There's some recent good news about this in a GitHub issue: https://github.com/openbenches/openbenches.org/issues/232

> it'd be great if GDS would stop with the ridiculous forced password recipes across gov.uk sites.

GDS isn't enforcing weird password policies across government.

This is the advice GDS publishes on passwords: https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-centred-design/resour...

Rules for cyclists in the UK:

At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cycli...

I couldn't disagree more with the author about appended URLs being a problem. A print stylesheet is exactly when you want URLs to be displayed in the text of the page, because there's no other way to find out where that underlined text is supposed to be pointing.

URLs should be displayed for sure, but inline is far too disruptive to smooth reading. I think it would be better done "reference style" if possible. Something similar to how it is done in markdown would be nice:

I get 10 times more traffic from [Google][1] than from [Yahoo][2] or [MSN][3].

[1]: http://google.com/ "Google"

[2]: http://search.yahoo.com/ "Yahoo Search"

[3]: http://search.msn.com/ "MSN Search"

CSS3 has support for footnotes in the page module.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-css3-gcpm-20111129/#footnotes

It adds a float: footnote; property. From reading that page, I believe this might work, once browser support catches up.

    a::after {
        float: footnote;
        content: attr(href) ' "' attr(title) '"';
    }

There are some other interesting additions:

    title { 
        display: none;
        string-set: title content();
    }
    
    @page { @top-left { content: string(title) }}

This will put the page title in the top left corner of the page margins.

It can also be simplified to "I get 10 times more traffic from Google[1] than from Yahoo[2] or MSN[3]." Note that I removed the square brackets from the URL text.

While this is information-lossy, the context of the link is nearly always clear from the text.

Footnotes work great for this, just like the olden days (or exactly like Wikipedia).

Content-Security-Policy is doing something vaguely similar with <script> tags, where you add a nonce in the HTTP header and then only <script nonce='foo'> tags with those nonces are executed.

script-src at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSP11/

The new Fastmail webmail interface is actually massively on-par with Gmail. It's very slick and I'd encourage everyone to give it a(nother) go.

Right, but they also store the decryption key -- your Inky password. Which is (presumably?) encrypted… somehow? Maybe?

This would be nice to know, because they're serving as a password-management app for all of your email passwords.

Presumably, they would not store your Inky password as well -- instead, they'd store a secure hash, not MD5 or SHA-1, which are built for speed, not security....

It's more complicated than that. Please see my comments on security elsewhere in the thread. We store a password verifier object -- that's akin to a secure hash, but our authentication model offers better guarantees about protection from man-in-the-middle attacks.

The cost of the product seems ok ($20 on Kickstarter, probably a little more later), but the lack of information on film pricing is a bit concerning. Especially after you include shipping from the US to the UK (in my case).

We're currently still trying to figure out how much extra wheels will cost as we are fulfilling single orders first. We should know by mid December at the latest. The shipping on extra wheels will be much cheaper, as you can fit wheels in envelopes rather than bulky packages. It may take a little longer however. Thanks for the question.

I must be missing something here with regards to revenue. Spotify has 15 million users, 4 million of whom are paid subscribers. So 11 million free users.

They have two paid plans: $60/year and $120/year.

If we assume the following structure:

    11000000 free users @ $0.50 ad revenue per year = $  5,500,000
     4000000 mid users @ $60/year                   = $240,000,000
           0 top users @ $120/year                  = $          0

For a total of $245.5 million in revenue, already more than reported here. And those proportions for their two paid plans are clearly ridiculous. But even if their free users provide $0 in revenue _total_, they still only have 2% of paid users on their top plan.

You're not taking growth into account - they're still more than doubling each year. You'd have to use the average user count to do math properly, not today's user count.

Ah, dead on! Those user figures are from August this year but the revenue is listed as 2011. Thanks.

This is exactly what I'm seeing. I just spent half an hour on the phone with my friend going over public posts from 2007 saying "WOAH, did we _really_ say that in public?". Every one was public. There were no examples of private messages showing up.