If they’re still working, they don’t need your support. Focus on staying in touch with them, and let them know that if they do need you, you’re here.

Like someone else said, instead putting money into savings, so that a future need can come out of that instead of your current funds, that’ll mitigate the future need.

Completely agree.

The only reason the relative had it at all was because of those old fears. As soon as I learned that they had it bundled with the computer (hate that. Malware’s gotta get in somewhere though I guess), I knew why it was being slow.

I hold this up as an example because even their own troubleshooting website and a program dedicated to the purpose above and beyond the usual uninstaller couldn’t do it though. Avast doesn’t even know its own malware.

Also this nonsense got me the chance to put mint on their computer, but the “switch to Linux” argument isn’t constructive in this particular spot. They didn’t end up sticking to it because a required-for-school piece of software for tests just doesn’t do Linux at all. Couldn’t get it to run in wine or even a virtual machine either, and they’re not great at the whole computer thing so I didn’t wanna be tech support for dual booting.

Here’s an example. I removed avast via the uninstaller on a relatives computer, it made it laggy as hell. I restart after as the uninstaller demands, but it was still there.

Searching, I find this official support option. https://support.avast.com/en-us/article/10

The official Avast Uninstall Tool, the tool to use when the included uninstaller didn’t work.

The official uninstall tool didn’t work either. I ran it in safe mode, like it said. Didn’t work, either, but it removed some stuff, and finally let me delete some things manually. Ran it again in safe mode after that, finally seems to have removed everything.

Anyway it’s a great example of if a company doesn’t know what they’re about, windows has no process to recover from that. Window’s process is identical to a Walmart employee saying. “I dunno, man, contact the manufacturer.” Genuinely, its usually enough, but when its not, there’s absolutely no recourse.

Its Japanese though and I think that that IS their traditional housewife outfit.

Same for blonder, I mean they obviously k ow what blonde is but that’s probably plenty blonde to be very blonde to them.

The bug report also listed mitigation steps including turning off discovery, so it seems to me that if you enable the insecure method, you can just leave discovery off by default, and manually turn it on briefly to pair a new device, then tirn discovery back off.

Possibly. I’m not a big crypto guy, but it’s my understanding that any kind of transaction has a chance of being repeated. If there were a bad actor, and that bad actor used a VPN to swap identities, he could narrow this down considerably and weaken encryption. My code is as dumb as it gets, willing to consider 1 as a valid encryption key, but smarter code would be a lot more efficient.

On top of that, you wanted this minimum code to run on A’s computer. If you do not trust A, then you’ve given a potential bad actor a program that could be decompiled to unencrypt your keys.

It sounds to me like in your current state, you need to trust A before you do this operation, and if you do, you can just share an unencrypted B.

If A can run this program at will and it determines the minimum value, it’s O(log(n)) to determine what B is, even with perfect encryption, by using arbitrary values of A.

INT X = MAX INT PREV_X = 0 BOOL B_IS_MIN = True

While (X != PREV_X){

PREV_X = X B_IS_MIN = Encrypted_Min(X,B)

If(B_IS_MIN), X = X/2 If(!B_IS_MIN), X = X*1.5

}

Unless I’ve made a typo, this psuedocode will step to B in log time, and will break the while loop once it’s found, even if the user has no way to know the value of B besides the minimum.

Sadly, too many would be afraid to be a good name. Sets itself up as a target.

Encyclopedia is “general education”, referring to its broad scope. Wikipedia added wiki as a reference to the source, so the best one would be {source}pedia.

Fedepedia isn’t awful but feels… bland, in my opinion.

Something like consolidate is a good synonym for it, but consolipedia also doesn’t feel right to me, so if we’re not referring to the federated part, we’d have to refer to the decentralized part. Decentropedia is fairly decent, but I’m fond of Micropedia, because the root word is very common, and I feel it’s catchier than decentropedia. Either of those are good though.

Given you seem to be against adding extra info, based on the other comments, the only correct answer is “whichever one works best for you”.

The answer is quite useless, but I can’t be more specific. “Better” is vague. Faster, smoother, less taxing on system resources, there’s options and they may conflict. Good luck.

It means “yeah”