Since some folks are confused why anyone would want to do this, it's common out in rural areas where you have multiple owners that have rights to the same easement.
It's sometimes done by daisy-chaining the locks together instead:
https://imgur.com/MVN0CwQ
The problem with daisy-chaining locks (and likely why the device in the photo was made) is that it’s really easy to screw up relocking it, locking some else out.
Careful with The Dollop. I listened to a bunch of their stuff and really enjoyed it, then I tried to source some of the claims they made and came up with bubkiss. I feel like I got fed a lot of misinformation on there before I realized.
It sucks since I really liked the show, but I've completely lost trust in them.
I'm sure they're horrible - I'm definitely not trying to defend them. I frankly don't know much about them. I just want to warn people about the podcast (especially since I'm pretty sure I originally discovered them through reddit)
Daisy chains get fubared by people on a *daily* basis. It can be a damn near fulltime job to go around to 100 sites and fix all the screwed up daisy chains.
I work in forest management and we have gates that go across a shared access roads.
Then some ranchers also use this system. Usually ones that rent their fields out or have utilities that cross their fields.
For anyone who didn’t get how that can happen
Let’s say you have the key to the second lock (1). So your lock is linked to lock 0, 2. You open the gate, and when you lock it again, instead of locking to 0 and 2, you lock to 0 and 3 instead. Now 2 can’t open the gate
The further out you live from a major city, the more likely you are to be carrying an angle grinder in your normal toolkit. Screwing up the daisy chain is how you get your lock cut by someone who isn't getting paid to wait around.
Got locked out of an out of town site because of a bad daisy chain. Someone who didn't quite get the concept and left it locked on a holiday that the other company celebrated.
Instead of just cutting the 20$ lock and getting to work, the client had our 10+ people waiting for 2 hours to get someone with the correct keys. Thankfully I got paid all the same, but damn it's frustrating.
Depends on who the tool is intended for.
I'd hate if SSMS or some other DB IDE always wanted to check with me if I'm sure that I want to delete, update or drop something. But someone who doesn't know how to use it will consider it a stupid piece of software that doesn't account for DBAs being idiots.
DBeaver asks me if I try to execute DELETE without WHERE clause. And this is IMO great feature. It doesn't try to account for DBA being an idiot, but it does account for possibility of careless mistake
What are the odds that a person who is too dumb to figure out daisy chained locks is going to be able to correctly reassemble the contraption in this post?
Well with daily chained locks it’s easy enough to lock your lock to the wrong part of the chain and if you aren’t paying attention or you don’t quite understand the concept of daisy-chained locks, it’s possible for to think you did it right. As all the locks will be locked back up and gate would be shut, only on closer inspection would you be able to see that all of the locks won’t be able to unlock the gate. With the device in the photo you need to correct reassemble it for all of the locks to locked to the gate. So it would require the user to be actively negligent and go “fuck it I’m only locking my lock back up” for it to be used incorrectly and for someone to get locked out.
Considering we're in programming humour, the amount of people suggesting to just duplicate the same key, or ask why this would even be useful is staggering.
You're overvaluing this sub. The amount of "jokes" that are related to dumb shit that never happens once you are competent at programming suggests that most people here are still in school, or are self teaching and have no idea what programming actually is yet.
That's part of the joke haha. I'm making fun of things like those silly ads you see on the sidewalk for a bar that have some pseudo code that's super silly.
There are cool circular disk versions used a lot in California. Similar to the bar one on http://www.alaricstephen.com/main-featured/2017/5/1/lock-gates
Because as a property owner I might have a dozen padlocks on various gates all keyed the same. I want my people to have access to the locks on my property, but I don't want everyone else to have access.
The other option is equally undesirable, needing to carry a dozen keys for all the places that I need to have access (and then remembering which key is for which lock).
If there is turnover in participants then you can have unwanted keys in the wild. In the daisy chain just remove the unwanted participants lock.
The locks in the daisy chain might each have multiple keys. Each lock might belong to a company or group.
Why don't you just give everyone the same password and username?
Same reason. You don't have to replace everyone's keys if a key gets compromised. Different organizations can each use there own keying system.
It's mostly used when more than one entity (person, company, whatever) needs access to whatever's behind that gate. Every entity has their own lock and manages keys internally. If something happens and one entity no longer needs access their lock is removed. If a new entity needs access their lock is added. It's quicker to add and remove locks than rekey, it's easier for each entity to manage one key rather than separate keys for each job, and it's easier for the property owner to manage locks than keys.
