Is it true that argon2i is “preferred for password hashing and key derivation”?

I was looking at the wiki for the node-argon2 package in npm, when I came around this justification for using argon2i as the default mode:

The variant of the hash function. Argon2 has several variants with different aims:

argon2d is faster and highly resistant against GPU attacks, which is useful for cryptocurrency argon2i is slower and resistant against tradeoff attacks, which is preferred for password hashing and key derivation argon2id is a hybrid combination of the above, being resistant against GPU and tradeoff attacks 

This security.stackexchange post suggests that side channel attacks are not a big concern on server(which I assume is the application here), and that argon2id or argon2d would be better choices.

Additionally the claim that argon2i is better for password hashing because its slower seem dubious, since the number of iterations can be adjusted for any mode

Is there any truth to the statement “argon2i is slower and resistant against tradeoff attacks, which is preferred for password hashing and key derivation”?

Preferred method of indexing words with diacritics

I have lots of pages using foreign words, transliterated into their latin equivalent, using a vareity of diacritics. Some example of such characters: ā, ṛ, ṭ and ḥ. As for words: Vṛkṣa can be transliterated as both Vriksha and Vrksa.

One page could contain hundreds of such words having diacritics, while the main language of the text remains English. I want to either index all synonyms, or index the variety that has the most SERP potential.

From a SEO perspective, how should I present the pages for indexing? For example:

a) I could add the same content twice, one with the diacritics applied to the words, and one plain text content, without diacritics (so ā becomes a etc, ṛ becomes ri, etc.); where the first content part is visible and the latter invisible. Will this present the danger of duplicate content penalty?

b) I could show the content in their plain text representation, using no diacritics, assuming this has the most SERP potential. I could offer the user some button by which they can dynamically switch the transliteration of those words using diacritics on the page.

Also, when choosing (b), is there some preferred HTML tag or attribute to indicate the synonymous word? For example Vrikshna

What is the preferred shape of a messaging/chat icon?

As stated in this answer, an elliptical speech bubble is more commonly seen than a rounded (rectangular) speech bubble. This is perhaps true of comics, but not in messaging/chat services; it makes sense that you wouldn’t want a round speech bubble for long lines of text.

On the other hand, ellipses are more popular for the actual icons, as seen with Messenger, Hangouts, iMessage, and WeChat, among others:

Messenger Hangouts iMessage1 iMessage2 WeChat
(source: wikimedia.org)

Then there’s stuff like this one:

Android

These rounded-but-not-elliptical-speech-bubble icons seem much rarer (along with other non-elliptical icons), even though all of these above services use rectangular speech bubbles, and many interfaces use rounded icon masks instead of elliptical ones.

We seem to have a lot of thoughts about sharp or round edges but are there any studies about usability between fully rounded speech bubbles vs. partially rounded speech bubbles in terms of icons for messaging? Are there perhaps implicit usage associations, or is it simply that elliptical speech bubbles seem more “friendly” shape-wise?

For bonus points, are there any studies about whether there should be one, two, or more speech bubbles in the icon, and whether they should be blank or not? Should the tail be straight or curved, the tip pointed or rounded? Why not point to the right? There don’t appear to be many sources on the iconography concerning messaging.

Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Bye Bye Preferred Domain setting

If you used the preferred domain setting in Google’s Search Console they are removing this setting:

Quote:

As we progress with the migration to the new Search Console experience, we will be saying farewell to one of our settings: preferred domain…


Bye Bye Preferred Domain setting
June 18, 2019

Preferred MIME type of S-expression in `HTTP_ACCEPT` header?

NancyFX has Content Negotiation feature that I can write additional serialization adapter for S-expression by implementing IResponseProcessor interface.

And there is a problem… S-expression’s MIME type seems to be text/plain. So the web server cannot decide actual text file type in HTTP_ACCEPT header.

Is there well known practice for deciding MIME type of text file? For example,

  • text/plain+s: adding its file extension
  • text/plain+s-expression: adding language name

2 selection buttons 1 preferred but with different input types

I have 2 login forms in the same page: login with username&password, login with emailaddress&password.

I separated forms with tabs but 1 of the login forms is always selected as default behavior of a tab.

The one with the username&password is the default selected form.

However people type their email address to the form that I ask for username&password and I got a lot of faield login attempts.

I thought I could have an accordion menu that are collapsed as default or with navigation pills. Another option would be having 2 buttons and when clicked the login form open for each of them.

Any suggestions?