why does one of the most commonly used cloud services, office 365, limit passwords to just 16 characters?
Because the Microsoft Office 365 team are a bunch of idiots, presumably.
They are web programmers. 'Nuff said.
2029 posts • joined 9 Dec 2009
I think it's just like that; he speaks with parenthesis included (even with nested parenthesis (even nested, nested parenthesis) (a great talent (a huge talent), the best there is (the Donald is great (the best) at it)).
What you are saying is, he speaks with a Lisp.
I would also accept having him strung up by his balls & beaten like a pinata. That goes for every C-level exec of a corporation, head of a governmental department, or public agency that puts profits above people. Fire 1K workers so the big boss can have another gold plated toilet in his billion dollar yacht? Fuck you. Axe the retirement system for veterans so your political cronies can pretend to be Scrooge McDuck in their swimming pools full of money? Fuck you. Shut down the government because you're throwing a tantrum? Fuck you. Being a blatant sock puppet arsehole for your corporate masters while employed as a Public Servant? FUCK. YOU.
And a big FUCK YOU! to the (at the time of this writing) 5 corporate shill asslickers that downvoted this post!
So if I don't use MS Office at all in Microsoft's logic I barely pass as a human?
Not at all. It means you are generally much smarter that the average Micros~1 fanboi/drone, with highly developed analysis skills (yes, with an 's', dammit!) and the capability of employing deductive reasoning.
If by "even worse" you mean "turned a company in decline into the most valuable company on the planet again (without breaking the law this time)". Then yeah.
No, I mean taking a company that had trouble creating a solid, stable, working program (like Windows, or Word, for example...you know, their flagship money-makers), and turning them into programs that cannot even be properly updated, then cramming said broken updates down the throat of their captives. For example. That's what I mean by "even worse".
And the "most valuable company on the planet"?!? Shirley, you jest.
And if you're by the faintest chance not jesting, then you're simply delusional, and I cannot help you. Just keep drinking that Kool-Aid....
Tom, I'll assume for the time being that you are from the Left side of the pond, and that your statement is meant to be pedantic for the Right Pondians in the audience.
In the late 18th Century, you might indeed have been right, and that was one of the justifications (note I did not say 'reasons') for the Electoral College. In the 21st Century, this just doesn't pass the smell test. Per this Wikipedia article, the top 5 most populous states are: California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania (just edging out Illinois). There is no way that these five states could single handedly elect a president via the Electoral College. For one, look at the math(s). It takes 270 electoral votes to elect a President; these 5 states hold 171 Electors. They are 100 short; it would take the top 12 states to get to that magic number. And even then, the top 12 states (add, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, New Jersey and Virginia to the above list) still could not elect the President, because there is no way in God's Green Earth that these 12 states would all deliver all their Electors for the same candidate (unless, of course, the Electors were all under duress -- but I digress). New York and Texas delivering all their electors for the same person?!? Shirley, you jest!
Those functional programming turbonerds that downtalk every other language in existence because it "allows you to write bad code" while X functional language doesnt.
Next time you run into one of these turbonerds1, ask them if they've seen any of the gawd-awful (and buggy) SQL that is floating around the intertubes.
1 "Turbonerds". Love it! Can I use it?
[...] but if there is some domain knowledge required in order to understand why an algorithm is the way it is then no amount of simplification is going to help. [Emphasis added]
Yes! This!! Naturally, using well-named variables should be automatic to any proper practitioner of the craft1, but variable names often cannot (and more often do not) convey the why of the program. Why did you choose to use this algorithm, or use this library, or use this odd, outside-the-lines coding technique? Cleverly-named variables won't convey that kind of information.
1Yet ,we all know how likely it is to find these things in your average program...
And COBOL was (is! surprisingly enough. COBOL.net is a real thing) great for what it was designed for: file processing. Anything else, and... eurgh.
Back in the day, I knew someone who wrote a printer driver in COBOL, because...well, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It worked...ish. But as you say...eurgh!
Facebook has cut off independent reviewers of political ads that run on its platform, citing security concerns.
I've noticed that this rubric of "security" (an updated derivative of "Won't somebody think of the cheeeldren!") is starting to permeate the lexicon of large, fatass corporations whose primary business is productizing and monetizing its users' data. This is being used to make some of its less transparent operations more palatable to the illiterati, because, well, who isn't against "improving" security, right?
I call bullshit. Any company that hides something under the blanket of "security concerns" should have to pass the same smell test that Micros~1 did (and still must) when it starts spouting its classic BS line about "improving security".
Hey! There is a pattern here...it goes back even farther that I thought!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019