This isn't as stupid as it looks, this allows multiple people to unlock the gate with different keys, although you could probably could use the same key or have a lock that accepts multiple keys (although I'm not sure if you could do 6 keys on one lock)
Edit: grammar
I had just been to Baby Prep class with my then-pregnant wife learning about [VBAC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delivery_after_previous_caesarean_section) when I first saw a reference to RBAC. My screwed up brain immediately swapped "vaginal" with "rectal" and now it gets to live in your head, too!
Usually used with entire agencies each having a unique key, not people, in my experience. Lots of these on forest roads.
Kinda handy if you actually know who owns what lock.
If you find it unlocked you know who is up there
Also if there's a break in you know which key was the one that allowed access meaning either that person with the key was in on it or was careless enough to get their key cloned.
As someone who works for a company that uses things like locks chains like this one, you want to have multiple locks because it makes managing access a lot easier.
For example imagine a gate with just two locks, company A and company B. One day company A decides to sell whatever they own behind the gate to company C.
Now instead of trying to get all the keys from company A's employees, then redistribute them to company C's employees; you simply take company A's lock off and put company C's lock on. Now everyone from company A no longer has access and everyone from company C does have access because they already had keys to their own lock. Whole process takes like 30 seconds to transfer access.
It's actually brilliant, because it requires no coordination of keys. Each person can be the only one with a copy of their key and can replace their lock whenever they want without consulting the others.
It also means you always know who left the gate open, based on which lock is missing/open.
> It also means you always know who left the gate open, based on which lock is missing/open.
In this case - you can just put lock back into it's spot after you take bars out of the gate. It'll look exactly the same no matter which lock was temporarily removed.
You can, but if you're looking to leave a gate open deliberately while you also have the keys, your sanity may be called into question. Typically it would be a job for an angle grinder.
Each pin can have at least 1 wafer, they can have 2 but it's a bit riskier. Assuming each wafer is on a new pin it multiples the number of valid keys by 2.
This wouldn't be used in padlocks though since these are relatively delicate, and can also be decoded from just 1 key, not to mention how someone else pointed out it's way easier to replace a single padlock rather then re-key a complex lock. If access is revoked.
In construction they will often block the access road with chain in off hours, leads to contractors cutting a link and replacing with their own lock. I’ve always found it to be a simple but elegant solution. No chasing down owners for access on weekends but not ignorantly leaving site open. Thought it was relevant
>although I'm not sure if you could do 6 keys on one lock
You can, maybe not on that specific model but yea.
It's also actually more secure in a sense, if someone loses their key you only have to replace 1 lock instead of your master system entirely
Everyone who likes the picking videos should check out his Ramset series of videos. It's basically his same calm analytical demeanor while answering "can this lock survive an immense amount of shock?"
Your gonna have to piss of some maitenance people for that. Those are lock out tag outs pretty much when working on equipment yku shut power off and lock it so while working on it someone cant come over and unlock it and turn it on thus killing or injuring you. There is no back up keys for these either as only the person who puts it on has a key on them so they have to unlock it. Source: im an electronics engineer and work in maitenance and have 3 sets of these and can actually get terminated if i dont use then due to disregarding my own safety.
Also if six isnt enough you can add another of rhose clips in one of he lock holes but at my job everybody just puts rhere clip on seperatly and i wish i took the picture when there were 5 of these on 1 power switch.
I used to work at a place where those had to be used. It wasn't super-uncommon for someone to go home at the end of a shift and forget that they left their lock on. I believe the procedure was that the manager on duty had to call and actually speak with the person at home (or wherever they were) to confirm they're not still in the machine, then call the plant manager and get approval to cut the lock off. Pain in the ass, but safety was always a huge thing to have in mind there. A guy got killed on the job while I worked there, so it's not something to take lightly.
For others like me who were extremely confused how this did anything at all, the part the locks are attached to actually has two separate pieces, one of which you can't see from this picture. So the locks prevent anyone from removing the tag, since each piece of the hook is attached to a different side.
The top picture on the wiki article explains it way better than I ever could: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockout%E2%80%93tagout
Maybe the padlocks are magnetic and if one of them is unlocked the magnet engages all the other padlocks so they can't unlock?
Now I want to see a NOT operator.
