Sometimes I wonder if T&C updates are just made to remind you you're in their system. I don't read them (except for work stuff, of course) so I probably wouldn't ever notice if anything actually changed.
There are some CF SWEs in Australia. But few teams are willing to work across 3 timezones. The SRE teams might be more open to hiring, as there's a big SRE presence in Singapore.
Hammers are used for theft, as well. Even if Nintendo's business would benefit from emulators not existing[1], it doesn't mean we should ban emulators (or create laws which allow multinationals to sue open source emulator projects out of existence).
I don't think Nintendo's argument that Yuzu's primary use case is piracy holds any merit. Nintendo is quite literally a part of the reason why people pirate Switch games they already own.
What do you have to do to legally play Switch games on Yuzu? Oh, idk...
* Jailbreak your Switch.
* Dump your decryption keys.
* Dump your games.
* Never update your Switch ever again.
* Pray Nintendo doesn't shove an update down your throat.
* Void your warranty.
* Hope Nintendo won't brick your Switch.
How many people would use Yuzu legally if it weren't for Nintendo's anti-consumer practices? Nintendo can't just argue that Yuzu is made for piracy when Nintendo pushes people to piracy who legally own the Switch and Switch games in my opinion.
I feel like you’re undermining your own argument here. Yes, it’s exceedingly complex to “legally” play your own games on Yuzu. This bolsters the argument that Yuzu is primarily targeting users of pirated content, because essentially no one would bother doing all those steps you listed.
Of course nobody dumps their own games, but it's really common for people who already own the games to download a pirated copy to play on emulator. That's how I use Yuzu and Citra (which is especially great, so I don't have to squint at the crappy 3DS screens).
Technically illegal, technically "piracy"? Probably! But morally, who cares.
I think MyFedora is suggesting that even if Yuzu's primary usecase is piracy, that's because it's so difficult to use Yuzu in the legit manner (due to Nintendo's DRM on the console/game you own).
I feel like it would be a lot more straightforward if people just came out and said that they think piracy should be legal.
Currently we have this weird mealy-mouthed roundabout discussions where people act ever so outraged at the idea that a tool or site is primarily used for piracy when anyone who's not hopelessly naïve recognizes that that's in fact what they're used for.
At best we get comments like yours that are anti-DRM...but still dance around the fact that being anti-DRM is being pro-piracy.
This isn't even about whether I support piracy. I just think it's oddly disingenuous to both treat piracy as a moral/legal wrong (else why the need to defend/excuse Yuzu's clear involvement?) and be shocked and outraged when an entity whose works have been pirated does something about it.
> I feel like it would be a lot more straightforward if people just came out and said that they think piracy should be legal.
I don't think Yuzu advocates are actually advocating piracy.
I think they think an illegal use of a tool should not mean the tool is banned.
"Emulators don't pirate games, pirates do."
I think our echo chamber will surface views amenable to this viewpoint. Emulation news is quite literally hacker news.
But we deceive ourselves with such a bubble, when the outside world doesn't lean our way. Downplaying piracy usage doesn't do us any favours when trying to build an accurate model.
I think you've phrased my point better than I did. What I meant was that to advocate for software like Yuzu to exist necessarily entails defending piracy, because outside of a tech echo chamber almost nobody is interested in an emulator existing for emulation's sake.
To illustrate what I mean...if credible stats were somehow collected and showed that 99% of Yuzu users were using it to run games they didn't pay for, I think plenty of judiciaries at that point would consider it a de facto pirating tool versus a tool that is incidentally used for piracy. If you think that this still doesn't mean that the project should be shut down or fined, then I think it's a lot more productive to advocate for such software to exist even if it's a pirating tool than to try to sell everyone on the idea that it's totally a minority that are using it as such. And I think that would require going back to the drawing board re: digital IP rights.
>but still dance around the fact that being anti-DRM is being pro-piracy
I think this is disingenuous, there's difference between being pro-piracy and against whatever inane terms publisher wants. There's argument that when you buy a game you can use it in any way you want, including playing it on different devices. Somewhat like first-sale doctrine.
