1,465 karma · joined November 17, 2013
They messed up by allowing old keys to be used for both private and public APIs in the first place, but now it's difficult for them to undo that for existing keys.
Too many requests, please try again later.HTTP/2 429
date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 22:09:40 GMT
content-type: text/html;charset=UTF-8
expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT
cache-control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate
pragma: no-cache
retry-after: 3600
vary: Accept-Encoding
set-cookie: PHPSESSID=b25ece07c8923fa6b66b14599e1ed545; path=/
cf-cache-status: DYNAMIC
report-to: {"endpoints":[{"url":"https:\/\/a.nel.cloudflare.com\/report\/v4?s=z4hhYJcawKduyEdIbsTqPNE6k1o7YSkmMFlcDvDfe%2BvU7V8B%2FFJj4mItPssnI96kp1Ot%2B7jadmhYVWC%2BpAKG4zrqN%2FG6cY7KXDJJtFH2gQwQCNwGfS6Rbsu4xOCnMhoyT7U%3D"}],"group":"cf-nel","max_age":604800}
nel: {"success_fraction":0,"report_to":"cf-nel","max_age":604800}
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 8b3445445e51f93d-SJC
Expires header in the past seems suspect. And all the header names are lowercased.I don't think the actual cap really matters if the per-GB and base pricing reflects the true costs. If it's low it means heavy users pay more, if it's high, light users pay more.
Which is algebraically identical to a monthly charge and data cap with overage charge. The main issue is the overage charge is too high, it should be like 1 cent per GB (Comcast is charging 20x that).
"In almost all applications of superconductors, they don't use high-temperature ones. [...] The ones [the superconductors] that see use in the LHC, for instance, aren't [high temperature superconductors]."
It just has a sentence in the middle of it that confuses you into thinking their antecedents are "the HTSCs" and "ceramic" instead of "the SCs" and "HTSCs".
So I would add custom firmware first if that's something you want to do to it in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...
It's certainly a convenience, and most serious software would try to include it, but I don't think MSCHF are going for convenience. The Yahoo headline and article uses the word "file" but the video doesn't.
A few years ago, $800k homes were consistently opposed on the basis that they aren't affordable to anyone, so not many were built. Now because so few were built, houses cost $1.6M.
Will we repeat the same mistake, and oppose $1.4M homes on the basis that they aren't affordable?
In 10 years we might be having the same discussion about $3M homes.
Obviously the costs involved in implementing these technologies should be part of the discussion, but I don't think it's unreasonable to want to make anything that eases management of diabetes way more affordable.
edit: surprisingly, it used to point to Google Search https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/12/duck-com-now-points-to-duc...