I had the privilege of taking one of Strang's classes a few years back. He is still incredibly sharp, and has a great sense of wit.
During one lecture, he was half way through solving a problem on the board when he jumped straight to the final answer. He then turned to us, and with a deadpan delivery said:
"We haven’t proved it, but that’s okay, we only live so long."
Handwritten HTML and CSS (no JS required). I've been working on my personal site in fits and starts since 2013, so it's by far the longest thing I've ever worked on.
I'm pretty happy with it (but would love feedback & suggestions!)
> Today’s follow-up from Bloomberg offers no evidence either.
The follow-up article actually has quite a bit of evidence.
e.g.
> “In early 2018, two security companies that I advise were briefed by the FBI’s counterintelligence division investigating this discovery of added malicious chips on Supermicro’s motherboards,” said Mike Janke, a former Navy SEAL who co-founded DataTribe, a venture capital firm.
maybe there are reasons not to believe the testimony of Janke. but saying the article "offers no evidence" is just bunk.
The word of someone who's not an expert in the subject, who wasn't in the meetings and only heard about them via an unspecified number of intermediates, and doesn't even work there but "advises" the companies? Forgive me, but for the only sourcing of their main claim, that's a bit too weak to clear my standard of evidence.
it's not the "only" sourcing of the main claim, merely an example. (did you read the article?)
> Alarmed by the devices’ sophistication, officials opted to warn a small number of potential targets in briefings that identified Supermicro by name. Executives from 10 companies and one large municipal utility told Bloomberg News that they’d received such warnings. While most executives asked not to be named to discuss sensitive cybersecurity matters, some agreed to go on the record.
> “This was espionage on the board itself,” said Mukul Kumar, who said he received one such warning during an unclassified briefing in 2015 when he was the chief security officer for Altera Corp., a chip designer in San Jose. “There was a chip on the board that was not supposed to be there that was calling home—not to Supermicro but to China.”
For anyone looking to understand Roam, I would suggest searching "roam cult" or "#roamcult" on Twitter.
I'm not one of them — but there is a hardcode, devoted fan base that are convinced it's the best thing since sliced bread. Whenever that occurs, it's worth trying to understand why.
I think the bad homepage is (somewhat) intentional: they only want people who are willing to look past the home screen and actually give it a try... and (I believe) they want to avoid the audience who is trying it just because of a flashy landing page.
But it's funny, what you see as positives I see as negatives. When something has a devoted fan base but nobody else uses it, it tells me it's something incredibly niche for a reason, and therefore probably not applicable to me.
And a bad homepage would be a horrible intention. Why would any product ever avoid an audience? Why would you only want people willing to look past a bad homepage? That sounds like it's screening for people who have a lot of time to waste. I'm not sure why that would be your target audience.
