> That three millisecond time doesn't make sense as the timeout for a connect() call.
> Yes, I know. And it wasn't the timeout, actually. In the story, I make it sound like it took all of ten minutes from being made aware of the 500-mile email limit and determining a 3 ms light-speed issue. In fact, this took several hours, and quite a bit of detective work. The point is, eventually I came up with that figure, ran units, and gagged on my latte. (I'm fairly certain it was a different latte from the one I started with.) So what, in particular, is your question about the 3 ms figure?
This is a dangerous game. Be aware that just because it might not seem like anyone is using these data against you right now, doesn't mean they won't in the future.
If you don't need a database at all I kinda understand not wanting to "sandblast a soupcracker" as the saying goes.. but I've definitely seen a very similar trend with Flask apps!
To be frank django has been my go-to for almost every app I've built or prototyped which required a db, sometimes if exposing a REST API is more of the main goal I'll use DRF and then build a minimal frontend SPA using React (served by a separate app within the project). Not sure why it's not taught/used more tbh.
I’ve come across this as well, and having worked in VoIP the common rationale is fraud prevention, which is a real problem that does exist-but I think it’s a rationale that has been quite misapplied or perhaps better to say, inappropriately applied as a blocker for using VoIP numbers for 2FA.
In my experiences the vast majority of websites allow it -- a select few disallow. Although that group will expand. One trick I've found is to register the 2FA with a "real" number, and then port that number to a voip service. I never use a real cell phone number for anything.
I've eyeballed family plans a couple times, in some cases it's just a minimum of 2 phones sharing a larger data pool. I've toyed with the idea of putting the 2nd SIM in my old phone and just having it around for... whatever, as long as it's not consuming data.
> Almost everyone, deep into trad Republican groups, agree that the Floyd killing was a sickening murder, a symptom of a broken system, and Something Needs To Be Done.
I need you to know that this is not the case. A not insignificant portion of the right does not feel anything wrong was done in this case, and would prefer for police to "crack down." Some will openly discuss that they need to publicly concede that there is A Problem in order to suggest ineffectual solutions to it which will satisfy politicians and pacify mass movements.
The rest of your comment is very correct, but it should be mentioned that bad actors exist and not every American's ideal version of America is completely rid of police murders.
What is your source or qualification for saying this?
I know of several conservative groups that did infact hold or participate in protests against George Floyd's death in the days after. Pretty much everyone in them agrees, even now, that while the case is not quite as clear-cut as some would have you think, it was still wrong to kneel on his neck for 10 minutes after he was already under control.
The right-libertarian circles have been banging on against the militarization of the police and their unaccountability for decades now. Check out Radley Balko in particular, and the books he's written and the articles for reason.com. That's what conservatives saw this as.
Things did kind of turn over the weeks after. This was when the left's narrative that it was a racism problem took hold, the rhetoric escalated into "Defund the Police", and protests into some areas turned into riots and large-scale property destruction. This caused the right to de-emphasize those concerns and put more emphasis on the defense of the police.
Naturally, the Left is incentivized to dig up the most outrageously extreme version of those arguments and try to portray the entire Right as thinking like that. I do not know you or your ideology, but I suspect your source is Left-wing articles that seek to portray the Right in this way. If so, you ought to be aware that it's never a path to truth to view any group only through the lens of their enemies.
Indeed, IMO he's covered many sides of this issue very much in need of attention. Sadly, per the point of the article, it doesn't offend enough people or fit neatly enough into a right-wing or left-wing outrage machine, so it doesn't get a huge amount of attention.
> Pretty much everyone in them agrees, even now, that while the case is not quite as clear-cut as some would have you think
I think you should dig into this a little deeper, because I think it is disingenuous to portray their take as just being somewhat suspicious of the case. When I dug deeper with my conservative friends, they think that Floyd is a "thug" and drug addict, and fall short of saying that he definitely had what happened to him coming, but that's the implication.
> This caused the right to de-emphasize those concerns and put more emphasis on the defense of the police.
But that's the choice, isn't it; faced with a choice between property damage, however minor or even theoretical, and human life (or the serious injuries incurred by protestors and journalists who had rubber bullets fired at their eyes), conservatives immediately turn around and defend the police.
The police can read between the lines as well as anyone else, so they interpret that as the voters ordering them to go out and injure as many protestors as necessary until the protests stop. Which, of course, escalates the protests.
(How is Radley Balko conservative? It's very hard to tell from that twitter feed)
I'd say Radley Balko is libertarian. The intersection of doctrinally libertarian viewpoints with main stream American politics is complex at best. For what it's worth, I often see his articles shared in right-wing circles favorably. I haven't really heard of him having much of a following in left-wing circles. It doesn't sound very helpful to our political scene to be highly concerned that somebody can't be easily placed in a bucket of right-wing or left-wing.
On the other, to borrow some of the left's standard viewpoints, I could say that it's a very privileged viewpoint that property damage is inconsequential compared to injury. How many lower-class people will suffer from losing their mode of transportation, having their home rendered unsafe, or even having "luxuries" that were sources of comfort in a difficult life destroyed? How many people started out in poverty and spent a lifetime building a business from nothing so they could rise into the middle class, only to watch it be destroyed by privileged mostly-white rioters in response to something that they had nothing to do with, that happened in a completely different city? And it certainly isn't like rioters haven't intentionally attacked, injured, and in a few cases killed, both citizens and law enforcement officers as well.
They specified no career benefit. I'm almost certain they view increased trust from their patients as a benefit, and the extra confidence you gain from keeping up with the latest clinical science is hard to measure in terms of personal value but almost certainly comes out to $0 in financial terms (or negative if you value your free time).
I recommend setting up an aliasing service no matter which provider you ultimately use. Blur or Anonaddy (sure there are others..) will give you a burner email unique for each new service you sign up for which forwards to your real email, and if one day one of them gets spammy or is sold to a data aggregator, you can just get rid of it entirely.
If I'm going to be actually corresponding a lot with an address (these days this is the exception in my email usage) I'll skip this middleman and make an alias/sending identity in fastmail.
To more fully answer your question, I believe I now have hundreds of unique email addresses in use. But it doesn't feel that way.