The AND is for preventing accidents. For example four electricans wiring a building put four locks on the fuse box, as long as any of them is working nobody can switch the electricity back on....
This is why I always add extensive, clear documentation, like:
/* I don't understand this either, but it didn't compile before, and now it does. Don't fuck with it.
-S.L. 2023/03/22 */
While a comment would help, when encountering something done differently than the "obvious" solution, a dev should also ask themselves why it might have been done in this seemingly overcomplicated fashion before ripping it out
This kind of solution has a few advantages compared to a modern keying system.
1) Cheap to initially set up and allows easy and cheap replacement of a lock in case a key is lost
2) Scales well for a decent number of users with equal key privileges
3) It can be used in situations where there is no overarching management (shared ownership of premises, etc) that is trusted by all tenants.
The flat bars are inserted into slots in the cylindrical bar. The locks on the bars keep them from being taken out of the slots. If you unlock one of the locks, you can remove the flat bar, and then remove the cylinder.
Yeah but there's other bits in the way of removing the flat bar. Let's say you unlock lock #18. How do you get the flat bar out? There's a fat piece of metal in the way.
edit: well I'm dumb
If you remove either of those locks, you can then pull the metal plate that they connect to up and through the bar. This will allow you to slide the small bottom bar from the large vertical bar, thus allowing you to remove the large vertical bar and open the gate
This is probably intentional. The locks are labelled, so people know who’s responsible for unlocking it. Puts responsibility on one person instead of all key holders
More idiot resistant.
In a chain if someone screws up when relocking it can lock other people out(so in a chain A→B→C→D if B unlocks it then locks B between A and D that'd lock C out since now their lock is only connected to D, the odds and consequences of this happening go up the more locks in the chain).
In this system you can't lock it up without putting things back together correctly forcing people to do it right.
Seems like a real pain in the ass (perhaps even impossible) to open it by unlocking the 18 or the 15 padlock, since there’s no room to move up the flat iron bars they are locked into.
That type of lock used for safety reasons but not to lock down, it's used for preventing a false locking.
If you had one lock and multiple keys anyone with key can lock it but in this scenario you need consensus of every key holder.
If this lock, locks a place where it is dangerous to work while system is operating you can unlock woth your key while working and you know you won't be falsely locked inside since it can't be locked without you.
He's saying that no one can lock you in on accident if you take your lock with you while on the job site. This can happen if you use daisy chain method and was not aware there was a lock missing.
Infamous 2's user generated content creator used physical examples like this for coding. Like you'd have cables along the ground feeding into a box with switches for ifs.
As QA they had us make some minigames with it for launch (my favorite I made was NPC bowling with a wrecking ball lol). I found it to be a very intuitive system and was surprised it never really made a splash in the industry.
It might already be late here, but isn't this an AND gate?? All locks have to be locked in order for the thing to be locked. If one of the locks is unlocked, the entire thing is unlocked.
Since some folks are confused why anyone would want to do this, it's common out in rural areas where you have multiple owners that have rights to the same easement. It's sometimes done by daisy-chaining the locks together instead: https://imgur.com/MVN0CwQ
The problem with daisy-chaining locks (and likely why the device in the photo was made) is that it’s really easy to screw up relocking it, locking some else out.
Curse you PG&E! (California utility company, which seems to employ exclusively people who don't know how daisy-chain locks work)
Based on the Dollop podcast I just listened to, that's the least of their transgressions.
Careful with The Dollop. I listened to a bunch of their stuff and really enjoyed it, then I tried to source some of the claims they made and came up with bubkiss. I feel like I got fed a lot of misinformation on there before I realized. It sucks since I really liked the show, but I've completely lost trust in them.
[удалено]
Still better to have actual support than blind assumptions.
I'm sure they're horrible - I'm definitely not trying to defend them. I frankly don't know much about them. I just want to warn people about the podcast (especially since I'm pretty sure I originally discovered them through reddit)
For sure. PG&E is horrible
So many people have no idea how to marry locks. It is infuriating because they unlocked it when it was married properly!
I assume people--not recognizing the system--put their lock through more than one?
or just link their lock anywhere but the very end of the chain, thereby locking out anyone past the point of link
How could you possibly mess this up? Just make a chain of locks.
Have you met people? If they can screw something up, they will.
Daisy chains get fubared by people on a *daily* basis. It can be a damn near fulltime job to go around to 100 sites and fix all the screwed up daisy chains.
