This is a parallel argument to the whole "to big to fail" nonsense and not really in line with the famous comparison of a single person to a machine. Company strategies are typically created by small groups of people who - especially in this case - know exactly what the impact and longer-reach implications of their decisions will be. It is entirely reasonable to hold the people of any organization accountable for the policies they enact via that organization.
HTTP auth is not an authentication system, it only describes how credentials should be passed from the client to the server and how the server should respond to them.
Webhooks would be much closer to a sane solution to this use case.
Why would you spam a web server asking repeatedly wether something has happened or not, instead of just providing him with an adress so that he can simply let you know in due time ?
It's not spamming any more than me opening their website myself in a browser, loading their entire webpage, looking "Is part 3 posted yet", and doing that every day until part 3 is posted.
Except this idea is automated, and wouldn't need to load the entire website.
Because then you have to maintain a publicly accessible server, and he has to maintain a database of everyone who has clicked the button. It wouldn't be "spamming", just loading a tiny endpoint once a day (or less!) is a trivial amount of traffic.
This article is about people who liked their company and their job and lost it all. It's something to lack empathy, but I'm always amazed that there are people so full of themselves that they will go out there and proclaim that they don't give a shit about other people's fate, as if it was something to be proud about.
Okay, you're right, and I actually do give a shit about the employees. The comment was coming from the perspective of interacting with users and the app, and I didn't think about the employee-side of the story when I wrote it.
reply