Obviously, no issues with non-devs who would never use it disabling it.

For instance, I have a morning routine which ensures I'm "presentable"/etc. When I start work I immediately create the day's note, go to the previous day and review, copy over any ongoing tasks, etc. My day note is the same thing every day: Things I did, Things I need to do, Meeting notes (important meeting notes get extracted to their own file), Random notes. Then setting in to work. Evenings are bit more flexible and the weekends tend to be the wild west, bit of a reset so I don't feel "trapped" in a cycle, etc.

I do struggle with weekly/monthly or longer intermittent routines. Even stuff like doing bills (automated as much as possible), re-ordering prescriptions, etc. So it's always a process.

Last thing so as not to go too long - not everyone runs into this, but in case you've gotten down on yourself at times and now realize it might be ADHD, give your self a break / forgive yourself. Same thing going forward. Not an excuse, not continuing to seek improvement, but realizing that when you stumble, there is a reason and it may not be something you can actually control. Reflect on what you could do to prevent it in the future, but do it without self-blame or criticism. Be kind to yourself, in other words.

I've found that for me, spreading things out and having visual cues allows my brain to relax and focus on the task at hand, because I know I don't have to use a memory slot to remember to do something that I don't have a visual cue for, because every so often I see that cue and know it isn't going anywhere until I have time to deal with it. Almost the exact opposite of the anxiety the author describes. (And before it's suggested, yes, I also take notes and put important tasks there, but it isn't as helpful for my brain to let something go compared to having a visual cue.)

Yet... I would push back and argue that with advances in parallel with robotics and autonomous vehicles, both of those things are distinct near future possibilities. And even without the physical capability, the capacity to blackmail has already been seen, and could be used as a form of coercion/slavery. This is one of the arguable scenarios for how an AI can enlist humans to do work they may not ordinarily want to do to enhance AI beyond human control (again, near future speculation).

And we know torture does not have to be physical to be effective.

I do think the way we currently interact probably does not enable these kinds of behaviors, but as we allow more and more agentic and autonomous interactions, it likely would be good to consider the ramifications and whether (or not) safeguards are needed.

Note: I'm not claiming they have not considered these kinds of thing either or that they are taking them for granted, I do not know, I hope so!

IMO, it is only as complicated or simple as you want to make it these days, and claiming otherwise likely is due to focusing on legacy aspects rather than the current state of the framework.

FWIW, I'm not arguing that it's the "best" or that everyone should use it. Or that it doesn't still have flaws. Just that it is still firmly in the top set of 3-5 frameworks that are viable for making complex web apps and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

I know you are saying you do work mainly in Angular, but for others reading this, I don't think this is giving modern Angular the credit it deserves. Maybe that was the case in the late 20-teens, but the Angular team has been killing it lately, IMO. There is a negative perception due to the echo chamber that is social media but meanwhile, Angular "just works" for enterprise and startups who want to scale alike.

I think people who are burned on on decision fatigue with things like React should give Angular another try, might be pleasantly surprised how capable it is out of the box, and no longer as painful to press against the edges.

Anyways, just a counter-point to the commenter you were replying to.

As for CORS, they were uploading the SVGs to an account of their own, but then using the vulnerabilities to pivot to other accounts.

With those (all these are "possible" but not always, as usual, it depends, and random off the top of my head):

- I can redirect you to sites I control where I may be able to capture your login credentials.

- May be able to prompt and get you to download malware or virus payloads and run them locally.

- Can deface the site you are on, either leading to reputational harm for that brand, or leading you to think you're doing one thing when you're actually doing another.

- I may be able to exfiltrate your cookies and auth tokens for that site and potentially act as you.

- I might be able to pivot to other connected sites that use that site's authentication.

- I can prompt, as the site, for escalated access, and you may grant it because you trust that site, thereby potentially gaining access to your machine (it's not that the browsers fully restrict local access, they just require permission).

- Other social engineering attacks, trying to trick you into doing something that grants me more access, information, etc.

It should be understood that there WILL be bugs, that is NOT a sign of incompetence, and so cleaning them up should be an ongoing task so they do not linger and collect (and potentially get worse by compounding with other bugs).

I would also question why only 3 of 8 devs approve PRs. Even if that can't change more broadly all of the time, this kind of exercise seems like a perfect time to allow everyone to review PRs - two fold benefit, more fixes are reviewed and gives experience reviewing to others that don't get to do that regularly.

So yes, definitely still do PRs, and if that is problematic, consider whether that is an indication the PR process may itself need to be reviewed.

As a bit of a semi-related aside, while everyone has different motivations when voting, as a whole when folks are able to vote for their gov't, one hopes that enough people are thinking about what is good for the majority and society as a whole and not only what is good for themselves. And that has more impact at local and state levels usually. A bit idealistic, admittedly.

As for it being a "scam" - there are enough valid studies that show what this one did, that folks who are deficient that are able to raise their levels tend to be slightly healthier.

There isn't necessarily evidence for supplementation beyond "normal" range, and I do agree that no one should just take high-dose vitamin D supplements without data (tests) that it is necessary.

Not medical advice here, but harmful effects from vitamin D exposure/toxicity generally only happen at very high levels, or if high doses are taken over long periods of time (as excess can be stored in fatty tissue/liver). Doctors often prescribe a very high dose (like 50,000 IUs) for individuals who are very deficient (often taken once a week, not daily) for a short period before going on a more standard (400-2,000, maybe 5,000) IU dose for maintenance.