The SIL Open Font License is pretty much the standard for freely releasing fonts. Poke around on Google Fonts or other places that have freely-licensed fonts and you'll find the vast majority use OFL.

Adobe's Source (the basis for this one), Google's Roboto and Google Sans, the very common Inter, Lato and Open Sans, coding/monospace fonts like Iosevka, JetBrains Mono... chances are that a free font you're aware of uses the OFL, particularly if it's even vaguely recent.

This seems like something more intended to avoid a bunch of pointless attempted signups from people who don't understand what having a domain means who then won't be able to do the later step where you verify that you actually own it.

A client-side check's not so unreasonable for that kind of thing.

Of course then you still want the list to be accurate and/or actually have some working support flow that results in an overzealous filter getting fixed. The code suggests that they do or did have a process at some point: the list of specific domains is an override that allows domains that would otherwise match one of the regexes and get blocked.

Yeah but they said it was important security.

I guess the distinction would be that in the formaction/formmethod case you'll also submit all the other form data, while the button action will just be an empty body.

An extra blank form on the page and the form attribute on the button can work around that, and at that point the argument would basically be: this is super clunky.

But there is no semantically valid reason for the button to be in the form if it doesn't submit the form. So move it outside.

"Ah so that's why I kept losing money!"

But seriously, safe to assume they meant to say calls and just accidentally wrote the wrong one.

The hypothetical "Odingate" article in a reliable source would probably have to discuss Odin enough to also be a viable source for Odin itself; problem solved.

They have easier options. For one, just don't put a drive in the newer ones.

"Quietly," like in "has quietly become the biggest/best X" is silly and everywhere, but "quietly" in this sense of "they didn't announce it and people just happened to notice the change" is fine and descriptive I would say.

Well, they're only looking at whether the pymetrics gameplay algorithm ML thing recommends the candidate, not any of that other stuff. The outcome they're looking at here isn't whether the people actually got hired, or got passed by other screening layers or anything.

The 83,000 applications to Fortune 500 companies, that was a different previous study they compared their results to. This paper's takeaway is that unlike that Fortune 500 data, the applications here that went through an ML vendor's screening process showed evidence of "systemic rejection," where some applicants got rejected across the board at higher rates than you'd expect if they were facing independent would-be employers.

I think SteamOS itself also now officially supports you installing it on any PC. (Ah, actually that's mentioned in this post even.)