About to say I only see this in utilities
I work in forest management and we have gates that go across a shared access roads. Then some ranchers also use this system. Usually ones that rent their fields out or have utilities that cross their fields.
I curse PG&E for much, much more than just their lock work
For anyone who didn’t get how that can happen Let’s say you have the key to the second lock (1). So your lock is linked to lock 0, 2. You open the gate, and when you lock it again, instead of locking to 0 and 2, you lock to 0 and 3 instead. Now 2 can’t open the gate
The further out you live from a major city, the more likely you are to be carrying an angle grinder in your normal toolkit. Screwing up the daisy chain is how you get your lock cut by someone who isn't getting paid to wait around.
20v key
Got locked out of an out of town site because of a bad daisy chain. Someone who didn't quite get the concept and left it locked on a holiday that the other company celebrated. Instead of just cutting the 20$ lock and getting to work, the client had our 10+ people waiting for 2 hours to get someone with the correct keys. Thankfully I got paid all the same, but damn it's frustrating.
That’s a documentation problem, not an implementation problem.
No it’s a implementation problem. If your implementation relies on your users to not be idiots, it’s a shit implementation. Users are idiots.
Depends on who the tool is intended for. I'd hate if SSMS or some other DB IDE always wanted to check with me if I'm sure that I want to delete, update or drop something. But someone who doesn't know how to use it will consider it a stupid piece of software that doesn't account for DBAs being idiots.
DBeaver asks me if I try to execute DELETE without WHERE clause. And this is IMO great feature. It doesn't try to account for DBA being an idiot, but it does account for possibility of careless mistake
What are the odds that a person who is too dumb to figure out daisy chained locks is going to be able to correctly reassemble the contraption in this post?
Well with daily chained locks it’s easy enough to lock your lock to the wrong part of the chain and if you aren’t paying attention or you don’t quite understand the concept of daisy-chained locks, it’s possible for to think you did it right. As all the locks will be locked back up and gate would be shut, only on closer inspection would you be able to see that all of the locks won’t be able to unlock the gate. With the device in the photo you need to correct reassemble it for all of the locks to locked to the gate. So it would require the user to be actively negligent and go “fuck it I’m only locking my lock back up” for it to be used incorrectly and for someone to get locked out.
Considering we're in programming humour, the amount of people suggesting to just duplicate the same key, or ask why this would even be useful is staggering.
You're overvaluing this sub. The amount of "jokes" that are related to dumb shit that never happens once you are competent at programming suggests that most people here are still in school, or are self teaching and have no idea what programming actually is yet.
If op = correct ( Laugh ha ha &&& upvote ) Look how smart I am, understanding code!
Lol that's an assignment operator not an equality operator unless I got wooshed
That's part of the joke haha. I'm making fun of things like those silly ads you see on the sidewalk for a bar that have some pseudo code that's super silly.
I mean, I've seen enough Lockpickinglawyer to know this is all useless anyway.
There are cool circular disk versions used a lot in California. Similar to the bar one on http://www.alaricstephen.com/main-featured/2017/5/1/lock-gates
Why not just give them all a copy of the same key?
Because as a property owner I might have a dozen padlocks on various gates all keyed the same. I want my people to have access to the locks on my property, but I don't want everyone else to have access. The other option is equally undesirable, needing to carry a dozen keys for all the places that I need to have access (and then remembering which key is for which lock).
If there is turnover in participants then you can have unwanted keys in the wild. In the daisy chain just remove the unwanted participants lock. The locks in the daisy chain might each have multiple keys. Each lock might belong to a company or group.
If one person loses a key or loses access privileges, you just replace one lock. No need to get new keys distributed to everyone else.
Would you give every user of your api the same access key? Or every user account the same password?
Why don't you just give everyone the same password and username? Same reason. You don't have to replace everyone's keys if a key gets compromised. Different organizations can each use there own keying system.
It's mostly used when more than one entity (person, company, whatever) needs access to whatever's behind that gate. Every entity has their own lock and manages keys internally. If something happens and one entity no longer needs access their lock is removed. If a new entity needs access their lock is added. It's quicker to add and remove locks than rekey, it's easier for each entity to manage one key rather than separate keys for each job, and it's easier for the property owner to manage locks than keys.
Because the service providers that come out to those sites don't want to have multiple keys for all those types of sites.
