https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvVe1iKltAw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gINDDDo3do8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW1s84p17ec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cimqPFZvo4c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7My5IpEzVM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhL_asWgVTg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4-uq8cTF7o

That said...

This shows the limitations of relying on orthography as a proxy for phonetics, especially in a language like English where the spelling is such a disaster.

In my mind, "eoptoesw" and "quwyh" are not pronounceable as English.

And is "twutinn" pronounced too-tin or am I supposed to pronounce the "w" somehow? And if I remember my password is too-tin, how do I know it wasn't spelled tootin or twotin or twotinn or tutinn or tutin or...

At the very least, you should consider which consonant clusters can occur at the beginning, middle and end of words. They can't all occur everywhere. Then I'd try to eliminate as many homophones as possible. That might get you a lot closer to truly pronounceable and non-ambiguous passwords.

https://processing.org/tutorials/gettingstarted/

http://p5js.org/get-started/

I do not appreciate being tricked into running your exploit proof of concept, especially when you put content in it that I otherwise would not have clicked.

Once you understand why everything that's in a license is there, it's hard to imagine making it much shorter.

The Apache license does a good job of separating out the full text and a smaller boilerplate to put on each file, so that may be a good option.

"Internationalization" is 20 letters long, but it will be cracked in seconds by even a moderately sophisticated attacker. (zxcvbn gives it guesses_log10 of 4.34708)

The only way to measure password strength is to estimate the number of guesses necessary to crack the password. That means figuring out how many possible passwords could have been chosen for whatever method you are using to pick your password. In the case of "SophisticatedpwsRock!!", the method is something like: common adjective with a common transformation (capitalization), relatively common abbreviation, common noun with a common transformation, common punctuation, common punctuation. The number of possible passwords using that pattern is what you should be interested in, because that is how the attacked is going to get your password, not by trying every possible combination of characters.

For a simple example, the passwords "i like salt" and "you like pepper" should be considered equally strong (or equally weak as the case may be) since they follow the same pattern for generation. Any system of determining password strength which gives them significantly different strengths is misleading. In this case, if we followed the method the author used, we would say "you like pepper" is 26^4 times stronger, which is absurd. (zxcvbn by comparison gives them both almost the same rating: guesses_log10 of approximately 8.)

You cannot take a password picked by one method (common words) and score based on another method (characters). Passwords are only as strong as the easiest possible way to guess them. If you generate 8 random characters and they happen to spell "password", your password is still weak because it can be guessed by a much easier method than going through every combination of 8 characters.

Find the easiest way to approach guessing a password and see how many tries it would take using that method. That will give you the strength of the password. Counting characters will not.

B5s9z-Qx is 72^8

SophisticatedpwsRock!! is something like number_of_common_words^2 + 26^3 + 10^2. In other words, two common words, three lowercase letters and two symbols.

You can put each of these passwords in Dropbox's zxcvbn (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/209/zxcvbn/test/index.ht...) to see this more clearly.

They give a guesses_log10 of 8 for "B5s9z-Qx" and 12.76155 for "SophisticatedpwsRock!!". In other words, the latter is stronger, but it's not 72^14 times stronger. That's where the article messes up.

An attacker isn't going to crack "SophisticatedpwsRock!!" by trying 72^22 options. Just like an attacker isn't going to crack "password" by trying 72^8 or even 26^8 options. They're going to try 1000 or so options of super common passwords for "password" and some combination of dictionary words, abbreviations, symbols, common transformations, etc for "SophisticatedpwsRock!!". This makes the search space much, MUCH smaller than 72^22.

> Attackers use programs that try all words in a password dictionary, which is typically just a file of commonly used words in a given written language. These programs will even use combinations of these words, and permutations based on common replacements of letters with numbers or symbols

The author then goes on to say...

> Compare the password "B5s9z-Qx" with the password "SophisticatedpwsRock!!".... The first would be 72⁸, or 722,204,136,308,736 possible passwords. This would take a desktop PC roughly 3 days to crack. Compare that with our second password, which would be 72²² or 72,663,267,215,268,556,211,671,874,973,277,863,542,784, that’s a lot of possibilities.

This is a contradiction. A 10-letter word does not add as much entropy as 10 random characters. If you assume it does, you will cripple your security.

Do not follow this advice on passwords.

Here's an example from the site I linked before that I would consider completely comprehensible: http://dialectsarchive.com/russia-5

This, on the other hand, is probably pushing the limits the comprehensibility: http://dialectsarchive.com/russia-13

If you fall closer to the second example, then American English speakers may have trouble understanding you clearly, but if you fall closer to the first, then I can't see anyone having a legitimate problem understanding you.

But again, I'm just trying to address actual comprehensibility issues. I can't say whether YC will respond positively or negatively.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_the_Englis...

See also: http://dialectsarchive.com/

It's completely unrealistic in today's global world to expect everyone to speak with the same accent.

Talk.

One might make a choice based on mercury content, environmental friendliness, dietary restrictions (medical or philosophical), to support (or abstain from supporting) a particular industry, or something else entirely.

To allow fraud which can't be detected on the palate is to deny buyers their freedom to choose based on any criteria other than taste.

It is not up to the producer what criteria buyers use when choosing their purchases.

Also, if the consumer shouldn't care, the producer shouldn't either. If the producer thinks it shouldn't matter what it says on the label, well then... no harm in putting the right thing on the label, right? No? I guess it matters then.

Why vertical? Vertical landing is much more flexible. You can land on a barge at sea. You can land on the launchpad itself. You can land on a planet or moon with no atmosphere.

"NASA originally commissioned these posters for an exhibit at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor's Complex in 2009. As part of our Journey to Mars, these versions are now available to everyone online."

They're just freeing up the design of their decorations in case other people like them and want to use them.

Maybe C#, Scala, or TypeScript.

Note as well that Java 8 is a lot better for succinctness and functional programming than previous versions were.

https://www.producthunt.com/faq#my-product-was-submitted-by-...

Please try to find an answer yourself before asking for help.

It goes without saying that you should never provide credit card information of an unsecured connection.

Example: lium / les / seap / lim / mus / mis / sus / nus / suis / san / sois / taum / puos / sais / mip / soup / lis / neuk / soes / nal / sis / sit / piom / puot / saos / luk

This is rather unnatural, even in consonant heavy languages like the Slavic languages. See: http://www.personal.ceu.hu/students/97/Roman_Zakharii/polski...

Don't read this as disappointment though. This is really cool! Just wanted to point out this quirk.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."