81–90 of 94 posts
So, they're making things more annoying for most uses I have for Slack, without providing any benefits for the uses I have for Slack (I get that it may provide some benefit for others). Sounds like it's time to say a lingering farewell to Slack.
Not only are they phasing out @username, they are removing the very simple /msg username – I now must type /msg @username and hit enter twice to initiate a DM. It's annoying.
On Mac if you hit CMD+T you can just start typing a username (or channel name) and as soon as it's selected, hit enter once. That's how I navigate around Slack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Password managers don't help when you need to log in to a computer you don't own, e.g. a public computer at a library or office. Using password managers just makes it easier to lock yourself out when you need access most.
I wonder if there's another way to solve this problem. For example, a plug-in that would store cookies as opposed to passwords - and then "populate" a new session with existing cookies to log you in transparently.
talking from experience: some sites also map the cookie to a browser id, making a migration useless. It just causes your session to get invalidated.
You can test this yourself because its pretty easy to 'import' cookies between browsers on the same pc. or it was the last time i tried it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if there's another way to solve this problem. For example, a plug-in that would store cookies as opposed to passwords - and then "populate" a new session with existing cookies to log you in transparently.
that sounds like a security nightmare... talking from experience: some sites also map the cookie to a browser id, making a migration useless. It just causes your session to get invalidated. You can test this yourself because its pretty easy to 'import' cookies between browsers on the same pc. or it was the last time i tried it.
Anyways, yeah I thought about binding auth cookies to some kind of persistent hash, although I'm not sure what it could be... IPs change (laptops moving), so do user agents (browser upgrades)... I guess I'll need to test this!
You can set your username to whatever you want (e.g. "jakebasile"). You then get a randomly assigned four digit number appended to the end (e.g. #5024). To add someone as a friend, you need the full username#0000, but thereafter it is not needed. To mention someone in a chat (in Discord) you type @ and then start typing - it will match on either the user name or display name, but only complete the user name. The key is that when you actually send the message it will show that user's display name in chat and notify them as you'd expect. Display names in discord can be overridden at the server level and in Battle.net games there is the concept of Real ID instead which you can choose to share your real name on a per person basis.
In both of these situations you are only using one account and one username across either multiple games or multiple servers. This avoids having to use many different accounts within the same application which is one of my primary gripes with Slack.
I don't understand what they mean by "Unfortunately, an undocumented approach to mentioning users — — no longer functions. Please reference with the user ID format ( ) instead". Surely they're not saying slack users need to manually type opaque numeric identifiers to properly mention other users? That would be ridiculous.
That’s the format a bot uses to mention a user. But, yeah, the wording is confusing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the format a bot uses to mention a user. But, yeah, the wording is confusing.
Ah I see. Yeah, still not a fan. As someone else mentioned in the thread, some bots are mainly integration, shuffle content from one system to another. This will break mentions in IRC gateways for instance, no? Or, something Slack might care more about, make it a lot harder to have a mention in a ticketing or project management system trigger a mention in a Slack message.
Seems like this is a classic ‘push the work downhill’ thing they’ve done that just costs all the devs who write slack apps.
Slack's authentication flow is the dumbest I've ever had the misfortune of using. I'm a member of multiple Slack organizations, and it needs one login per organization . I can't just have a single email address and join whatever org I want, I have to remember which email address I used for each one, otherwise I can't log in! I have multiple email addresses and don't use a specific one every time, so I have managed to…
Many email systems support username variants. If you have "username@gmail.com", you can do: username+organization@gmail.com as your slack login. I do this all of the time. Why remember things when you can have a formula to determine which username to use?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You pull up your password on your phone and type it in manually onto the computer. Sounds like someone isn't using a 100-character randomly generated password.
Maybe try InputStick then? Though I think 100 random characters is well beyond the point where you're no longer significantly increasing security by adding more characters. You can easily get 130+ bits of entropy with only 20 characters, and even for a ridiculously weak hashing algorithm like MD4 that'd be enough to withstand the entire combined strength of the Bitcoin mining network attacking your password for well…