Why are people still sucking XKCD's cock like it's

>>94043699
I forgot xkcd existed until I saw this thread.

Thanks op.

Did you have to pick one he's actually right on?

File: xkcd.png (11KB, 713x254px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 713x254px

LOL

>>94043843
Got loss?

XKCD appeals to the smug satisfaction 1st year college crowd. People who know theory, but haven't been tested in a real world situation. People who can't wait to say "Well, technically..." while actually not knowing what they are talking about.(See the strip about passwords) People so desperate to appear superior to someone else they will nit-pic about the smallest detail to scream "YOU'RE WRONG!" You generally only see these kinds of people on the internet, since they are shut-ins who lack social skills.

Notice just how many of the XKDC's strips revolve around the character acting awkward as fuck in a way no one would in public unless they had autism. The people sucking XKDC's dick are the SAME WAY. That's why the like it so much, they can identify with it.

>>94043699
>it's actually funny/humorous?
It is though. Maybe you have some growing up to do.

>>94043843
Wait, is this a real one?

>>94043699
Because people always need something to feel superior. If it is a part of thier faux-intelligent circlejerk they will praise it no matter how shit it is. It's why /pol/ likes Trump, why so many people praise Family Guy while shitting on TBBT despite them being equally shitty, why so many people still watch political satire etc.

File: 1500379020545.png (586KB, 1454x2074px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 1454x2074px

>>94043968
To be fair, Family Guy is a little less shitty. It's a solid log to TBBT's diarrhea.

>>94043699
It annoys me when someone says something I agree with in the most condescending way possible to a strawman

>>94043699
Ahh yesss I haven't smelled my own farts or sucked my own dick since yesterday. Please post more.

>>94043968
>why so many people praise Family Guy while sitting on TBBT
People praise Family Guy? Since when? Is this another case like the Star Wars prequels where people pretend to like something shitty because they grew up with it?

>>94043892
*nit-pìck

File: superloss.png (342KB, 800x1160px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 800x1160px

>>94043873

File: AngryClown.png (65KB, 269x260px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 269x260px

>>94044333
Sorry anon, but I left my carlos.jpg at home, and I'm at work right now. Will you accept an angry clown?

>reCAPTCHA is asking me to ID helicopters from videogames now
What the fuck google?

>>94043892
>XKCD appeals to shut-ins on the internet who wanna act like they're superior to everyone else through nit-picking
So 4chan?

>>94044716
No, 4chan isn't thin skinned enough for that crowd.

>>94044871
Have you not seen how easy it is to trigger people on this site?

File: funny.png (23KB, 595x160px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 595x160px

>>94044871

File: sarcasm detector.jpg (52KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x480px

>>94044871
Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

>>94043699
Why does he have to be a dick?

File: 1497243033250.webm (533KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 854x480px

>>94043699
I'm sorry but I think an important part of comedy shaudenfreude (i know i probably spelt that wrong but whatever). I don't want to see the smug character get his way. Maybe it would be better if he did something more clever with it where the guy who doesn't like the people taking pictures so that his argument subtly hinted at a hypocrisy and created a fallacy in his argument. I know it would be the equivalent to the those stupid straw man comics but it's less cringe than this.

I can kind of-ish appreciate the comic for not falling into the "you-can't-criticize-me-because-muh-self-deprecation" most webcomics like this fall into but you need to have the self insert occasionally make an ass of himself because I don't derive pleasure from seeing some guy constantly and arrogantly make fun of someone else with nothing bad happen to him every comic. It's why every good classic comedy like Tom & Jerry or Looney Tunes has Bugs or Jerry lose sometimes or why good action movies have their heroes be beaten down in some part to rise back up. I don't want to root for someone who looks down on other people, it's human nature. I could relate this to Bill Nye's new show exactly. They both feature an arrogant host that doesn't give his opponents space to rebutt. And, they are so smug that even if you agree with them, you start to hate them.