I've clarified what I mean in a different comment[0]. But to speak to being anti-DRM in particular, I think it's either highly disingenuous or very naïve to argue that all or even anything close to a majority of people who are against DRM simply want to use digital media they've actually bought in any way that they want. It makes no sense to downplay the situation that led to the rise of DRM (and still persists today!) as if IP holders just one day decided to screw over their paying audiences for no reason. It's a lot more straightforward in my opinion to say you just don't care that people pirate games et al and/or that you don't consider it a real harm to an IP holder.
It's not as if anyone ever says or suggests anything to them when their works get pirated other than "it happens, sucks to be you" or even "have you tried pandering to the pirates so maybe a tiny percent of them will buy your work?" - so what then exactly is the point of piracy being illegal?
> I feel like it would be a lot more straightforward if people just came out and said that they think piracy should be legal.
I don't believe piracy should be legal. I believe that copyright and trademarks are important for the creation of many types of interesting new works in society.
Nonetheless, I also think archiving history and having those archives (in their original format, to the closest degree possible, which is what many emulators try to achieve) widely accessible to the public is also important.
Flash memory in game cartridges degrade over time, and discs rot as well. In contrast to some here, I do not think DRM is inherently bad — preventing piracy can be important — but I do believe that DRM should be time limited. After about 10 to 15 years, I think one should be able to have a DRM-free version of whatever piece of media they purchased, be it a game, movie, TV show, etc. At that point, the console (or other device) should allow you to rip it and transfer those DRM-free files to other devices.
I don't think those files should be legally redistributable online (at least not after only one decade), but many users' consoles will break before the 10 year mark, and many consoles are not sold for more than 10 years at a time. I think requiring much more than roughly that amount of time before allowing DRM-free rips will just result in a lot of consumers not being able to play the games they purchased. I think legalizing piracy would destroy the gaming industry, but I think legally prohibiting the consumer from experiencing the media they purchased on future devices encroaches on their consumer rights and results in history being forgotten.
That said, I've never been a fan of Yuzu and Ryujinx releasing as early as they did. Approximately no new game sales have been lost due to RPCS3: by the time it became a useable enough emulator, no new PS3 games were being sold and a huge number of PS3 consoles had already stopped working. The same is true Xenia and the Xbox 360, PCSX2 and the PS2, and many other emulators. That's clearly not the case for Yuzu and Ryujinx though.
Still, while my feelings on Yuzu are somewhat negative due to when they released it, I do hope they ultimately win this lawsuit — if Yuzu isn't legal, it's very well possible that no home console emulator after the PS2 and GameCube era is legal, as they all arguably bypass DRM. Clearly, the existence of Yuzu has not harmed Nintendo all that much — they're currently the richest (though obviously not most valuable) company in Japan, with $11.44 billion in cash. The Switch has sold 139 million units and Tears of the Kingdom has sold over 20 million units. Yuzu clearly does not constitute a legitimate threat to the continuance of Nintendo making games, but Yuzu being shut down would pose a legitimate threat to the preservation of any video game released on consoles after around 2006.
I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of those feelings, certainly not mine. DRM has no benefit to the consumer except in the abstract sense that it is needed to protect the product so a company can make more things in the future. Whatever. At best it is inoffensive and not noticable, but more typically it is an issue.
The vast majority of games on PC at this point do not have any DRM, or I guess I should say any meaningful DRM. Denuvo games being the most notable exception. But most games on Steam have literally nothing other than a paperthin basic license check for Steam which is circumventable in a dozen incredibly trivial and automated/generic ways.
PC seems to be doing pretty great as a platform, better than ever, even. Honestly I think it might be worth reframing/clarifying what you are defining as piracy. If I own a Switch (and I do.) And I own games on that platform that I purchased from the e-shop. (And I do.) and I play those games on my PC with Yuzu/Ryujinx is that piracy? I don't even mean in the legal sense, I just mean what you do you personally think?
The need to defend/excuse Yuzus clear involvement is makes for an incredibly leading question, but the simplest answer is that I don't think people are surprised that Nintendo is doing it, just that it is shitty and not only does it not actually address the issue, it has potentially hugely chilling effects on legitimate software development.
I understand why some people are rubbed a little wrong by very mature and well-developed emulation of a current-gen (technically) platform. 100% it is used in piracy. Does that mean it shouldn't exist though? I sure don't think so. And that opinion isn't because I'm pro-piracy.
For what it is worth, on its merits, Yuzu actually did take steps to prevent casual users from playing TOTK pre-release. But also I don't think it is Yuzu's fault because Nintendo had its game leak.
