suvelx · HackerTrans

What's supported is indeed a mess...

I recently moved my desk between rooms. After setting everything up only one monitor seemed to work.

Tried multiple DP cables plugged things in and out with things in various state of power. Eventually gave up and chalked it up to karma and either having a dead monitor or dead dock.

Unplugged my laptop to go work in the lounge for a bit, came back later and plugged it in again amazingly both displays worked.

What changed? I plugged the dock into a different USB-C port. The one that actually supports DisplayPort Alt-mode.

suvelx

5 anni fadiscuss

What makes you think it's the weak point? Imo the ORM is easily the best bit.

The request-handling and template rendering is in my mind the weakpoint.

suvelx

5 anni fadiscuss

Couldn't you not support SMS 2FA for noncompliant countries, and then check that it's not in an ITU registered premium range?

suvelx

5 anni fadiscuss

For freely available and/or published detectors. Probably yes.

But you can hinder it's use quite easily if you have a private/commercial implementation by just not doing realtime detection.

suvelx

5 anni fadiscuss

Are there any plans for complete partitioning?

I'd like to see a point where browsing on two different websites are treated as a completely different user. Embeds, cookies, cookies in embeds, etc.

suvelx

6 anni fadiscuss

Mostly banks. Insurance has a part to play.

My understanding is:

In 2018 the government banned ACM cladding.

Shortly afterwards RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors) developed the "External Wall System" or "EWS-1" form. Which is a means of assessing the risk of cladding (external wall systems) to a building. This was not a legal requirement. It is merely a tool to assess risk. It does not even specify the credentials required to issue one, just "suitably experienced".

Surveyors carrying out an EWS-1 form would effectively be on the hook for any damages if they made the wrong call, This ended up being reflected in their insurance, so most if not all would perform a full top-to-toe inside-out fire-safety survey. These full surveys have resulted in other defects in most buildings being found. Combustible material used in balconies, insufficient fire and smoke barriers between dwellings, faulty or incorrectly installed fire doors. Note These 'defects' aren't necessarily illegal or against code, they just push the perceived risk of the building past the surveyors acceptable risk.

Banks, being horribly risk-adverse made an EWS-1 a requirement for loans on buildings over 18 meters.

Somebody in Parliament said something along the lines of "All buildings should be safe". Banks then started making the EWS-1 a requirement for all loans of multi-tenant dwellings.

But someone is always responsible for ensuring a building is 'safe'. A poor EWS-1 result means someone has to make it safe. This someone is generally the buildings Management Company, or the Freeholder (who is entitled to recover those costs from the leaseholders).

suvelx

6 anni fadiscuss

This doesn't change the fact that regardless of height, the residents in those buildings are having hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt forced onto them because of a retroactive law change.

And While Non-ACM cladding isn't illegal, it's still being treated as a risk for 'low-rise' buildings. It's still resulting in surveyors deeming the property unsafe, and it's still resulting in the leaseholders (not owners) of those buildings having to pay millions to 'remediate' it.

This coupled with decades of deregulation, poor construction and minimal oversight has resulted in over 5% of the market suffering from the same problems, ACM, Non-ACM, 50 meters tall, or 5 meters tall.

And nearly all of it is driven by the banks. The government has only banned ACM cladding, The banks have done the rest.

The banks don't give a shit that your odds of jump out your window are 50%. The banks just want to make sure the property they've given you a loan against doesn't burn down when you die from the fall.

suvelx

6 anni fadiscuss

> if its unclear who has to pay for something,

It'll fall to the person with the least clout.

suvelx

6 anni fadiscuss

  > The government have put together a fund of £1bn for non-ACM cladding remediation, expecting that to cover ~600 buildings, but already over 2,700 buildings have applied and the estimated cost UK-wide is upwards of £15bn.

Non-ACM over 18m tall. Shorter buildings (the majority) are up shits creek too.

There's also a 30M fund for waking-watch relief... Which at 150k per alarm, you can get 200 alarms.

  > The House of Lords has proposed an amendment to the bill stating that leaseholders won’t be made to pay (note: not forcing the tax payer to pay, just ensuring the leaseholders don’t) and the Housing Committee (namely MP Robert Jenrick) are rejecting this on the basis that the tax payer shouldn’t foot the bill.

AFAIK It was initially rejected because it was worded in such a way that would make freeholders liable for other fire-safety things such as failsafe latches. Prioritizing freeholders paying out hundreds of pounds every decade over bankrupting thousands if not millions of people.

It's a farce. The building has industry paid millions in donations to the Conservative party since Grenfell. And at every turn despite parroting "leaseholders should not pay" it has been obvious that they really meant "should pay".

Meanwhile, in a fit of hypocrisy, Jenrick has been campaigning for a (Labuor) council to fix a bridge "because they own it".

comments