There's nothing plausible that can do that, and he knew that, and was basically just saying "we're going to put ads on it" in a way that challenges you to explain what a better option would be.

I appeciate short letters like this that get straight to the point...

2. As you can see in the quote, the appeals are complete

Such charges are outright nonsense, for one thing. And I think that's relevant since it's the only possible jutification for the utter forfeiture of rights.

Holy crow what a mess. No wonder I'd never heard of this.

There should be a proposal for browsers to expose a property on the keydown/up/press event containing a code for the key combination. Something like "CTRL+S", "CTRL+ALT+S", etc. The programmer could then switch over this property rather than having to check key codes and modifiers manually.

I would also propose to any web developers that they build this property themselves in their own code and check against it instead of checking modifiers directly. Not only would it protect against bugs like in the OP, it would also be a lot more convenient to use.

  $ gcc -Wall -Werror -x c - << EOF
  void f(int x[static 1]){}int main(){f(0);}
  EOF
  :1:37: error: null passed to a
      callee that requires a non-null argument
      [-Werror,-Wnonnull]
    1 | void f(int x[static 1]){}int main(){f(0);}
      |                                     ^ ~
  :1:12: note: callee declares array
      parameter as static here
    1 | void f(int x[static 1]){}int main(){f(0);}
      |            ^~~~~~~~~~~
  1 error generated.

Phrased another way, a benefit of that approach is that if the local conditions necessitate or advise breaking certain traffic rules, your system learns to do so while retaining plausible deniability that it isn't intentional.