>>94044716
I don't see the appeal of this "le 4chan is for nerdz" meme anymore. This place has become a melting pot really. There are all kinds of people ranging from the bottle collector in /r9k/ to Chads posting their abs in /soc/.

>>94045726
How will anyone know you're smarter than them if you aren't as condescending as possible with any point you make or idea you present?

>>94043699
Virtue Signaling. It's become an SJW comic, so liking it is now a sign that you're a "good person".

>>94046467
>shaudenfreude
You spelled it almost, but not quite, right: it's SCHAdenfreude, not SHAUdenfreude.

>>94047459
>It's become an SJW comic,
Read it from the start. It has always been there.

File: duty_calls.png (14KB, 300x330px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x330px

>>94043892
>People so desperate to appear superior to someone else they will nit-pic about the smallest detail to scream "YOU'RE WRONG!" You generally only see these kinds of people on the internet, since they are shut-ins who lack social skills.
Conveniently, there's an XKCD for that too.

>>94043699
The thing about the moralizing is that it is, without exception, hypocritical.
Every single time he might, in theory, have a point, he undermines it with another one.
Take the OP
>you shouldn't concern yourself with what other people do to enjoy themselves
great message
>everyone who drinks beer is just pretending to like the taste so they can get intoxicated
So, other people enjoying things differently from you isn't real, apparently.

I would almost think it was a big meta-joke, but Randall Monroe isn't that clever.
John Campbell is, but that dude is just crazy.

>>94048403
My favorite one

>>94045726

>Hey anon, I don't like the way those guys enjoy their holiday
>How would you feel if someone dictated your preferences to you?

I don't think that qualifies as dickishness, unless being verbose counts as dickishness.

>>94046467

>I like to see the character make an ass of himself

He makes an ass out of himself like once every 5 strips.

>>94048403

>scientist/artist in the US doesn't want to vote Republican
>person in US is overly vocal about their political opinions

Pretty sure that's not new.

>>94048955

Or, maybe follow through with me on this one, his characters aren't 1 for 1 representations of real people?

People keep getting antsy because everytime a character has an opinion, that opinion must be the same as the creator. And if that opinion is shared, then every other opinion and mannerism must be shared.

Instead, most of his characters are comedically exxagerated. No, the dude with a hat isn't actually a real life dude who is the head of 14 different companies that sell nothing, the main character didn't actually cause the robot uprising, and the black haired woman doesn't actually destroy the hopes and dreams of scientists every other day.

And I'm genuinely surprised 'Every major is terrible' hasn't been brought up, because people like to whine how that smug asshole insulted their major lightly more than the one next to it.

Hell, when he pulsl a BBT and states that geology/engineering aren't sciences at all, but psychology somehow is a hard science, or something stupid like that, I'll join the bandwagon. But this entire thread is basically people being surprised webcomics aren't sophisticated allegories of the injustices of the world.

Does this board even read comics?

>>94049728
go away, Randy

>>94043699
There was a study a while ago that says your memory suffers when taking pictures of things. You don't remember the scene or experience as well as if you hadn't taken the picture.

>>94049728
I'm not saying the characters are the same characters, and you're a retard for thinking that.
I'm saying that the author has two different comics moralizing that have contradictory messages. It isn't that he's giving a character a voice that's different from his own opinions. Randall Monroe thinks you shouldn't be shitty to people taking pictures and being snobbish about "looking at the world through your phone" for enjoying a thing differently from you.
He also thinks that beer tastes bad and anyone who says otherwise is lying, thus meaning yeah sometimes people can be wrong about enjoying something.

>>94048955
>everyone who drinks beer is just pretending to like the taste so they can get intoxicated
That one always made me angry. I'd drink something a lot harder than beer if I just wanted to get drunk. Also the guy has probably only had shit beer like Bud Light and doesn't know that there's more out there.