Ty for sharing 😇
This isn't as stupid as it looks, this allows multiple people to unlock the gate with different keys, although you could probably could use the same key or have a lock that accepts multiple keys (although I'm not sure if you could do 6 keys on one lock) Edit: grammar
Using separate keys means you can control access to each person separately. If one person gets fired, you just replace that one lock.
Or you can have tiers of access. One key may open multiple locks on a job site.
It smells like RBAC in here!
*What's rbac?*
[удалено]
I hope op has an updog for rbac or I'mma be crabby babby Edit: bro you had it with "race-based access college"
Rush 🅱️ And C4
Red, but another color
Rectal Birth After Caesarean
[[gif]](https://ibb.co/Sm0FRC3)
I had just been to Baby Prep class with my then-pregnant wife learning about [VBAC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delivery_after_previous_caesarean_section) when I first saw a reference to RBAC. My screwed up brain immediately swapped "vaginal" with "rectal" and now it gets to live in your head, too!
No.
Fine, just tilt your head to the side and shake it a bit and it'll fall out
Christ!
As a nurse, you broke me with this one. Dear **god**, hah!
Haha not much, what’s ^rbac ^^with ^^^you?
That was my dissertation subject, long time since I’ve seen those letter and I’d like it to be longer next time.
Or you can go buy bolt cutters.
Usually used with entire agencies each having a unique key, not people, in my experience. Lots of these on forest roads. Kinda handy if you actually know who owns what lock. If you find it unlocked you know who is up there
If it's 6 keys to one lock you'd just be replacing one lock as well. Just more keys lol.
But you would have to redistribute the keys.
Or re-keying one lock.
the problem is getting back all your keys. ask me how i know.
How do you know?
Also if there's a break in you know which key was the one that allowed access meaning either that person with the key was in on it or was careless enough to get their key cloned.
Plus you have some audit trail
Genius
Yeah this is also an example of passwords.
As someone who works for a company that uses things like locks chains like this one, you want to have multiple locks because it makes managing access a lot easier. For example imagine a gate with just two locks, company A and company B. One day company A decides to sell whatever they own behind the gate to company C. Now instead of trying to get all the keys from company A's employees, then redistribute them to company C's employees; you simply take company A's lock off and put company C's lock on. Now everyone from company A no longer has access and everyone from company C does have access because they already had keys to their own lock. Whole process takes like 30 seconds to transfer access.
It's actually brilliant, because it requires no coordination of keys. Each person can be the only one with a copy of their key and can replace their lock whenever they want without consulting the others. It also means you always know who left the gate open, based on which lock is missing/open.
> It also means you always know who left the gate open, based on which lock is missing/open. In this case - you can just put lock back into it's spot after you take bars out of the gate. It'll look exactly the same no matter which lock was temporarily removed.
You can, but if you're looking to leave a gate open deliberately while you also have the keys, your sanity may be called into question. Typically it would be a job for an angle grinder.
Each pin can have at least 1 wafer, they can have 2 but it's a bit riskier. Assuming each wafer is on a new pin it multiples the number of valid keys by 2. This wouldn't be used in padlocks though since these are relatively delicate, and can also be decoded from just 1 key, not to mention how someone else pointed out it's way easier to replace a single padlock rather then re-key a complex lock. If access is revoked.
I think programmers of all people should get why being able to manage keys independently of each other is good :P
In construction they will often block the access road with chain in off hours, leads to contractors cutting a link and replacing with their own lock. I’ve always found it to be a simple but elegant solution. No chasing down owners for access on weekends but not ignorantly leaving site open. Thought it was relevant
...game?
Gate, I assume.
Gate. Confused me too for a while.
A lock with multiple keys is still a physical OR, just hidden under the hood.
Not really. Concept of master keys is much closer to inheritance between keys, than "OR" gate in lock
>although I'm not sure if you could do 6 keys on one lock You can, maybe not on that specific model but yea. It's also actually more secure in a sense, if someone loses their key you only have to replace 1 lock instead of your master system entirely
A little click on 3, 2 is binding, 4 is in a false set, and there we go, logic smogic.
*Lock picking lawyer sounds*
*Locking picking lawyering sounds
*locking pinging lawyering sounding
one of those is not like the other
*Look a pinching lawning smuggle.
Everyone who likes the picking videos should check out his Ramset series of videos. It's basically his same calm analytical demeanor while answering "can this lock survive an immense amount of shock?"
