That actually makes security much, much worse. It’s training users to make authenticating part of their continuous routine, so when a random site that looks like the login page asks for their password you’re inclined to simply proceed, since diligence has an excessively big time cost.
Same goes for mfa. If validating every request, particularly if you use a service with push based mfa, takes too much effort then people just fulfill the request.

The ideal is that you only authenticate when it’s actually important, as an exceptional circumstance that makes the user pause and make sure things are good. Changing the bank account your pay gets sent to warrants an authentication.
“You’ve been using email for 20 minutes” doesn’t.

Realistically your session should probably be about the length of a workday with a little buffer for people who work a little longer to not end up with 99% of a session sitting open on their laptop. 9-10 hours should be fine.

You want the machine credentials that a laptop uses to talk to the mail server, or the hr software uses to talk to the doobips to have short credentials so if someone hacks the mail server they have a short window to use them, but that doesn’t impact user authentication requirements.

You don’t get to claim you care about trans kids while voting for a government that supports Israeli Hitler.

Says who? Did your way result in less genocide, or more?

democrats will try to stand behind marginalized communities as though we can math our way into ignoring US imperialism and murder

Who said anything about ignoring? It’s harm reduction. The lesser of two evils is still evil. But you know what? It’s less evil. If I have to pick between two dead Palestinians and a dead trans kid, or two dead Palestinians, I’ll pick the option with less dead kids 100% of the time.
Saying that we can’t do something to help people because it’s accepting something bad is the same argument conservatives use to argue against needle exchange programs or sex ed. No one should be using heroin, so we shouldn’t try to keep them from getting HIV.

This is what’s called having a semblance of moral principles.

I’m sure the children who were bombed are deeply appreciative of your intact principles.

Here’s an analogy: If I offer you a glass of lemonade with 50% urine and another glass with 10% urine, are you happy to drink the latter because of the difference?

Are you going to choose to drink the first because the situation is bullshit?

The suggestion that we should continue voting for the lesser evil given this trajectory fits the definition of insanity.

And leaning into it or doing nothing is just suicidal.

A lot of people view it differently.

We draw a line at literal genocide

To many people, you don’t. You require a candidate to be sufficiently anti-genocide in their addresses before you’ll vote for them, but you don’t view stopping an openly pro genocide politician as reason to vote for someone.

Seems like every time the GOP puts up some God-awful Republican, leftists and progressives are expected to get in line and vote for establishment milquetoast candidates.

Yes. Those shit candidates are at least less antithetical to our wishes. You don’t get “none of the above”. You get milquetoast or you get Hitler.

Instead of blaming the politicians for failing to represent their voter-base, you blame the voters for failing to support their politicians.

That’s the argument used against people who say people need to go to the movies to support the studios. The difference is that you will get one of the politicians, and in the US it’s one of two.

So pick: the mildest of diplomatic pressure against genocide while changing little of the structural support, or vocal encouragement with increased facilitation and also we bomb kids more, setup internment camps and try to kill trans kids.

What a lot of people see is people being given that choice and saying “they’re both the same to me”, and later indignantly saying how they’re against something they did literally nothing to stop and being angry at the people who didn’t sell it hard enough.

No one is owed your vote, and the Democratic party is really missing opportunities to appeal to a disgruntled leftward segment of the population, but it’s confounding to hear more vitriol at the party that didn’t do enough to sell not letting Hitler take office, than at the one that actually put him there, and usually coming from those that wouldn’t say no to Hitler without being sufficiently courted first.

If he had praised them and then did it, it simply would have made this joke not work.

does that question make you feel uncomfortable?

No? Seriously. You’re fishing for drama and cognitive dissonance where there just isn’t any.

The fuck is wrong with you? It’s making fun of him for deriding something and then immediately being angry that NATO, the useless thing we don’t need, didn’t help.

You’re fishing for drama by missing the point of “trump is a buffoon”.

Obviously fake launch picture. Have you ever noticed that our images of rocket launches increase in quality at nearly the exact same rate that our ability to simulate smoke on graphics cards increases?

It’s like they’re not even trying.

I believe the standard cup of coffee is defined as 8oz/250ml. With interview studies like that it’s harder to get exact measurements so they have big error bars and rely on having a standard reply to show the person how big a cup is.

Technically, what they end up concluding is that people who drink an amount of coffee they would describe to someone with a clipboard as 2-3 cups are less anxious. I’m willing to bet there’s a good correlation between between that and drinking between 400 and 750 mL of coffee a day as well. :P

Preservative refers to a substance that inhibits spoilage, decay, discoloration or other drops in quality.
It’s one way to increase shelf life.

A stabilizer isn’t a preservative because oil separation doesn’t impact quality, shelf life or anything like that.

I agree, and feel similarly about the inclusion of operation Northwoods.
It’s most prominently a horrifying plan that was rejected and remained classified, with the proposer being replaced shortly afterwards (it’s entirely possible that’s a coincidence).

Someone thinking of something horrible and then not doing it isn’t evidence that they would do something similar. There’s no particular reason to think they hid evidence because they admitted in the same deeply classified documents to doing far worse things.