>>94043699
>smart people seem to like <thing>
>I have an inflated sense self esteem and therefor think that I should also like <thing>
>but I don't
>thus I must loudly shit on <thing>
Every. Single. Time.

>>94048270
SJWs weren't a thing when the comic started.

Or they were, but they were keeping it on the downlow so we thought they were more reasonable liberals like the rest of us.

>>94048403
>voted for the functional human being
at this point if you're still behind trump there is no hope for you. Hillary wouldn't have been that good but jesus christ

>>94043699
Oh look, it's another "Stop liking what I don't like" episode. I hate these episodes.

>>94044064
People actually praise Family Guy? People with ADHD, presumably, since as far as I can tell it's aimed squarely at people with a 5 second attention span.

File: standards.png (24KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x283px

>Why are people still sucking XKCD's cock like it's actually funny/humorous?
I'll take shit you just made up for the sake of being argumentative to justify your insecurities for 1000.

The reason XKCD is so ubiquitous is because it is extremely reference-able. It's not about being "it's science humor so if I want to pretend to understand science I must laugh" it's about being extremely relevant to very many things.

>>94044363
holy fuck that's good

>>94054620
It's not hard to have a handful of semi funny and relevant strips when you churn out thousands of low effort stick drawings.

>>94054597
>People actually praise Family Guy?
That depends. Do you see "a solid log" as praise?

>>94051435
>SJWs weren't a thing when the comic started.

SJWs have been a thing in academia beginning in the 90s it is only in the last decade has their theory been put into practice.

Randall has been involved in and a part of acidemia before the comic.

File: those_not_present.png (38KB, 450x623px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 450x623px

>>94046467

I concur. However most of these comics aren't meant to be funny. You aren't supposed to laugh at it. Go see any comedy show now. No one laughs, the comic just says things that audience agrees with and gets applause for it. Proper jokes with a philosophy behind it, with a nice setup-punchline structure to it, are terribly old fashioned. As said before these comics are meant to inflate smug satisfaction for pseuds.

>>94055186
maybe you're just watching the wrong comics

I only hate photographs because I don't take 'em and everyone always has to stop while we're on a hike or offroad somewhere to get their damn phones out. I don't mind at all if someone photographs something while at rest

>>94055186
>that comic
ugh. this is a sentiment I've seen more than once mostly from hypocrites.
Sometimes you need to shittalk someone. Even people you like. Your job, as their friend in this situation, is to listen and help them vent. And you know what? yeah, it's possible they talk to other people about parts of your behavior that annoy them. And then they've blown off the steam of that annoyance. Clearly they're still interested in hanging around you, so that annoying thing isn't a dealbreaker.
I wonder, Randall Monroe, voice of reason, what precisely you think one should do if you're friends with a person but don't really like or get along with his other friends. Cut them off entirely because you can't say nice things about these entire other people they know? Simply bottle up all your feelings and let resentment of the presence of these other people you dislike fester until you can no longer stand the person you like either? Tell that person to their face they have shitty friends and are a shitty judge of character, thus hurting them emotionally possibly very deeply?

How are any of these scenarios remotely better than "periodically while talking with different people, relating how irritating you find those other people."

>>94055743

also you can shit talk something about someone and like them. people have good and bad qualities.

i reread the original comic and got even madder bc it's a negative thing about a friend of a friend. like at some point mind your own business?

and the complaints are too vague

File: people_are_stupid.png (46KB, 740x280px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 740x280px

oh the ironing

File: friends.png (127KB, 686x953px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 686x953px

>>94055858

xkcd is known for his insight into human behaviour

>>94047159
The appeal is, we don't have to deal with the usual throngs of witless, clueless normies outside.

Melting pots are a bad thing. Inclusivity is the single worst and most destructive flaw any community can have.

>>94054476
>functional

>>94055955
I don't even understand what kind of point he's trying to make. That guys who willingly put themselves in the friendzone are stupid? He's not wrong there, but I still can't help but dislike how it was presented.

