The problem with sports scores is that it would be trivial to procedurally generate signed messages ahead of time for thousands of different team names and scores, and then select one that matches the eventual reality.
> I would pay a premium for a TV with no internet connection.
There is a solution for which time is running out but is currently still possible. You can find someone selling a used, perfectly good television made in the era right before every single TV was a "smart" TV.
And that is what makes it so disappointing. Dryden -- who is a genius, a brilliant writer, and one of the most accomplished NHL goaltenders ever -- is absolutely wrong on the point that goaltenders should just stay on their knees all game.
NHL shooters have no problem hitting the uppermost part of the goal at will, and a goaltender on his knees simply doesn't cover enough of that area. This is a 6'5" goalie in that position (presumably having dropped down from upright after the shot is taken): https://www.1stohiobattery.com/columbus-blue-jackets-news/20...
If the shooter is 5 or more feet away, and has a couple seconds to set up a shot, and the goaltender is on his knees, it is virtually an automatic goal. Someone employing the strategy Dryden suggests should be the standard would lose every game for their team.
This takes away from his other very good commentary about the aesthetics of the game changing.
Also, the stick is very substantial for covering the 5-hole already. When a goaltender is on his knees, he isn't going to be raising the stick over his head to cover the three hole.
Of course I read the article. See the paragraph beginning: "Really, the biggest reason for a goalie to get off his knees is that if he doesn’t, people might notice.", and the two paragraphs preceding it.
In no way does he argue that the goalie should always be on his knees. He says it’s common for some to be, then explores the reasons why that might be the case. That is called good, nuanced writing.
It’s an article in the The Atlantic, not a formal proof.
He says he noticed while watching Vasilevskiy that after having dropped he did not immediately spring back up as his team carried the puck out, but eventually did before the other team regained control -- "but he didn’t really need to", because Dryden, wrongly, thinks that when the team returns to the zone Vasilevskiy should face them from his knees.
Every NHL goalie plays much of the game on their knees, as they should, because they end up there in response to low shots and close-approaching shooters. What Dryden is wrong to imply is that they should adopt this as their default posture.
As I reread I see that even worse, he downplays the danger of adopting this position leading to taking a slap shot to the helmet, saying a modern goalie mask protects the head "as much as a catching glove does the hand". Just utterly false. https://www.tsn.ca/nhl-concerned-by-rise-in-goalie-concussio...
I’m sure that Vasilevskiy didn’t pop up immediately there because he was exhausted. If his team turns it over, he’s back on his feet in an instant. No way he stays on his knees the whole game
Good idea. Unfortunately any 2FA using a phone number (SMS or phone call) is highly insecure -- see Jack Dorsey having his Twitter hijacked, or any number of people having bitcoins stolen from Coinbase. That implementation should be marked with a big red X, not a green checkmark.
If it's 2FA and not an account recovery short cut it doesn't deserve a cross mark because it's not _worse_ than nothing - nobody is finding it _easier_ to get in by hijacking your phone number as an extra step.
If your argument is that phone based 2FA is no good because it's vulnerable that'd count for TOTP as well, which is vulnerable to live phishing attacks that are now relatively widespread. In both cases they're a lot better than nothing.
I think a better description is using your phone number for 2 factor auth and account means if you steal someone's phone number (via simhacking usually) then you can do anything, because you can reset the account through the phone number, and then you can set the password, and now you control 2 factors (phone + password).
On a not-so-related note, a number of sites and messaging apps require login via phone number. This doesn't seem to have necessarily penetrated western apps, but is seemingly more prevalent in Asian/African countries.
Does this mean those applications are ipso facto vulnerable, via a similar attack vector?
If the phone number is acting as the identity (like email for a lot of sites today) then no, that's not vulnerable to anything, though over the longer term it can cause confusion as "your" phone number turns out to have previously belonged to somebody else who isn't using the phone number any more but does use lots of accounts with that number...
True, but as long as the user does realize this, and they still keep using the very same high quality password, it is better than that very password without 2FA over SMS.
It's not the same. If you're used to typing without looking at your keyboard, a fake key on the touchbar does not compare to an actual key where you can feel without looking that your finger is in the right place, and can know by the key travel that you've actually pressed it.
It's pretty much the same as the difference between a car where the air conditioner and radio knobs are a touch screen vs. being real knobs that you can safely adjust while driving.
I thought that too, then I got one of the new MacBooks and used it for about a week. I stopped noticing that the escape key wasn’t a key somewhere between day 5 and 7. It’s very easy to hit, as you can trigger it by tapping anywhere on the edge of the touchbar (not just the graphical button), and thus I think it becomes very easy for your muscle memory to adjust.
I would still prefer a physical function row, but it’s not that big of a deal. And actually some of the controls on the touchbar are really nice, for example the volume and brightness controls for changing all your connected displays at once.
Exactly. You can just swipe the corner of it like you're brushing off dust or something, and it will register as a click. It's probably less effort than having to mash down a button that far to the edge of the keyboard.
While I'd normally agree, in this case, I have to disagree. Because the position of the button (proximity to the edge of the case and top-left corner of the keyboard), I have no trouble hitting it accurately without looking.
The author of the OP lists in his LinkedIn profile things that he wants and does not want in a job, but saying "I am not interested in X" is a little counterproductive if that causes your profile to come up in keyword searches for "X".
For related reasons I no longer mention on my resume that I have Magento experience. :)
Thanks for the kind words. The ability to improve people's daily lives, as you described, was a big reason a lot of us chose to work there and something we were hoping to see at a larger scale eventually. Today's news came as a shock to most of us.