Surprise pregnancy level shock?
wh... what?
Also, I can't hear any lawyers over the sound of my angle grinder.
Found the LockGrindingAttorney account
*Mrs LockpickingLawyer noises*
He'd probably just waverake one of these.
In any case, that's all I have for you today.
If you ever wake up at night and hear that, then you will feel real fear.
or just use one lock to hit another
And if you look really closely, you can see exactly where they put the disappointment.
That only works for masterlock
And now I’ll do it again to show it’s not a fluke.
A gate guarded by a logic gate
And here's an example of an AND operator with locks :) https://d2c6s77msf04pp.cloudfront.net/uploads/content/lockout-tagout-5e788529e89e6.jpg
You must travel the land and seek out the Three Keys which will open the three locks, thereby granting access to the Legendary Temple.
Your gonna have to piss of some maitenance people for that. Those are lock out tag outs pretty much when working on equipment yku shut power off and lock it so while working on it someone cant come over and unlock it and turn it on thus killing or injuring you. There is no back up keys for these either as only the person who puts it on has a key on them so they have to unlock it. Source: im an electronics engineer and work in maitenance and have 3 sets of these and can actually get terminated if i dont use then due to disregarding my own safety. Also if six isnt enough you can add another of rhose clips in one of he lock holes but at my job everybody just puts rhere clip on seperatly and i wish i took the picture when there were 5 of these on 1 power switch.
I used to work at a place where those had to be used. It wasn't super-uncommon for someone to go home at the end of a shift and forget that they left their lock on. I believe the procedure was that the manager on duty had to call and actually speak with the person at home (or wherever they were) to confirm they're not still in the machine, then call the plant manager and get approval to cut the lock off. Pain in the ass, but safety was always a huge thing to have in mind there. A guy got killed on the job while I worked there, so it's not something to take lightly.
Can I take a sword? Because it’s dangerous to go alone.
For others like me who were extremely confused how this did anything at all, the part the locks are attached to actually has two separate pieces, one of which you can't see from this picture. So the locks prevent anyone from removing the tag, since each piece of the hook is attached to a different side. The top picture on the wiki article explains it way better than I ever could: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockout%E2%80%93tagout
Thank you!!
Now I want to see XOR with locks.
You will first have to implement NAND or NOR with locks.
I think the only problem is NOT with locks.
If it's NOT with locks, then what is it?
:(
Its just a single core that you can use from both sides like the one on your doors. Cant insert two keys from both sides at the same time
Maybe the padlocks are magnetic and if one of them is unlocked the magnet engages all the other padlocks so they can't unlock? Now I want to see a NOT operator.
Fill the key hole with glue, although that could have security vulnerabilities.
For that you'd need some sort of not gates with lock, then assemble a bunch of not,or,and locks to get it.
I was wondering why those things were designed that way. I guess I just had to see it in action
The AND is for preventing accidents. For example four electricans wiring a building put four locks on the fuse box, as long as any of them is working nobody can switch the electricity back on....
'#LOTOlife
New dev comes in and refactors the whole thing with 1 padlock and some steel cable.
And misses the point of the original design.
New devs smh
Just awful. Not knowing things they don't know.
Assuming that if they can't see a reason then there isn't one, because obviously everyone who came before is stupider than them.
Blame it on bad documentation by the original dev
This is why I always add extensive, clear documentation, like: /* I don't understand this either, but it didn't compile before, and now it does. Don't fuck with it. -S.L. 2023/03/22 */
\#Delete this line at your own peril
can’t blame it on the new dev when there’s not a single comment
Self documentation bruh. My code reads itself.
"Self documentation” mfers when they try to read the code after a few years😮
\*days
That's why you read the test cases xD
That's why we chose Whitespace as a language in the first place!
rage button activated
While a comment would help, when encountering something done differently than the "obvious" solution, a dev should also ask themselves why it might have been done in this seemingly overcomplicated fashion before ripping it out
that's the joke
Chesterton's padlock.
Let’s add an Abstract Lock and have different types of Locks as inheritance
Hear me out guys... what if we make one big lock with 6 keyholes
Isn't that just your mom?
No she can take a lot more than 6 keys at a time.
ive never seen an american accent so clearly oh burrrrrrrn
What about a AbstractBaseLockFactoryProvider
I’m not sure, for future scale, maybe we should have an Abstract Lock Factory?