>>94056135
I think he's trying to say that those guys who say "I'll do anything for you" are stupid and don't quite understand what a relationship is

>>94043892
Well now I gotta see the one about passwords

>>94043843
>female(male)
Hated him until now

>>94056135

It's supposed to be a dig against "nice guys" but he kind of ruins it by having the girl say, "I'm gonna date this jerk," and so you get plenty of comments on the xkcd forums saying shit like this:

>http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=31442&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p1052435

File: password_strength.png (91KB, 740x601px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 740x601px

>>94056310

name one (1) thing wrong with this comic

>>94056401
You're still presumably using the same password for every site unless you want to make up phrases for every place you have a login for.
Instead of trying to remember a bunch of random dumb words, just use a password manager and be done with it.

File: dumb voices.jpg (36KB, 600x693px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x693px

>>94043699

This is not entirely true.
While some people who are really reveling in the experience use photographs to supplement, share and reflect upon their experience, there are just as many, if not more people who snap a photo, throw it on the social media platform of choice, and move along, disinterested beyond a selfie collection.

I've seen so many people go to decent restaurants, snap a photo of their food and just wolf it down, or people milling about a state park more interested in browsing on their phones than the actual location. Not everyone taking photographs is enhancing their experience. I personally think it's kind of a waste, but fine, it is their own choice to do whatever they want. Doesn't mean I agree with the way people engage with the environment.

XKCD's author is really just a pretentious cock who wants to feel superior to people who want to feel superior to others.

>>94056484
I've always been meaning to start using a password manager but I never got around to it
what manager do you use? I assume they're mostly similar

>>94056754
I've been using KeePass 2 for years. Great program. I think other people who want access to their password database online use LastPass, but I question how secure that is.

Wait, people use programs for their passwords? I just keep mine secure in a USB that's never connected to my computer. I'll write it down if I have to.

>>94056484
Or just take your passwords from a foreign language. Or from a personal conlang.

>>94045726
He has aspergers. It's known as the asshole disease for a reason.

>>94043699
oh really randall?
other people are condesending assholes that like to feel high and mighty by shitting on people trying to live their lives?

>>94056901
>password database online
that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen
I'll look at KeePass though,tnaks

>>94056365
>oh me yarm
what

>>94049728
>scientist/artist
like a sartist?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sartist

>>94044363
I honestly forgot that this happened, and that it was supposed to be a big stink or something.

>>94056401
Tr0ub4dor&3 -> 11 characters. all the possible character combinations we can make with the total length of 11 characters would be 94^11. apply lg2 and you can claim it provides about 72 bits of entropy.

He proceeds to claim the actual entropy of Tr0ub4dor is much weaker because most people supposedly think of 'non-gibberish' word first and apply random conversion to the characters. Sure if attacker knows that the target used this kind of transformation it's trivial to implement dictionary attack against it.

But the same kind of logic can be applied to 'correct horse battery staple' password. I'm not sure how many different 'common words' would average English speaker come up with but let's just say it would be around 500~1000 words (it's generous figure I made up based on paper about minimum word requirement for English fluency). Attacker knows you will just chain the words so he can test all the different combinations of words. lg2(1000^4) = about 39 so it provides 39 bits of entropy.

anything smaller than 2^64 work factor should be deemed crackable in 2017.

Better password scheme would be mixture of both approach. chain the random common words. replace few characters with different symbol. insert random numbers/characters inside the password candidate. e.g) c0rr3cthors3b@tterysTaPl1e. This will force attacker to deal with all the possibilities.

File: security.png (26KB, 448x274px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 448x274px

>>94056401

File: 1499667008392.jpg (54KB, 551x423px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 551x423px

>>94043817
I doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, he's still a smug self-important douchebag who uses his outlet, not to make funny or witty commentary on a subject, but to give his opinions and arguments in the form of lazily drawn strawman comics. He's like Andrew Dobson if he spent his time on psuedo-intellectual subreddits.

