Anemia

Couldn't it just be that they're using something like bcrypt which won't take any chars above its limit into account (knowing that there's a limit will pretty much never matter to a user but why obscure the fact)? What does it even mean to store it reversibly, just because they have a char limit doesn't mean they are encrypting the password, could just be some frontend shenannigans as well.

Better yet, being able to search a walkthrough. Usually you know parts of the solution and don't have to read everything.

Try being vegan looking for recipes online, not only do you get the rambling texts with 30 massive images before they actually get to the recipe like every recipe blog these days. The vegan ones also seem to make it a point to get as many weird/rare ingredients as possible into the recipe, (like god damn I just wanted to make a simple chocolate cake, how could you possibly stretch that to 20 ingredients, 9 of which i've never even heard about?)

The best solutions are almost always the boring ones.

It's such a frustrating argument as well. People have many different reasons not to want to share portions of themselves (their data) with others (the state/ISP/etc). I fail to see how "i have nothing to hide" could fight of all the possible reasons to want privacy, if you have nothing to hide then I assume you have no intimate communication with a partner/similar that you wouldn't mind sharing with the world. I just listed some of the main intrinsic and instrumental reasons to want privacy but I imagine that there are many more.

Intrinsic reasons to want privacy (all of these can also to the future, you may not have a stalker today but what about tomorrow?)

• Fear of current state prosecution
• Not wanting non intended people to see your private content
• Fear of stalkers/personal enemies/scammers
• Fear of attacks by some group
• Fear of reduction/removal of services by some company or service provider
• Fear of stigmatisation based on unpopular opinions

Instrumental reasons to want privacy (the future is also applicable to these, next election cycle maybe your government decides to change the company handling all your health related documents)

• Not trusting state/service provider to keep your data safe
• Not trusting state/service provider to not sell or otherwise share your data with other parties

I've configured it so that when i open a new tab it will by default open the url to my calendar. It does not select the url in the navigation bar, so if i want to input my own url i first need to select the calendar-url so that my inputs deletes the existing text. I do think that the custom url new-tab is an extension though so that doesn't really help my case (not at the computer so can't check).

I dragged my feet for a long time before switching from chrome to firefox a year or two ago for that exact reason. When I actually did switch it was practically seamless, I haven't run in to any website that has been problematic on firefox but not on chrome. The only thing i dislike is that i haven't found a way to have a custom newtab-page but still be able to directly input text to the navbar, so i always have to do ctrl+t -> ctrl-a.

NP skulle kunna vara en baseline. Till exempel så skulle det kunna vara så att skolan i helhet måste ligga inom ett visst antal procent ifrån samma betygssnitt som de skrivit på NP, och om skolan inte följer detta så triggar det automatisk tillsyn. Sen blir det upp till skolan hur de själva väljer att uppfylla de kraven, men över ett tillräckligt stort antal elever så är ju sannolikheten väldigt låg att alla skulle haft en "dålig dag".

It's certainly a harsher punishment than normal banning, but I don't see why it would be that different. Assuming you have a user posting something bannable and always sign it with their initials. But whenever they are banned they come back under a different name and continue to do bannable offenses. That is a good reason for shadowbanning imo.

Though any first offense should always be normal-banned imo.