rjacksonm1

The keys in this case are used for bluetooth comms locally between somebody's device and their bike.

These are ordinarily used by the VanMoof app to unlock the bike and control the bike's settings.

There are already some third-party apps (Moofer, Mooovy) to allow alternate access to those settings – including some hidden ones.

With a few tweaks those third-party apps should be able to support direct key upload, rather than having to log in and proxy authentication through to VanMoof's API.

>With Zoom's LinkedIn Sales Navigator integration, you’ll build connections and instantly gain insights about your meeting participants.

Sounds pretty creepy. I assume participants have to opt into this?

This reminds me of something I find myself constantly explaining to colleagues again and again: You can scale a monolith in its entirety to handle elevated traffic in one of its "subsystems"; having code paths that aren't receiving traffic doesn't cost anything (at least in the architecture of the systems I look after).

I don't see the value in separating a monolith to allow independent scaling, unless there are wildly different performance demands across its components which makes reliably autoscaling difficult.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that just a "service"?

The "micro" part just seems to cause confusion in every conversation I have about service based architectures.

Looks like they're hitting a GitHub rate limit, rather than bottlenecking on CPU.

Looks like a great tool! A lot of the organisations I've worked for have their own home-built ways of doing exactly this: Internal Wikis, paper checklists, cloning JIRA issues, Confluence templates, ...

If I were in a position to bring this into my organisation I'd be concerned about its longevity, seeing as its a completely free product.

How're the costs of this project being covered?

What a fantastic idea! I know many folks, especially in small business, who would get a massive productivity boost from something like this.

I'd recommend explaining how the service integrates with people's emails, before asking them to hand over any details. That's the only thing that would stop me from giving it a go.

It is the best way to do it for the average user.

Modern password management services are incredibly secure, with client-side encryption of your secrets, among other protective mechanisms (to guard against keyloggers, stolen computers, ...)

There is still a risk, because you're trusting third-party software (which in some cases is closed-source – including 1Password), but for most people that is a much lower risk profile than if they were managing passwords themselves.

For specifics on 1password's security, check out https://1password.com/security/

I've found DropBox's zxcvbn system to be ideal. Instead of requiring passwords to fit a set of arcane rules, it requires passwords to meet a threshold of entropy.

Is there a reason this isn't more widespread?

https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2012/04/zxcvbn-realistic-pass...