>>94054826
So he's part of Infection Zero?

He's part of the vanguard?

>>94057793
>not multilayer encrypting
casuals.

>>94057764

The thing I'm most confused about is how is arriving at the entropy of the words itself. Is it supposed to be that we have 2^11 possible different common words? How did he derive that?

Also, both of these presume a dictionary hack as far as I can tell. In which case he is likely greatly overstating the difficulty of his final password.

>>94055743
If you weren't such a faggot, you'd talk shit about your friends to their face

>>94043699
replace the sunset with people taking cell phone videos at concerts and you'll get the opposite reaction.

>>94043817
no, that's why OP picked >>94043699. specifically because randall was wrong.

File: free_speech.png (52KB, 566x577px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 566x577px

:)

>>94061707
>The day Monroe came out of the closet and revealed his true self

>>94054476
i'm not >>94054826
but i disagree with human being.

also i think someone incompetent trying to do good is still better than someone skilled trying to do evil.

>>94054679
so penny arcade without gabe?

>>94056027
this. fuck filthy casuals.

fuck em til they're dead.

>>94056027
Damn right! All these loser states like "America" or "Britain" or "Rome" couldn't ever hope to hold a candle to the glorious uninclusive Japanese Empire!

>>94057764
You are replacing symbols with full words, that's not how bruteforcing works.
You are assuming the attacker somehow knows exactly how long the password is and doesn't have to start from 1 symbol and bruteforce his way up to 20+ symbols.

>>94061755
That comic seems to be advocating the time honoured philosophy of "Talk shit, get hit"

>>94057764
>c0rr3cthors3b@tterysTaPl1e
No, you moron.
Those numbers and characters are not random. They are entirely deterministic. You're just replacing letters with special characters that look like the letters, and a dictionary attack can easily be built to account for that. As has already been established.
Despite what CSI might have taught you, leetspeak is NOT an encryption scheme.

>>94056484
I just write them down.

>>94043699
>trying to take a picture of a thing makes me pay more attention to it.
Factually incorrect. When you get behind a camera it detaches you from the experience.

>>94063562
The problem is that the definition of the word "shit" has changed to "anything I don't like" for a lot of people and that's just not acceptable. The 3rd panel of that comic is just straight up wrong too.

>>94063688
c0rr3cthors3b@tterysTaPl1e
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~
the number 1 here is arbitrary character not a substitution for alphabet character l. How would attacker devise efficient bruteforce attack against this?

>>94062675
>You are replacing symbols with full words, that's not how bruteforcing works

clarify. I never talked about words. I tried my autistic version of counting entropy based on character length based on supposedly random 11 character password and 'word count' based on xkcd's naïve password scheme.

And I already said 'assuming attacker knows xkcd's password scheme'. If attacker doesn't know anything about it he should 'bruteforce' the entire possible character combination. I am specifically talking about dictionary attack variant here not pure 'bruteforce'.

>You are assuming the attacker somehow knows exactly how long the password is and doesn't have to start from 1 symbol and bruteforce his way up to 20+ symbols

I am not sure how you define symbol in this context. I'll assume you are talking about case 2 (xkcd's one)'s word count.

1000^5 is still greater than 1000^4 + 1000^3 + 1000^2 + 1000 right? lg2(1000^5) is still 52 and pretty doable. And I'm pretty sure most website has character limit that will prevent you from going further. What are you trying to prove about my layman's analysis?

>>94061491
>how did xkcd derived his version of entropy?
I have no idea but if I was asked about this kind of question in information theory class I would have answered like my own post.

>>94063906
*never talked about words -> never talked about symbols

File: actual xkcd strip.png (8KB, 390x266px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 390x266px

>>94055955

>>94056484
I write my passwords down with codewords for the sites they're used for that only I know. Pretty foolproof desu.