Companies want money. Nintendo wants money. Nintendo is entitled to think this any anything else is a threat to their bottom line and I'm not surprised by it. Nintendo is also failing to serve the market in a way that meets its needs and that is legitimate driver of switch emulation usage, legally or otherwise. I can't feel bad about that.
I don't know why people would have piled on to the Yuzu Patreon during the TOTK leak, given what they did to prevent its usage for that purpose on a base level. There is no strong reason to give the Yuzu team money on Patreon. Daily builds are cool but hardly critical. It is impressive how much they're making on Patreon but that isn't money that Nintendo is going to get back if Yuzu was struck from the platform either.
Being anti-DRM isn't being pro-piracy and that is a false equivalence that I really hate to see. The least protected platform is now increasingly supported by the two other hardware manufacturers (Neither MS first-party or the Sony published stuff is laden with any non-trivial DRM) and the never-ending doomsaying about the PC as a hotbed for piracy really doesn't seem to have panned out the way many have predicted.
DRM sucks. Can't play netflix above 720p outside of their app/edge on Windows. Capcom added DRM to many games that were several years old breaking mods and proton/steam deck compatibility. In a world where DRM didn't get in the way, fine. We don't live in that world and wanting to not be punished as a consumer because DRM overwhelmingly sucks doesn't seem like a hot take. My steam library is over 1,000 games deep. I pay for shit. I don't want to deal with bullshit.
Seriously it's just bizarre how obtuse HN can be when it comes to piracy.
Nobody is dumping their own games. Very few buy the switch games they emulate.
The following usual claim is "it's Nintendo's own fault for not releasing their games on PC and Android". What kind of asinine argument is that?
Then there's the "emulation isn't illegal", which is probably the only sound argument.
But that isn't the issue here. The issue is the authors are now making over 500k/yr from their emulator, whose only purpose is to pirate games that are still commercially available.
> "it's Nintendo's own fault for not releasing their games on PC and Android"
I understand if you disagree with this argument (I don't know if I'd endorse it wholeheartedly), but I don't see how it is asinine. The wider context here is that there are people who believe in "general computing", i.e. the idea that users should retain full control over computing devices and software they buy.
The philosophy of companies of companies like Nintendo is that when you buy a game from them, you are buying the right to play the game in exactly the way they want. If they could make modding illegal, they would (it is in Japan, to my understanding). This runs counter to the idea of general computing, where you should be to play a game you buy in any way you want, including modding, or playing on a different device, etc.
So to return to the point, the argument is that by refusing to sell their games to users of other platforms (as well as their other actions), Nintendo is working against the goal of general computing, and therefore it's not worth feeling sorry for them when people pirate the game. Phrased differently, people who don't own a Switch have no way to play the game besides pirating, and people should be able to buy games separately from devices.
Another fundamental argument here is that hardware/software walled gardens which are enforced by anti-circumvention and copyright laws are basically anti-competitive monopolies.
Excuse my ignorance, I'm about to ask stupid questions.
* What type of person uses this? I guess the intersection of people interested in composing and people able to typeset? I would have thought it wasn't that popular, but it has the polish of a popular tool. What am I missing?
* Do people typically use this to compose their own music, or are they recreating music they know?
* How similar is sheet music to source code? Does any software interpret it to output audio?
* Are there any open git repos where people collaborate on an open collection of sheet music?
* How expressive is sheet music? How constrained do you feel trying to convey your idea onto this format? Does it support abstraction, or making your own abstractions?
A lot of older classical scores have poor scans, low res, or are hand written. If I enjoy a piece, I'll redo the notation and upload it (generally to IMSLP).
I have a MIDI piano so I end up using the keys to input, which can be fairly quick, depending on the piece.
I have published one complete work in Lilypond which I estimate has been downloaded about 50k times (and those downloads were probably reused for multiple people, because it was an instructional work). I guess that qualifies me to answer?
* I have a background in LaTeX, so that's why I picked it up. The work I transcribed is a set of six French baroque sonatas for two violins which are commonly used in intermediate-to-advanced teaching.
* At the time I did it, there was no freely available score that showed both parts on the same page, just reproductions of the original handwritten manuscript, so I did it to have a cleaner copy where you can see both parts at the same time. I had to edit slightly because it turned out the original contained a handful of errors.'
