ale_jrb

The bottom of the post mentioned that sales have increased by 40% with the new design. It will probably take some time to know if that sticks, but it seems like it works from that point of view, even if it was maybe overpriced.

But it's always medically necessary, because weight changes are a leading indicator of many issues, and the long-term trend is needed to see these. If people feel that they don't understand why it's necessary, maybe better communication and education is needed, but I don't think these cards help that.

The furlough system transferred a large amount of money to households, because people had substantially reduced expenses (due to not having to commute, and service-based industries being closed, for example) but only slightly reduced income.

This is generally true in most countries: although the exact mechanism was different, people ended up with more discretionary income and fewer services to spend it on, and so demanded more goods.

They're probably less attainable specifically around San Fransisco and Silicon Valley than in most of Western Europe though, even on a SWE salary. It's definitely true in cheaper areas and states though.

The maintainers are the process, as they are reviewing it, so it's absoutely attacking the maintainers.

I feel like fiasco might be overstating it a little, but basically atom is incredibly slow and this is probably the main reason that it never overtook Sublime and friends in the same way the VS Code did.

I understood it that reading from `/dev/random` will still block just after boot (i.e. before it's initialised) unless you pass the new flag `GRND_INSECURE` to `getrandom`. After it's initialised, however, it will never block because it's now just using the CRNG.

This is true, but kicking off a large subset of the userbase every time an account is compromised (or more realistically, every time someone changes their password—which should certainly invalidate their old tokens) isn't going to be a valid trade off for most applications with customers.

The problem, as the linked 'Slightly Sarcastic Flowchart' says, is: how do you handle the invalidation server going down? If you just assume that tokens are valid in this case, then an attacker just has to kill the server and they're back to being impossible to invalidate. If you assume they're invalid, you're back to having centralised state, which mostly defeats the purpose.