I tried to edit the 'highlights' into a single image, the top is the description of the PR, the middle is a comment replying to another comment
sus
joined 1 year ago
the direct chain I can see is
"can you string words to form a valid RSA key"
"I would hope so, [xkcd about password strength]"
"words are the least secure way to generate random bytes"
"Good luck remembering random bytes. That infographic is about memorable passwords."
"You memorize your RSA keys?"
so between comments 2 and 3 and 4 I'd say it soundly went past the handcrafted RSA key stuff.
I think this specific chain of replies is talking about that actually.. though it is a pretty big tangent from the original post
if you know there are exactly two additional characters
this is pretty much irrelevant, as the amount of passwords with n+1 random characters is going to be exponentially higher than ones with n random characters. Any decent password cracker is going to try the 30x smaller set before doing the bigger set
and you know they are at the end of the string
that knowledge is worth like 2 bits at most, unless the characters are in the middle of a word which is probably even harder to remember
if you know there are exactly two additional characters and you know they are at the end of the string, the first number is really slightly bigger (like 11 times)
even if you assume the random characters are chosen from a large set, say 256 characters, you'd still get the 4-word one as over 50 times more. Far more likely is that it's a regular human following one of those "you must have x numbers and y special characters" rules which would reduce it to something like 1234567890!?<^>@$%&+-() which is going to be less than 30 characters
and even if they end up roughly equal in quessing difficulty, it is still far easier to remember the 4 random words
you memorize the password required to decrypt whatever container your RSA key is in. Hopefully.
and some people will try to just hold a key down until it reaches the length limit.. which is an even worse way to generate a password of that length
this assumes a dictionary is used. Otherwise the entropy would be 117 bits or more. The only problem is some people may fail to use actually uniformly random words drawn from a large enough set of words (okay, and you should also use a password manager for the most part)
step 1. Try presets that have already been calibrated to some target for those specific headphones. There are hundreds to thousands of headphones included in the bigger preset collections.
step 2. tweak the EQ values by yourself by ear if you want to. There is no objectively best sound, so it comes down to your personal preference anyways, and you can't measure that in any practical way (and I'd say neither can the companies making expensive headphones, which is why there are hundreds of different headphones both cheap and expensive with different frequency responses and more getting made all the time)
realistically, the linux foundation gets all its funding from corporations who have interests in servers, android and embedded. So all the funding goes to those things and not to the linux desktop.
"tonality characteristics" and "soundstage" are subjective words that have no concrete definition. Other similar words are "grain", "speed", "separation", "resolution". They can't be objectively measured, and are most likely just another function of frequency response.
The differences between headphones are most likely your ear having a different shape from the reference ear used to make the eq targets, leading to a different final perceived frequency response. (or limitations in the accuracy of the measurements, most targets I believe are "smoothed")
I'm going to trust the (claimed, who knows, maybe oratory1990 is a liar) consensus of audio engineers over your anecdotes. As I said there are plenty of audiophiles whose "lived experience" is that $2000 golden cables are necessary and that they can tell the difference between any $200 and $1000 DAC (even though a decent DAC in that price range already has a dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratio of 100-120dB which should be totally indistinguishable from perfectly clear audio for all humans
personally the only decent-ish headphones I have are DT 880 600 ohm and a JBL 760NC. The latter kind of fills all the boxes of being a wireless headphone and has poor reviews and a poor default sound profile. But after EQing both, I can't really notice any difference except when very carefully doing side-to-side comparisons (besides the much better comfort of around-ears vs over-ear).
In contrast I believe I can tell, with some songs, the difference between 320kbps mp3 and flac (just 44.1khz), but even there I'm not sure it's not just placebo
Usability is kind of secondary, android should have jamesDSP and the venn diagram of people that know the best headphones to buy (instead of beats by dre) and who can setup an EQ (install an app and follow written instructions) should have a lot of overlap
I will say though that more expensive headphones are probably going to last longer and are probably much more comfortable
more accurately, average person has a higher tolerance for bullshit than for spending many hours learning something new or spending potentially years applying for citizenship in another country
is-number is a one-line function. (though it's debatable if a function that complex should be compressed to one line)
You may have heard of a similar if more extreme "microdependency" called is-even. When you use an NPM package, you also need all the dependencies of that package, and the dependencies of those dependencies recursively. Each package has some overhead, eventually leading to this moment in time.