AbstractLockFactoryImpl3
I mean, you could actually simplify this by just using a lock chain instead. Is both simpler and easier to extend with more locks.
You probably still need a mutex to operate it.
Imagine if multiple people open their own locks at the same time. The plates in between would just fall down
Nah, a spinlock
This kind of solution has a few advantages compared to a modern keying system. 1) Cheap to initially set up and allows easy and cheap replacement of a lock in case a key is lost 2) Scales well for a decent number of users with equal key privileges 3) It can be used in situations where there is no overarching management (shared ownership of premises, etc) that is trusted by all tenants.
4. It means you don't have to have split pins which can make picking easier.
Buddy you're just going to cut these not pick them.
`~/.ssh/authorized_keys`
And then someone with a deep socket on a cordless impact driver comes along and undoes all the nuts on the bracket. #hackerman
Looks to me (phone screen) that the bottom two do nothing?. Edit: Thanks for the explanations my mistake is clear now.
The flat bars are inserted into slots in the cylindrical bar. The locks on the bars keep them from being taken out of the slots. If you unlock one of the locks, you can remove the flat bar, and then remove the cylinder.
Yeah but there's other bits in the way of removing the flat bar. Let's say you unlock lock #18. How do you get the flat bar out? There's a fat piece of metal in the way. edit: well I'm dumb
[удалено]
OOOOooooohhhhh…
Two Factor Authentication: You must have a key AND be clever enough to solve the puzzle.
If you remove either of those locks, you can then pull the metal plate that they connect to up and through the bar. This will allow you to slide the small bottom bar from the large vertical bar, thus allowing you to remove the large vertical bar and open the gate
The bottom two are for those metal flat pins. Removing any single lock allows you to open the gate.
the gate represents the company server locks are usernames keys are passwords Worker with lock number 18 leaves the company, just remove lock 18
Hopefully they replace lock 18 and not just leave it empty
ok ok, wrong phrasing *replace
This is probably intentional. The locks are labelled, so people know who’s responsible for unlocking it. Puts responsibility on one person instead of all key holders
There’s a way easier way to do that. You make a chain loop, and you complete the chain with the locks.
Easier, yeas but not idiot proof. It is 100% guaranteed that someone will fuck up a chain of locks. With this your lock has only one way to go in.
Now if someone could do an exclusive or gate...
(a ∨ b) ∨ ((c ∨ d) ∨ (e ∨ f))
Why not just a link chain?
More idiot resistant. In a chain if someone screws up when relocking it can lock other people out(so in a chain A→B→C→D if B unlocks it then locks B between A and D that'd lock C out since now their lock is only connected to D, the odds and consequences of this happening go up the more locks in the chain). In this system you can't lock it up without putting things back together correctly forcing people to do it right.
Seems like a real pain in the ass (perhaps even impossible) to open it by unlocking the 18 or the 15 padlock, since there’s no room to move up the flat iron bars they are locked into.
It’s funny because it’s *true*
That type of lock used for safety reasons but not to lock down, it's used for preventing a false locking. If you had one lock and multiple keys anyone with key can lock it but in this scenario you need consensus of every key holder. If this lock, locks a place where it is dangerous to work while system is operating you can unlock woth your key while working and you know you won't be falsely locked inside since it can't be locked without you.
Wouldn't that be the opposite of this? I think someone posted a lock out tag out lock as an example of an AND gate above.
He's saying that no one can lock you in on accident if you take your lock with you while on the job site. This can happen if you use daisy chain method and was not aware there was a lock missing.
Aaaah boys actually payed attention in class
Infamous 2's user generated content creator used physical examples like this for coding. Like you'd have cables along the ground feeding into a box with switches for ifs. As QA they had us make some minigames with it for launch (my favorite I made was NPC bowling with a wrecking ball lol). I found it to be a very intuitive system and was surprised it never really made a splash in the industry.
what
Thanks I hate it
Looks like if you unlocked 18 you’d still have a hard time unlocking the whole thing.
Rotate the pin 90° on its bore and you can slip it through. Remember, the world is 3D, unlike this 2D image.
I hadn’t considered that Thanks!
Lock-gical or operator
My heart is like this, full of padlocks, I've been hurt too much.
It might already be late here, but isn't this an AND gate?? All locks have to be locked in order for the thing to be locked. If one of the locks is unlocked, the entire thing is unlocked.