* Very similar. Lilypond started life as LaTeX macros, and while it's now well beyond that, you can see the roots. Lilypond can output MIDIs from source.
* I don't know about git repos, but there's no reason you couldn't. I did publish the source alongside the finished PDF on IMSLP (the International Music Score Library Project, a wiki of public domain music).
* For my purposes (playing European music using the 12 tones in the traditional style from Renaissance to modern, both classical and folk), perfectly expressive. I'm not sure what you mean by abstraction in this context, but if you want to do something for which there isn't common notation, you can just write words.
I would use Lilypond without hesitation if I had a new work I wanted to publish, just as I would use LaTeX to publish a book or document. It's a typesetting system, and if you're using it, you're already committed to the form of traditional European sheet music.
I started setting up a piano blog once, which used lilypond to generate an image of the sheet music (then trimmed with image magic) and a midi file (rendered to wav with fluid synth and compressed to mp3). This would have been for small snippets (2-3 bars) of rock/pop/etc music, with some brief commentary. I guess I got distracted along the way. The output looked and sounded good though!
* What type of person uses this? I guess the intersection of people interested in composing and people able to typeset? I would have thought it wasn't that popular, but it has the polish of a popular tool. What am I missing?
--I think people who play/practice musical instruments regularly, esp. in an ensemble, esp. in classical music (where the written notes are referred to a lot); to make arrangements, transcriptions, instrument parts, etc. out of the originals to perform for fun. I'dn't be surprised if programmer folks are overrepresented in this group. (I am one of them).
* How similar is sheet music to source code? Does any software interpret it to output audio?
--I'd like to say quite similar, but upon further thought, maybe not. e.g. In sheet music, there's no ready equivalent to functions taking arguments and returning values.
Maybe the similarity is with compiled/machine code (which I am not familiar with).
* How expressive is sheet music? How constrained do you feel trying to convey your idea onto this format? Does it support abstraction, or making your own abstractions?
--It is quite expressive. Most musical material that people come up with in their minds will likely be adequately represented in sheet music. I haven't seen "user-defined" sheet music notation, which I think is what you may mean by abstractions. I suppose it could be done (and supported by LilyPond).
> In sheet music, there's no ready equivalent to functions taking arguments and returning values.
Sounds like an interesting idea for a music major somewhere. Plus, with conductor or local condition inputs, might make for entertaining sight reading. If sunny, && morning, play notes this way : If dusk || rain, play this way : play default.
I use it to typeset songs that my son wants to learn on the guitar. I can tailor the difficulty and add some "special" things based on what he's learning, for example customizing chords or changing the key signature.
I also used it to typeset a simple song that I arranged and played at a funeral service. I could have written it by hand, but given I was a bit anxious about the performance it helped to have an extremely readable version.
Writing lilypond source code is about the same difficulty as LaTeX. The midi output helps stomping out mistakes and it's easy to follow the source as it plays. Sheet music is pretty expressive, it's a good balance between showing what to play and how, and lilypond is about 1:1 with sheet music.
That said in lilypond you can add some kind of abstraction through both macros and typesetter settings. For example it can calculate automatically which frets and strings correspond to notes, and generate guitar tablature (fret+string notation) and sheet music from the same source. Also, instead of specifying by hand how to play each note, you can basically tell lilypond "I want the left hand to be roughly here on the fretboard" and that affects the strings it tells the player to pluck.
* I don't know "what type of person uses this" in general, but I use it whenever I need to typeset music, which happens when I need to sing something with others. This includes be re-creating sheet music I have for better readability. I've never done any composing.
* It's not very similar to the source code. Basically you put in note names (c d e f ...) and durations (c4 e8 g8 c2). The rest is commands and markup to deal with the remaining very complex needs music typesetting has. Think Latex for music.
* I've never seen any git repos for that, but there are sites like CPDL and IMSLP that sometimes also include Lilypond source (or other sources).
* "How expressive is sheet music": I guess the easiest way to find out is to actually play an instrument or sing? It's a bit like asking "how expressive is the written word, like books and these things".
The "different files" you refer to are likely just different distros ways of configuring scripts that use netlink/ip. Each distro will do something differ, or use something like systemd-networkd/networkmanager. There's no one way.
netlink is the API, and `ip` is the canonical CLI tool for interacting with the tool.