>>94063906
Your math only works if the attacker knows exactly how many words are used. And you didn't account for accidental misspellings (dissapoint vs. disappoint for example).

I haven't made an account anywhere for ages, but most places recommend 8-18 character passwords, so I'd assume 30+ characters to be the upper limit if a site even has a limit at all.

Symbols/Characters potato/potatoh.

>>94063906
>the number 1 here is arbitrary character not a substitution for alphabet character l. How would attacker devise efficient bruteforce attack against this?
>correct horse batterys tap lie

But I see what you mean, and I guess the thing to do here would be to do a brute-force attack on top of the dictionary search. Get a word combination, substitute letters for characters, and then start inserting other characters into the resulting mess? It'd be a tricky password to guess, I'm thinking, but only because the "four random words" algorithm is already fairly decent. It doesn't add THAT much entropy. Like, you'd be better off tacking two random characters to the end than squeezing one in the middle.
Also, the other character substitutions still seem a bit pointless, compared to the additional difficulty of remembering the bloody things.

>>94061491
2^11 is like 2000, right? The Cat in the Hat by Dr. Seuss uses about 250. The space of "common words" would be eight Cats in the Hat, which doesn't sound too unreasonable.

>>94056401
Many sites nowadays require at least one number or special character in your password.

File: funnyjunk.jpg (182KB, 360x1936px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 360x1936px

>>94057793
>inb4 >funnyjunk

>>94063562
Free speech is about more than just the legally guaranteed privilieges.
Of course every private enterprise and/or person can do whatever the fuck they want with their platform, but if you're a supporter of the PRINCIPLES of free speech like many media outlets claim to be, you shouldn't do the shit he describes in the third panel.

File: atheists.png (17KB, 373x330px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 373x330px

I feel like a lot of people who hate on xkcd are the exact people it makes fun of

>>94064227
it's still a good compromise not to let attacker make any assumption about password tho.

>>94064145
avg length of commonly used 1000 words was about 8 character. 8 times 5 equals 40 characters. I'd say 2^52 is still doable even in your scenario.

>accidental miss sbellings
how would user confirm his password if it was real mistake?

>Symbols/Chracters potato/potatoh

I have no idea what you are trying to prove anymore.

>>94064370
>PRINCIPLES of free speech
whatever these vaguely defined PRINCIPLES are, they're stupid.

restrictions on what you say are a good thing, visit /b/ for an example why

>>94064434
>vague
They're not that vague.
Take the law, apply those principles to private entitites and that's it.
And wether or not restricitons on speech are good is irrelevant, if you claim to support free speech, enforcing restrictions makes you a hypocrite.

>>94064434
>restrictions on what you say are a good thing
That's the opposite of free speech. Once liberalism becomes a minority opinion you'll be glad there is free speech laws

>>94063562
If you want to hit someone because of something they said you are irrational and incapable of dealing with anger

>>94064466
everyone's a hypocrite if you scrutinize everything they do and say with enough detail. Not an argument.

>>94064493
wanting to hit someone for saying certain things is actually very natural. Humans are primates, and wired to order themselves into rigid social heiarchies. If someone threatens your place in the heiarchy, either through speech or action, we are programmed to put them back in their place, either through speech or action, and the two are interchangable as far as our drives go.

File: connoisseur.png (68KB, 740x560px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 740x560px

There's one I like, which accurately describes any fandom you can think of.

>>94064517
>everyone's a hypocrite
No, you think everyone's a hypocrite because you yourself can't possibly imagining someone actually living up to their beliefs.

>>94064433
>accidental
For example ff you have a habit of spelling "sandwich" as "snadwich" and then correcting it, but forgetting to correct it while making the password. It's not hard for the user to guess where the mix up is and just go with it, instead of going through the hassle of changing pass/making another account.

>Symbols
Symbol and Character are pretty much synonymous in this context.
And I'm not really trying to prove anything, I'm just pointing out that your math only works under very specific conditions.

