tyleraldrich

I don't know what you're working with, but you don't need a JWT to figure out access in the request pipeline. A session ID does the same thing and allows you to associate a session to a user, and most frameworks are capable of doing this already (e.g. django has middleware that can do this)

But... that's not really something you _have_ to avoid. Check permissions, if they fail the test -> http401 (for an API) or some user-friendly redirect. Something similar to this is how things work without JWT currently, so it's only a problem if you make it one.

Google pays Mozilla a bunch of money to be the default search engine, and Mozilla needs the money as they are a non-profit.

If somebody cares about their online privacy, they can change the default search engine very easily - I think what we should be doing is teaching the average web browser what kind of tracking goes on so that more people are willing to switch to things like Firefox/DDG.

This same exact strategy works with a salt as well.

This isn't necessarily true (and is very dependent on what your password was) - they could have iterated through lists of common passwords w/ special characters, hashed them, and compared them to their DB, forcing a pw reset for everyone that had a match.

edit - just want to state that if they disallow special characters it really is a terrible policy, my point is just that resetting your password isn't proof they are stored in plaintext

I guess pointless depends on what you're reading the comment section for - I'd put you in the minority if you came here looking for book suggestions.

It's certainly unrelated to the article, and the OP didn't understand why they received downvotes, so I believe my explanation was sufficient.

You didn't read the article.

"09.08.2018 20:10 CEST : a 5000$ bounty is awarded – the server was in a separate VLAN with no users’ specific data."

You may want to look into media bias and the One America News Network. I suspect you haven't rethought your position at all, and rather parrot the position you see on the media you consume. Think outside the box.

If your sources include two conspiracy-like youtube videos, and a legitimate article saying "maybe", you may want to rethink your position here.

Unfortunately for us, Trump doesn't think climate change exists, so he would never do this.

It's now abundantly clear you didn't even attempt to read this article. Paragraph after paragraph listing developers and direct quotes from some of them:

To list a few: Pine Gate Renewables, GTM Research, SunPower Corp, Cypress Creek Renewables LLC, the list goes on.

This isn't a Q&A (and most news isn't). You're not going to get specific questions asked to specific people. Some people like to remain anonymous. Comparing this to fox news "people are saying..." is ridiculous. I don't even have an opinion about this article but not reading an article at all and making pointless commentary about it in the comments irks me.

> Why didn't the journalist at least cite the source of the informatoin?

The source is cited in literally the first sentence.

"President Donald Trump’s tariff on imported solar panels has led U.S. renewable energy companies to cancel or freeze investments of more than $2.5 billion in large installation projects, along with thousands of jobs, the developers told Reuters."

I'm not sure if you read this article or are just responding to comments/the title, but this article is just reporting a few statements from solar developers and isn't trying to tell you how to decide to interpret anything. They wrote the total dollar amount of frozen/cancelled investments and quotes solar developers. This is Reuters, it's a pretty boring neutral article.

Have you heard of "examples." They are things you provide in order to make your point more clear. Seriously.

> The comment is essentially saying that if I do great things and become a role model then I'm not welcome because we already have plenty that "look like me".

The comment isn't about you at all. The OP said we need more role models like Grace Hopper and less like Jobs, Woz, etc. Reading this as "White men should stop aspiring to become future role models" is silly, it's about a desire to increase the diversity of tech role models. It really just sounds like you're playing the victim here, for no real reason?