Giooschi

TIL that Discover let's you change it. AFAIK there's no way in Gnome Software though

What is good is users having a choice, but Fedora Flatpaks are the default choice and users have no way to change it. Many don't even realize they are using them instead of the official ones from Flathub.

I'm also surprised "disk space usage" isn't an issue for many. I just cleared out dozens of GB of disk use by Rust, and I had to fix my CI/CD to clear itself properly.

For me it's just a matter or clearing the target directories used by older rust releases when I upgrade every 6 weeks. cargo-sweep is a godsend for this task

Well, but then you're basically just pushing the mutability onto the container

That's the point, when programming with immutable structures you always pass the mutability onto the enclosing structure.

It's a good strategy at times though. Like say you're working in a language where strings are immutable and you want a string you can change. You can wrap it in a list along the lines s=['foo'] and pass references to the list around instead. Then if you go s[0]='bar' at some point, all the references will now see ['bar'] instead.

A list is an antipattern here IMO. Just wrap it in some dedicated object (see e.g. Java's StringBuilder).

What you need here is not the stability in memory (i.e. of pointers, which you lose when you recreate an object) but instead just the stability of an identifier (e.g. the index into a list).

FYI there is an open source reimplementation of Flash from scratch called Ruffle that should solve all the security issues that Flash had. It runs on WASM so it's compatible with modern browsers. The New York Times is using it to bring back some old interactive/animated pages that relied on Flash.

You keep the recovery codes unexposed to the internet or obfuscated in some way, unlike your usual password.

How is a strong password I used exclusively for Bitwarden "exposed to the internet"? I do see the value of this for people that don't care about security and reuse the same password everywhere. In that case you would need something like phishing to expose the 2FA code or the recovery code, just a leak of the email-password combination from another website would not be enough. But what's the point if I'm already using a unique strong password specifically for Bitwarden?

yes, that's the whole point, to recover your account if you lose your MFA device. what are you even trying to say?

If you can login without the second factor then what's the point?

The fact that no widely used LLM is open source is not a good reason to change its meaning.

From the wikipedia link you posted:

Account recovery typically bypasses mobile-phone two-factor authentication

It also lists more advantages than disadvantages.

Why can't I keep my password in a secure location then?

Sounds like a second password then.