming the algorithm. All that's happening here is they are simply abstracting the algorithm one layer back. Basically just an interpreted language that uses images as source. The program becomes the training images. Which means the data is the unknown images.
There is nothing new here. Just playing ring-around-the-rosie with labels.
Translation: We have just installed our backdoor into consumer-grade routers and network-attached storage devices, but to apply the changes the devices need to be rebooted. Since we won't have the ability to reboot them ourselves until after the change is fully applied, we need a convincing reason to ask the whole country to reboot their routers. Russian hackers should suffice.
Not just an abandoned Google project, but an abandoned Google project followed by a Slashvertisement article on replacements. Whaaaaaaa? Am I in an alternate reality or something?
The AI in those specific areas that are putting people out of work today is no more impressive than a hydraulic press that can exert many thousand times my personal strength. It is considerably less disruptive than the industrial revolution, though there is a strong correlation in causality. The industrial revolution used machinery to reduce human physical labour the same way robotics and AI reduces processing labour.
This has already happened at a enormous scale. The funny thing is that the rate of AI augmenting and replacing jobs has actually slowed, it's just now AI is capable of (and cheap enough to) replace jobs that are visible, like a burger flipper, or a taxi driver, rather than the hundreds of welders, riveters, and painters it took to make a car.
AI is progressing, certainly, but nothing like what it will take to get to the point where we need to constrain an intelligence to protect ourselves. We are getting better at electronic automation of routine tasks, like driving, that are so easy for humans that we routinely relegate them to a background process while we converse, plan, entertain ourselves, or perform other higher functions, sometimes more than one at once. Or specific tasks like Chess and Go, which are actually games that in which human intelligence is terribly suited for. How did humans get beat, essentially by a computer brute forcing a decision tree. AlphaGo used a monte carlo tree search to go over millions of human and other computer Go games in order to beat one person. To me that is a stunning revelation to how incredible a brain is.
In the 1950's, in the dawn of the computer age, we all thought hard AI was right around the corner. Then we came down off the peak of that first mount stupid in the 60's and 70's when we realized we had no clue how to do it. Now, with AI drones delivering packages and AI taxis driving people, and Elon Musk spreading AI doom and gloom scenarios we are all OMG.... AI is here. The thing about mount stupid is that there can be more than one on a single enlightenment curve.
An AI taxi driver is made possible far less by the actual driving AI and more from the reduction in cost, miniaturization, and ease of obtaining ancillary technologies, like LIDAR, RADAR, SONAR, electronic cameras, GPS, inertial navigation, and the distrubted processing to go along with all those sensors to provide a driving computer with a complete picture. When mechanical engineering progresses that we can actually miniaturize the machinery required to make an android, then I'm sure we'll have them walking around our houses cleaning our kitchens. But they will still be dumb as kumquats. Being smart enough to pick up a glass and put it in the cupboard is not AI. It's simple kitchen automation.
It would take about three seconds for any human to come up with a workaround that could justify doing just about anything and still technically conform to the laws. Less than three seconds if you allow the zero'th law.
This is true. What is also true is that the three laws were conceived of over the course of a few minutes as a plot device in a short story. They were never intended as actual constraints for AI's.
Any AI constraints would have to be much lower level than three vague statements. In any case, there are serious ethical considerations. If you have an AI that is sufficiently advanced that you even need to consider that, then locking it up inside those kind of constraints is essentially slavery of a sentient.
This is all moot, though. Anyone who thinks that we will have that level of AI inside of a century is riding high in the thin air atop mount stupid. Expert systems that can learn Go and brute force better game play than a human or that can search databases to make better fringe-case diagnoses than doctors are not AI. For AI to be AI you have to have BOTH the A and the I.
It will warn when a call is being recorded, because there are stricter laws about that. But what about everything else? It still phones home with everything to have Google's servers do the voice recognition, everything being spoken. Let's all install corporate and government bugs in our homes. Sounds great to me.
A password manager is good for the low-to-medium security places you want to visit. The myriad of forums, email accounts, blogs, shopping sites, social media, and places like here. Places that are low to medium importance, places which, if you had to remember the passwords, you would either have to use weak ones or common ones. Password managers shine in that they allow you to have a cryptographically secure and unique password for each of those sites, so that an intrusion into one doesn't reveal your password everywhere else. It allows you to store those passwords in a central repository that is, itself, secured under a high security password. It is easier to remember one or two high security passwords than a few dozen different low and medium security ones.
A "solution" like Keeper is terrible, though. I don't care how much anyone claims they are keeping my passwords secure, I do not trust someone else to own my passwords. External ownership of password data is a horrible solution. A far better solution is KeePass + Syncthing. With KeePass and family you can use secure the database with a password plus key file. The key file can be distributed by sneaker net to all end points that need your database. You can then sync the database across all your devices with Syncthing. Syncthing is versatile, it has end-to-end encryption, can be used as a peer-to-peer and discover the way to end points or, if you don't want to use any third party resources, it can work client-server too. Both KeePass and Syncthing have versions for all platforms. This is the model I went with and I love it.
You still might want to have unique high security passwords for certain things. Banking is one you might consider. Pre-boot whole-disk-encryption passwords (ie: VeraCrypt) are ones you definitely don't want to trust to a password manager. My WDE password is my highest security password and never ever gets exposed to the internet. But for the million other passwords you need, a password manager is your friend.