Am I totally misremembering this, or is it a fairly recent change?
I could've sworn several years ago it was perfectly possible to use your sign-in credentials, then immediately change them, because it basically needed an authorization token, but then worked fine.
Now it doesn't. I work for a company with a Plaid integration and if the bank so much as requires any kind of 2FA, you just can't use it at all anymore.
I work at Plaid. It all depends on the bank. Most data provided by Plaid is sent from banks to Plaid via API, but some isn’t. And generally Plaid connections work fine with 2fa, but some don’t depending on the 2fa method and implementation details.
I don’t know, but it almost certainly violates your bank’s terms of service to share your password with Plaid.
If Plaid is every compromised in a way that leads to a loss of your funds in your account (probably unlikely), your bank likely has no legal requirement to make you whole for that, if you shared your password with Plaid.
I just don’t think you should share your bank password with any external entity.
I'm not sure. It is possible that some banks have an API that Plaid uses, but this issue has been known for several years and discussed on here quite a bit. Plaid even had a large settlement due to privacy violations.
The issue is other factors may force you to use an alternate store. My college uses Proctorio for online test-taking. I am required to use this for the class. The issue is, the extension is only available for Chrome (I've tried other Chromium browsers and those don't seem to work as well). As a Firefox user, I don't really like having to switch to Chrome just to use an app that I never wanted to use but am forced to.
The same could apply with app stores—if a company, school, or other requires that you use an app that is only available on a less privacy-friendly or perhaps more intrusive app store, that doesn't sound like an optional/risk-free alternative to me. Once you open the walls there's no going back.
Maybe Apple could display a prominent warning that this may put your personal data at risk, if you choose to enable alternate stores, and remind that regularly (including during each boot, when using the apple store, etc.), giving leverage for users who actually do not want that to refuse forced installations by third parties.
I'm guessing companies that have the resources to go with two separate development teams for each platform will tend to go for that route since it leads to better performing applications. e.g. FB Messenger's blog post about going back to native after using React Native.
Pretty interesting paper, although I'm not sure it's the one OP was referring to. It's a pretty short paper with a whole pile of graphs at the end, so I encourage people to read it themselves.
Quick notes from skimming:
- Treats it as an optimization problem for various levels of vaccine efficacy (10-100%), availability(10-100%), spread rate (R0 in {1.5, 2, 2.5, 3}), susceptibility to infection and symptomatic infection per age group.
- Four objective functions: symptomatic infections, deaths, non-ICU hospital usage at peak, and ICU usage at peak
- 5 age buckets: 0-19, 20-49, 50-64, 65-74, 75+
- Assumes 20% of population has immunity, and immunity lasts for a year.
- At higher efficacy and availability levels, there are some odd shifts to optimal vaccine distribution strategies. It's not strictly "oldest first" or "youngest first", there are some weird discontinuities in the middle buckets as well.
I had some questions about the wide 20-49 age bucket but it appears that it comes from a CDC planning scenario. It does look like that various curves start accelerating sharply past 50 or higher, so I guess treating the 20-49 group as one reasonably low risk group could be reasonable.
Yes, there could be many different scenarios; when vaccine supply is limited, vaccinate those at risk of death. BioNTech claims their vaccine efficacy is consistent across age groups, but we won't know for sure until large clinical trials are completed. Also, older people are less willing to be vaccinated earlier. More variables to include in the model...
From reading the abstract, that study comes to the interesting finding that with a highly effective vaccine, it is better to vaccinate the YOUNG first, to reduce the spread.
What about... workers in the cafeteria who handle our food, cashiers at supermarkets and waiters who bring food over to you. I'm shocked most of the papers I'm reading don't mention these folks who are at the very intersection of our daily lives!
The paper assumes those people are vaccinated first, before the analysis for other age groups comes into play.
"Here, we consider that front-line health care workers and other essential personnel (e.g. firefighters, police) who should obviously be prioritized, have already been
vaccinated."
Probably too late for anybody's interest, but the risk of getting this from food is suspected to be incredibly low. Droplets being inhaled, entering through the eyes, or nasal mucous membranes are the likely real threats.
I guess that makes sense. The young seem to be the primary spreaders of the disease. Stop them, and then it slows the whole chain of infections. I can also see why they'd want to vaccinate the most vulnerable, if the young aren't really affected by the disease, it makes sense to skip them first. Conundrum I suppose.
Seems TS is provided by default (tho it will not do any type-checking, you'll need tsc --noEmit for that).
As for JSX, you need a basic tsconfig that specifies jsx.
