Nice thanks. I think the exclusion of some of these is especially egregious because the author identifies three criteria and then says that none of the solutions they explored fully meet all three. But at least from an early glance at least one or two of the solutions you mentioned do, as well as the solution I linked. Which kind of invalidates the entire point the article was trying to make, that there are not good solutions for this. There are, the author just didn’t consider them.