>>94064543
>it's natural therefore it's good

>>94064576
>habit of spelling sandwich as sandwich
what a special snowflake. Guess she will be safe from my attack for a while b4 I pull out full bruteforce search.

>your strawman is too specific
so was xkcd's argument against Tr0ub4dor&3.

I showed formal way of calculating entropy based on information theory for Tr0ub4dor&3 and showed possible dictionary attack scenario against 'correct horse battery staple'.

There's not that much of 'math' behind the latter one.

>>94055186
One of the go-to topics of conversation for me and my friends is "talk about what tools those people we know are." Sometimes we need to vent about how fucking stupid somebody's ex is, or how that kid who never shuts up about WWII weapons really needs to shut up about WWII weapons.
>>94061790
What about a moron deliberately doing shitty things because he feels like it?

>>94064566
>meanwhile on /tv/...

File: what the fuck am i reading.png (513KB, 426x645px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 426x645px

>>94064672
>habit
That was just an example. Are you seriously getting mad because I don't outright agree with you?

>strawman
wut
How the fuck is pointing out that your math only works under certain conditions a fallacy?
A dictionary attack is a waste of time unless you already know that the pass consists of multiple correct spelled words. If the pass happens to have case sensitivity you're looking at a potential double workload.

File: xkcd-a_bunch_of_rocks.png (199KB, 675x1603px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 675x1603px

I unironically like xkcd and used to follow it for the from about 350-1000. I used to read them before class in the morning Mon, Wed, and Fri. The banal observations about the world and Randal pointing out how out of place he feels among normies aren't that bad, but really I read it for the passing physics joke.

File: goncerned.jpg (117KB, 587x645px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 587x645px

>>94064780
I aint mad about your post. Why would I bother to answer you if I thought you were just being obtuse? I'm just confused AF what your point is.

XKCD said 'four random common words' in his comic. He didn't specify typo, additional special chracters or any other twist. So I just mentioned the possibility of dictionary attack based on chaining regular words. Just like XKCD hinted possible dictionary attack for 'Tr0ub4dor&3'. ''Tr0ub4dor&3"'s 'entropy' is still 72 bits not 28 bits. Attacker just has to do much less work than 2^72 if he knows password scheme.

>>94064567
naive

people don't base their actions on their beliefs, they base actions on their natural drives (often without realizing it) and then construct their beliefs in a way that matches their actions.

As soon as their drives push them into actions that conflict with their beliefs, people readily violate their beliefs then change their beliefs to match their actions better.

That's how beliefs are formed

>>94064903
My point is that your math is only valid under certain conditions.

Notice how it is NOT specified that an attacker knows that he just needs to find 4 different words.

Picture this:
You have to crack a password. You know nothing about the lenght/composition/anything else.
Do you throw everything at it until something breaks or do you whip out the dictionary bot, hoping your target only used words and no special symbols/numbers?

inb4
>i go with social engineering to gain a basis for educated guessing :^)

>>94064366
ree.

>>94065132
Say I got a db dump of reddit usernames and passwords. My aim is to recover as many passwords as possible in the shortest amount of time. For the simplicity's sake let's say it is not salted and I have a strong suspicion that most redditors are using xkcd's password scheme.

First thing I do would be fire up johntheripper and test combinarion of most common words. I'll limit my search space to maximum of 4 words. Total work factor would be 1000^4 + 1000^3 + 1000^2 + 1000. which is much smaller than 2^64.

Notice how it is NOT specified that an attacker knows that he just needs to test 'single obscure word out of dictionary and transform some characters and padd with two random characters' in xkcd's cartoon.

Picture this:
You have to crack a password. You know nothing about the length/composition/anything else.

The work factor of Tr0ub4dor&3 would be 2^72 in this scenario. it will be extremely hard if not impossible to finish computation within this century.

>>94065381
>no u!
Oh, you're just baiting for (You)s. Very well, carry on then.