I recently started using Navidrome to stream my old music collection and it's been a pleasure. It's also nudged me to actually download the music I've purchased on Bandcamp -- before that option inevitably goes away.
Same here - Navidrome has been a revelation. Simple to run, nice UI, only issue is that browsers can't support gapless playback, but lots of apps out there to help with that.
During the golden age of mp3/flac KDE's Amarok was awesome, later it had a subpar upgrade to 3.x and was forked off as Clementine, and now Clementine is also becoming creaky...
I know you didn't ask, but I recommend the Vinyl app on Android. It also lets you manage your music in a directory, but a bit more streamlined for listening to music IMO.
I would add Roon to this list. I run the server on my Synology at home and it organizes 2TB of music for me. Then I can use Roon ARC on my phone to stream it from anywhere.
The post notes that Spotify pays $0.003-$0.005 per stream, and compares that to the average exec making $200k/year.
If Spotify diverted all that exec money to artists, I wonder whether the $0.003-$0.005 figure would change, or if that would be too only amount to <$0.0005 difference.
It might be fair to criticize Spotify's deal with rights holders of music, but the above line of critique doesn't hold so strong to me.
As it happens, $200k/year for an exec seems low?
Disclaimer: I don't use Spotify and instead manage my own collection.
Spotify doesn't pay the artists directly. Apple Music doesn't pay the artists directly. Youtube Musice doesn't.... You get my gist.
All those pay to the rights holders. Why does no one ever question the rights holders: EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group why the artists are paid pennies?
+1. I wasn't happy to have to use Nitter to access Twitter, but I accepted it. I'm not jumping through any more hoops for Twitter. Random Twitter links become random FB/Medium/LinkedIn: a closed world I'm not interested in.
If lurking Twitter / X works only with JS enabled, and if the same applies to Mastodon as well, then (strictly speaking in reading / lurking ability) what would be the difference between those two other than perhaps the size of total JS served?
1. If I understand correctly they talk about whether you need an account to lurk or not (I'd agree) and 2. the same does not apply to Mastodon. There even are CLI clients and I'd be interested to hear where you got the impression that js is required for Mastodon.
When I clicked on https://mastodon.social/@danluu I got:
"To use the Mastodon web application, please enable JavaScript. Alternatively, try one of the native apps for Mastodon for your platform."
That's probably going to leave people with the impression that JS is required. Sure, there are desktop clients (all third party) and I could probably try those, but generally the kinds of people who'd run random code on their systems and give it network access will probably just have JS enabled by default in the first place. At least some are open source I guess.
Looking at some of the the open source projects I was amused to find a client for MS-DOS (https://github.com/SuperIlu/DOStodon) and then amused again to see all the .js files it needs to work. It looks like it might take a little work to find a desktop client that doesn't just run a bunch of javascript anyway
Due to the federated nature of Mastodon every other instance is ostensibly an archive as there is currently no way to guarantee that a tweet/comment/account is removed from remote instances when you delete it from your local instance.
What I've been doing when people here post Mastodon links to is add .rss after the @whatever bit which lets me grab their RSS feed and then I can scroll through that to try to find the post being mentioned. I'm not sure the entire post always shows up, and I think you don't get replies or comments or whatever Mastodon is supposed to have with posts, but you can at least get some kind of information out of Mastodon that way.
I can see the posts just fine (albeit with JS enabled), but not the replies and subsequent conversations. Assuming you were referring to the latter, then yes I'd agree with you.
I've noticed the same and it's really frustrating, it just straight up redirects to the login page sometimes. I guess I'll have to accept the fact that it's closing down, visitors are not welcome. Can't view a single post or picture in the future but so be it.
If you choose to roll over and give $PRISMpartner unfettered access to your data in exchange for a modicrum of convenience, go for it. But there are millions of people who stopped using Windows, Chrome, Android, Facebook, etc because they care. Many people will stop interacting with Twitter after this change. Don't bash them for being principled where you have surrendered.
>You want to use twitter no account in the age of AI. It don’t work like that anymore
how does having an account to view twitter meaningfully change anything during this mystick time of AI?
If it's to prevent AIs from reading twitter threads, well, good luck.
