Emojis in passwords would both make passwords more secure and easier to remember for some people. The drawback is that they're very hard to enter in normal, physical keyboards.
Another problem that's easy to overlook until it isn't is entering your password in front of people - if you're selecting stuff on screen then that's a lot more likely to be seen than typing on the keyboard.
> If password is short, it's still gonna be quick to crack
Only if the cracker is brute-forcing instead of using common passwords mixed with dictionary words, and if the brute-forcer thought to implement emojis. Given how many emojis there are, it would by psychotic to include them in a brute-force attack unless you already know the person used emojis.
There are ~1800 widely supported emojis. That blows out the search space. There are 10^19 possible passwords for a 6 character alphanum+emoji, the same as a 10 character password using just alphanum + simple keyboard symbols.
But what's the actual distribution of usage of emoji? I'm guessing there is a small-ish set that people actually use, just like there is a small-ish set of words that people will pick from if you ask them to pick a passphrase containing "random" words.
Unless you pick the passphrase for them, you're not really gaining the advantage of the search space size.
Except people will probably stick to a few common ones and do a pattern. Love eyes x2 heart heart, thumbs up -- just like people don't pick words uniformly.
If they're randomly generated, are they still going to be easy to remember? User-chosen emoji passwords would probably be even weaker than user-chosen passphrases.
As did the New York Times. Most statistical models were biased because the data was biased. That doesn't change my perception of the entire organization (though I understand if others do change theirs.)
It's really strange how new messages appear at the top of the conversation instead of at the bottom. It's kind of unintuitive.
It would also be nice that with the browser at 100%, the chat window was big enough to reach the "new message" box. There's a big empty gap that's kind of awkward.
Edit-- Also, pressing escape twice either doesn't work for me or there's no feedback to confirm that I disconnected successfully.
I think Kitchener-Waterloo (~300k people) punches above its weight. It definitely feels like a small city, but there are still things to do. Plus Toronto is 1.5 hours away on a Greyhound bus for about $15. ;)
Yeah, and that's why we shouldn't be impressed that it can make a phone call. That's expected. But on the intro video for a new phone OS they're 'unveiling' I want to see what's new / different about it. I assume it can make calls.
This looks like a glorified browser for games that are already playable on browser. It doesn't seem to be optimized for gaming at all (it even feels laggier). Is the purpose of it just to increase discoverability of Facebook games?
This is disappointing. When I read Facebook bought Gameroom.com a couple weeks ago, I expected something related to their VR platform. Not this.
Games are less playable in the browser now than they were 2 years ago though. Unity webplayer and Flash are both getting blocked by browsers now. I imagine this Gameroom app supports both of those.
It's even weirder that they've launched this platform completely separate from the Oculus platform. I understand the marketing reasons for this. Oculus has to not require a Facebook login, while Gameroom does, Oculus is VR only, etc. But you'd think maybe Gameroom could have Oculus support without too much blow back from Reddit?
Facebook seems to be following the time honored big tech company tradition of having different business units completely reinvent the wheel working on the same set of features in parallel for no good reason.
I like the following quote by Neil Gaiman about 50 Shades and other best-sellers:
"If ever you’re curious, go and look at the annual bestseller lists for years gone by. You’ll find a lot of books that sold an unbelievable number of copies when they were fashionable. I’m sure The Revolt of Mamie Stover also sold more books than Ray Bradbury will ever have sold in his whole life in its year. Have you read it? Heard of it? Off the top of my head, Peyton Place in its year, or The Gospel According to Peanuts, or The Ginger Man, or Jonathan Livingstone Seagull in their years undoubtedly outsold all of Ray Bradbury. But when their day is done, mostly those kind of books drift back into the void, and go, if not out of print, then back into a world where nobody quite knows why they sold that many copies any more. (Do you know who Gilbert Patten was? He sold about 500 million books in his lifetime…)
Meanwhile, Ray Bradbury sold quite a lot of books in 1956, and quite a lot of books in 2006 (Fahrenheit 451 alone has sold over 5 million copies), and he found his readers for his books and his stories in every year. And I’ll wager a hundred years from now he’ll still be read…
So, honestly, I wouldn’t fret, if I were you.
Nothing’s changed. Some books are, often inexplicably, bestsellers. That’s been the way of it for a hundred and fifty years or more.
Read the books you love, tell people about authors you like, and don’t worry about it." [1]
