Let me know if you find out lol

Okay that’s one. But there gotta be like… what, 3 more tops?

H e m p

Leaf broth

You could argue that American football plays quite a bit like rugby football, Gaelic football, and Aussie Rules football though. Association football is the odd one that decided you literally can’t use your hands oh except the keeper and oh I guess throw-ins? Every other form of football involves handling the ball with your hands, including the older forms from which modern ones descended.

I think you’re looking at it through a modernist lens; a lens through which the role of horses is virtually nonexistent, and you have exposure to a wide range of international sports with different lineages. Basketball and handball are much newer than the concept of “football,” and share no history with it, so it’s no surprise that they didn’t wind up being called “football.”

The claim isn’t that everything played on foot should be called football (that would be a weird criterion, and not useful). The claim is that the group of sports called football are so called because they are played on foot, not because players are only allowed to use their feet.

It’s not a super widespread idea, but Wikipedia discusses it, so it’s at least not just something I made up.

Of course, they are very important!

Thank you! There are two wolves in my heart: One favors being snobby toward the way Americans say things. The other favors being pedantic about term specificity.

“Soccer” causes these wolves to fight.

“Football” is a term used to describe a wide range of field sports played on foot, as opposed to on horseback. It has nothing to do with whether or not you handle the ball with your hands.

Well it certainly gave us alot to chew on.

Could you be more specific? Do you mean rugby football? Gridiron football? Gaelic football?

Oh! Maybe you meant association football. But that’s kind of long-- maybe we can just say “asoc football” to save time.

Actually now that I think of it, people just say “rugby” instead of “rugby football,” so maybe we can drop the “football” part as well, and just say “asoc.”

There we go, now we have a nice, unambiguous way to refer to the style of football that we’re interested in. Now I just hope the school children don’t mess it up the way they did with rugby, calling it “rugger…”

Venn diagram of Lemmy users and Mary Poppins stans barely touching.

If that works, you should try it with a product that you aren’t interested in too and compare the results.

Sound was quite atrocious, downvoted 👎

No no it’s fine it’s just that if we want people to behave and think in certain ways, we can shape that by controlling what language they have available to express certain fuck I’m doing it too, aren’t I?

What are some shortcomings in your view?

Mom can we have Linux?

No

sudo Mom can we have Linux?

Dee goo ah wah buh boouh

Translation: If you don’t rock and stone, you ain’t coming home

And it’s so weird that almost everyone seems to do it that way. I can’t think of a reason other than complacency of a non-golden path interaction.

There’s a type of attack where you put absurdly large inputs into fields that perform expensive calculations, like password hashing… So imagine 100 computers spamming the login form with the whole Bee Movie script 10x per second (which would be a pretty small attack)… Cheap to send, expensive to process. As others mention, the storage should be cheap, because the hashed version of the password is all the same length.

So it makes sense for apps to have SOME upper limit… But it should be like 64 or 100 or 128 or 500 or something. 12 or 16 or 20 is just obnoxious.

It’s not that it does NOTHING to improve security… An 8-character password with more options per character IS more complex (and in that sense, secure) than one with fewer.

It’s just that adding more characters (e.g. in a passphrase, as per your example) also increases complexity, and is more usable.