[lucb1e]

> if its that "dog" is a weak password, i thought that was evident

You're confusing me. First you say that "dog" is just as strong as any other password, now you say that it should have been evident that it's a weak password. Which is it?

> my point is they are equally trash

This again sounds contradictory, but this time within one comment. First you say that horseloverwhatever is stronger than dog, but then that they are equally "trash".

[anewguy9000]

i meant others commonly assume horseloverwhatever is more secure.

to be more clear,

1. dog is weak 2. horseloverwhatever is weak 3. 8randoms! is weak 4. therefore, dog is as good as horseloverwhatever or 8randoms! 5. most account compromises do not even require a brute force (shoddy practices on the backend) making the complexity requirements pointlessly burdensome on the user 6. in cases where you want a password to resist a legitimate brute force, we need to talk about passphrases (ie > 50 chars) or passwordless

what u think?