TotallyGod

I also read the comments on youtube and one of them describes the series as a "terribly poor example of architectural information - so many unqualified statements, generalizations and assumptions that are simply incorrect"

From the same user:

"Architects often concentrate more on the look of a building than its eventual use or function" That is a very bold statement..... To say that architects downplay the function of building is a ridiculous thing to say.

"The central problem is that architects don't want change in their buildings, so they make it as difficult as possible." False. Architects are legally responsible to act for the betterment of their client and the general public. Being deliberately 'difficult' would result in an eventual loss of their license.

"Changes and remodeling is bound to be ugly." Give me a break, have you seen the Louvre? Or any other updated building, ever?

This is an informative article, it's a shame about the straw-man that repeats throughout it. Nobody is saying this is "about the app". Obviously, the usefulness of the app is tied into the licence. It's about the licence. Everybody knows that.

I never heard before that recipes were used for trade, so TIL. It's fascinating what things in the history of mankind made money. The Dutch trade in Tulip Bulbs for example and many other things that we deem unusual today.

Heads up that your Google fonts (in site.css) trigger a warning about insecure scripts, and in Chrome at least they therefore don't load by default.

Looks like you need to make a DNS request to a malicious server to be vulnerable. This means you are safe if you are using 8.8.8.8? Or another trusted network? (Or your ISP if you trust they haven't been compromised).

But how many people were required to build the automation and also to keep it running? If they're anything like automated check-out stations in grocery stores, they employee more people than the low-tech solution did previously.