>It don’t work like that anymore
well if a company doesn't follow customer demand they fail; I don't intend to continue using a service that requires me to have an account to lurk -- i'm not the only one. The rules for customer service don't somehow just get cast away because of magic software.
> how does having an account to view twitter meaningfully change anything during this mystick time of AI?
> If it's to prevent AIs from reading twitter threads, well, good luck.
If you require an account, it’s harder to scrape you and train an AI for free using platform you've build with your own investment and effort. Until court rule in favor of copyright holders, welcome to the future where nothing is shared in the open anymore.
I asked because it sounded as if you considered it to be the platform. And let's not kid ourselves by pretending that this has to do with protecting the creators.
no, adtech and walled gardens collecting your browsing data and monetizing/weaponizing it against you is the imposition. refusing to provide this data by wiping cookies is not a "burden" this guy chose to impose on himself for fun, it is the logical answer to the adtech companies' hostile action.
adtech monetizes your browsing data by collecting it across lots of sites we visit, and aggregating them all to build a profile.
It's true that wiping cookies was the most effective to prevent building up this trail of cookies from every visited site adhered to those ad companies.
But this seems to me like a solved issue since Mozilla deployed their Total Cookie Protection [1] with Firefox i.e. each domain has its own isolated set of cookies.
> This is like saying you want to use Windows without a user account
If only I was able to do what you describe, I would use Windows. But sadly, Microsoft wants to invade users' lives like a malignant cancer, so Linux it is.
Linux requires a user account too. There is no anonymous mode. You will always be running something as a user who has a user id. getuid and geteuid are always successful and correspond to a valid user. In theory there could be a way to run things without a user, but Linux was designed to not allow that.
I thought you could skip creating a MS account if you ran the setup entirely offline. Does that trick not work anymore? To be honest, even if it did work you can't trust MS to stay out of your business. Windows is constantly collecting data on the what you do on your system including the name of the file you open and what software you have installed. Jumping through hoops to try and work around a user hostile OS is a losing battle. You'll always be one forced update away from defeat. Linux is the way to go. I'm forced to use windows at work, but at home the last windows OS I had was 7 professional and it looks like it'll be the last I ever use.
> I thought you could skip creating a MS account if you ran the setup entirely offline. Does that trick not work anymore?
It still works. There are several alternative workarounds as well. I have a laptop that normally runs Debian that I can dual-boot to Windows for BIOS updates or to use Acer’s app to limit battery charge to 80%. I use a local Windows account without a password, as I don’t keep any data on the Windows partition.
I don't know if you can opt out that specifically or not. There are third party tools that claim to disable a lot more than MS will normally allow, but I don't put much faith in them (if for no other reason than the fact that MS can undo anything with an update)
MS took these pages down, but there were two posts that I think gave users the most in depth look at at the kinds of data they've been collecting:
This only gives examples of some of the types of things they collect though. For example, it says that the Photo App (default image viewer) will tell MS if the file was on your hard drive or a network share or a cloud server or an SD card, and it will send them the metadata (resolution, file size, encoding, etc) and tell them if you looked at the photo or video in fullscreen mode, as well as how long you spent looking at each file, but you shouldn't assume that's all the information they take. That's why the start of each section has the words "such as"
Now that they're fully committed to using their OS as an ad delivery platform they likely collect everything that they think will help them target those ads to you better.
I had an account to follow two or three guys, and maybe 4-5 accounts that only post every few months. The timeline gets filled with all kinds of things. Besides the horrible clickbait ads, it puts in random posts from unsubscribed parties. You really have to look between the crap for the stuff you're subscribed to.
If this is Twitter in the age of AI, Twitter isn't worth the effort to me in the age of AI.
Especially since I can use Mastodon, and that is actually very nice. I get that not all interests are as well represented, but I like it.
I’d actually be willing to use a Twitter account, except that I find the Twitter front-end unusably bad. Nitter doesn’t really support the use-case of serving as an alternative front-end with an account (and is discontinued), so I’m done with Twitter.
Me too. Even "We updated our T&Cs" is too many.
I went on an account deleting spree:
* accounts where guest checkouts are an option: eBay, Mouser, bandcamp, booking.com
* accounts of once-used online stores
* old email accounts
* Amazon, Airtasker, Uber, frequent flyer, ...
I'm down to ~100 passwords in my password manager which is still too many, but good enough.