ISometimesAdmin

The FDA regulation on Net Weight is found in 21 CFR 101.105. In this regulation FDA makes allowance for reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice. FDA states that variations from the stated quantity of contents should not be unreasonably large.

While FDA does not provide a specific allowable tolerance for Net Weight, this matter could come under FTC jurisdiction. FTC has proposed regulations that would unify USDA and FDA Net Contents labeling and incorporate information found in the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Handbook 133.

NIST Handbook 133 specifies that the average net quantity of contents in a lot must at least equal the net quantity declared on the label. Plus or minus deviation is permitted when caused by unavoidable variation in weighing and measuring that occur in good manufacturing practice. The maximum allowable variance for a package with a net weight declaration of 5 oz is 5/16 oz. Packages under-filled by more than this amount are considered non-compliant.

http://www.foodconsulting.com/q&a.htm

Right? Like fuck Google and all, but can you imagine how many absurdities would have to have happened in order for it to be blocked?

Others beat me to the punch on saying this is just worse WebAuthN, but there are some specific flaws that boil down to saying that this whole thing is, at best, totally inconsiderate of real attack vectors such as phishing

Online Login: On supported platforms, log in with your ‘Sign’ rather than your email address. The service checks for a corresponding email in their database that produces the same hash with the chosen algorithm/options. Services can eventually replace emails with ‘Signs’ for regular users.

Enhanced Privacy: Limits the need to share email addresses, reducing spam and data breach risks.

Huh? What does this even mean? How can you avoid sharing your email and replace it with a sign, if they need to check it against their database of... Emails?

Real-Life Usage: In physical stores, use your QR-art ‘Sign’ when asked if you have an account/booked at table.

Ah excellent. Someone can just look at a security camera or just snap a photo over your shoulder and steal your sign then. Because your proposal sure doesn't note any way that these are 1-time use only. And if they were, this sounds like an awfully inconvenient way of receiving a temporary number (which sites usually only ever do as a cheap/bad 2FA method/password resets)

Email Verification: Receive a unique link via email, confirming your email’s validity.

Oh boy, better make sure to not get phished! Or that the link is 1 time use! Or that you aren't being victimized by a MITM attack and getting it intercepted immediately!

No, it absolutely wasn't, as can testify anyone who actually had to work with it: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/the-death-of-adobes-flash-is-lingering-not-sudden/

There are lots of good reasons to get rid of Flash. Browser makers say it's a top sore spot for security, performance and shorter battery life.

https://tedium.co/2021/01/01/adobe-flash-demise-history/

Usability means a few things in this context—simplicity, ease of use, convention, and accessibility. Flash was none of those things. It took the blank-canvas approach to creativity—which was great for the artists and illustrators that originally made up its target audience, but morphed into numerous other forms that it wasn’t necessarily designed for. It fell into overuse and quickly became abused by others.

I do think it sped up the demise of Flash on the web considerably.

That's unironically an innovation right there

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I think it's a bit distasteful to armchair diagnose someone you don't know, though

Texas is politically and socially against LGBT rights. Maybe not as bad as Mexico, but you are likely to get hatecrimed in Texas if you are nonbinary.

Yeah the headline is stupid bait.

They already built it. They're trying to contribute the change upstream.

Which is technically "requesting higher core support", but is a very obnoxious way to phrase it.

Absolutely fucking me_irl

Fully agreed, hence the "most" :^)

I very rarely care for what most 62 year olds have to say about the capabilities about the theoretical limits of computation.

This isn't much different.