>>94065479
how is this b8ing ?

File: 1492868834598.png (81KB, 566x577px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 566x577px

>>94061707

>>94061707
>>94063562
>>94065640

https://medium.com/@patkerr/why-i-think-xkcd-is-wrong-about-free-speech-ab9361e0be26

>>94054476
Neither Trump or Clinton are functional.
The Democrats fucked themselves hard.
It is a very bad thing that the only Democrat under 60 most people can name is no longer illegible to be President.

>>94065640
there's laws against killing though, so that edit makes no sense

>>94043699
I agree with the strawman here but I usually don't bother people about it.
I wouldn't take so much issue with people documenting their lives if it wasn't just to get atterntion on social media rather than cristalize their memories.

File: the rich get richer.png (2MB, 1719x915px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1719x915px

>>94055955
>tfw almost lived the white knight dream but that one time she gave in I was too drunk for my dick to function

>>94055743
>Tell that person to their face they have shitty friends and are a shitty judge of character, thus hurting them emotionally possibly very deeply?
You could simply tell that person that you don't get along with their friends and hang out with just them separately.

>>94049728
But that's not how he said it, it's more like
>I am a obvious strawman for what Randall doesn't like, in this instance being a person who doesn't like it when people use technology to record an event they wish to see at a later date
>I am Randall's voice brought into comic form, and not only am I going to prove you completely wrong, I am also going to write you as a simpering buffoon that cannot finish a sentence in my presence, as all conversations, as we know, are one-sided arguments that cannot be refuted upon once I have stated my piece. That or I'm socially awkward, and I know that's not true, after all I managed to work at NASA or something!
Randall, based on all the comics that are just like this one, has a really high opinion of himself, and expects everybody to agree with his opinions or end up getting written in as the asshole in his comic. Even if what he's saying is true, it's the most dickish way of saying it without telling the guy to fuck off and fucking his girlfriend in front of him.

File: 1500159882913.jpg (20KB, 343x347px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 343x347px

>>94064965
Not you though

You've risen above such petty concerns I assume. You've got it all figured out.

Congratulations anon. You've done it. You've solved the riddle that is man. You can ascend now.

>>94054476
i'm a liberal and trump has done a number of things that i support.

he's not pushed an anti gun platform (yet)

he backed out of the tpp and paris accords, both of which would have left american taxpayers and american workers beholden to foreign corporations

and if betsy devos succeeds in getting rid of title 9 then she will have accomplished at least one good thing in her term

also, electing trump has caused the sjws to reevaluate their stupid culty behavior, at least a little bit.


with that said, just yesterday i heard the attorney general supporting civil forfeiture from suspects, as well as bipartisan support for aipac's bill to punish anyone who suggests a boycott of isreal with a minimum 250k fine and a 20 year sentence. granted, i could just as easily blame the democrats for the latter one but i don't hear trumpkins shouting outrage at this attack on free speech (yes, i know true right wingers don't give a shit about freedom of speech but still...) i really don't know what the fuck aipac is thinking but i really hope both of these proposals fail.

>>94067699
>i'm a liberal and
should have said "but" because everything in your post is pretty hard right

>>94061386
That sounds like a fancy way of saying "Beat him multiple times with this $5 wrench until he tells you all the passwords."

>>94043817
>taking a picture of someone without their permission
>right

>>94067699
>also, electing trump has caused the sjws to reevaluate their stupid culty behavior, at least a little bit.

has it really

>>94067741
this is why america is raping itself to death. no political plurality.

>>94064566
This is actually really good.

File: 1400946756662.png (234KB, 403x435px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 403x435px

>>94054476
Trump said that if I voted for Hillary I'll get an administration swamped with controversy and invesitgations that they won't be able to get anything done because people won't stop talking about emails.

Guess he was right.

>>94043964
>>94056324
Sure is summer over here...

>>94064678
>>94055743
>dabbling in rumors and gossip is okay
women detected.