I'm not a newspaper editor, but I think if this was an article for one, they'd also say the graphs are unnecessary. It smells of "I need some visual stuff to make this text interesting"...
Especially on night mode themes.
Besides, can we read anymore? In the age of 'GPT summarise it me' attention spans and glib commentary not about the content of the article being all many people have to add, perhaps liberal application of visualisations adds digestive value.
The poster is 16, he can take it as feedback towards effective writing. Or the intellectual HN crowd can just downvote it and dissuade me from contributing and helping a kid (oh look at me, how fucking noble am I, right?).
Ah, that feeling of "Am I the only one who gets it around here?". I wanted to explain to you why graph 2 is dumb, and graph 1 is very little information, but heck, I felt dissuaded.
Posts with just text are sense and just not nice to read. That's why even text-only blog posts have a tendency to include loosely-related image at the top, to catch reader's eye.
toomuchtodo•2h ago
pwdisswordfishy•2h ago
"If the secrets issuer partners with X-corp for secret scanning so that secrets get invalidated when you X them, then when you X them the secrets will be invalidated".
The above is a true statement for all X.
nightpool•1h ago
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Algolia has implemented this
TurdF3rguson•48m ago
richbell•41m ago
wat10000•1h ago
In formal logic, that statement is true whether X is GitHub, or Lockheed-Martin, Safeway, or the local hardware store.
In English, the statement serves to inform (or remind) you that GitHub has a secret scanning program that many providers actually do partner with.
pwdisswordfishy•58m ago
richbell•52m ago
wat10000•39m ago