The number of revoked tokens compared to all active tokens should still be tiny in those systems, wouldn’t you agree?

> Everyone else wants immediate revocation of rights, not waiting for a token to expire.

With a revocation list you can still have that. Once you propagated your revocation to all relying parties the token effectively expires early.

You’d need to make sure the process is somewhat predictable, like running the vacuum on a set schedule so you know for sure what maximum amount of time a deletion request will take.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41488343

Points: 5

# Comments: 2

https://lets-go.alexedwards.net/ https://lets-go-further.alexedwards.net/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41170090

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

The merchant of record model.

There’s a balance between individuals rights to privacy and what makes law enforcement easier.

One argument against broad surveillance measures like this one is that surveillance infrastructure is easy to implement and hard to get rid of again. You might be fine with the laws that are enforced with it today, but you might not be with what it’s used for in the future.

> Emergency legislation to exonerate wrongfully convicted Post Office workers has completed its journey through Scottish Parliament and each will now receive initial compensation of £600,000, with the ability to claim more as financial redress for their suffering.

Passkeys can:

- Replace the whole login (including discovery of the user id)

- Just replace the password, after a user specified a user id

- Be used as a second factor just like TOTP

They are definitely more phishing resistant for what it’s worth, even if just used for MFA. TOTP codes can be copied manually by an unsuspecting user.

That's for legitimate platforms and processors of course. If it's on some darknet bulletin board - tough luck. Not worth the time.

I cannot count the times someone felt the need to bend over backwards to accommodate me because of something I didn’t want to do/eat/drink/whatever when I‘d been perfectly fine without any special treatment and moving on with whatever we were doing.

Manually. When you merge your code back into a common branch you look at the existing migrations and the new migrations and make sure the numbers make sense (after the merge). You can avoid stepping on each other’s toes by using a timestamp for the number in your filename. You still have to make sure (when you merge) the order makes sense.

> How does the migration tool know which migration to apply first?

Migrations are ordered by the (ascending) number in the filename. (Or some other scheme, but this is common)

> But having to check the latest migration and check that with my local db seems a little bit error-prone and cumbersome, no?

The number in the database should never be higher than the highest numbered file in source control. So you can increment without looking.

Directory with .sql files starting with a number. Each file contains a set of changes to the db. The db has a table with the number that was applied last. To migrate your db you check if you have a file with a number that is higher than the one in the db. Then you apply that file to your db. That’s it.

Sounds like you are working in a way that is not intended by your tool / framework.