nulbyte

It's exactly how risk works. The primary definition if risk is "possibility of suffering harm or loss; danger," according to The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language.

I got the impression this refers to the services geared toward the general public. I wonder if the providers have more stringent requirements for consumer email than for business email. I imagine the latter would be more likely to fuss about false positives, particularly when dealing with vendors or customers.

Not if you don't talk to them about it. I don't have an Apple device; are developers talking to their users about this?

In my experience, it means nothing. Most of the spam I get to my Gmail account comes from other Gmail users using Gmail, and I don't believe Google will do anything to hold themselves accountable.

> You can’t realistically host an email server on your phone, which is what is meant. For that to work, your phone would need to be able to be woken up (to handle receiving a message)...

What you have described is normal behavior for a modern wireless device.

Temporary interruptions occur regularly, a reason for which store and forward designs feature in email servers to this day.

The problem to overcome is not temporary disruption but addressing.

I believe GP was referring to payments to the writer, not the publisher.

> That is a orthogonal to the discussion we were having. The topic was whether people should have free access to news, and how should it be financed, not the quality of that news.

On the contrary, the quality of the news is very important to the discussion. There is no point in making trash freely available to the public, after all.

If I buy a book, I get a work of literature. But if I buy a news subscription I get a series of facts riddled with advertisements. I accept the former, but I oppose the latter. I suspect I'm not the only one.

This just means adequate ventilation isn't practical. It is, however, something that is more relatable to most folks than greenhouse emissions, which is arguably the bigger problem.

To me, this sounds like an argument largely built around the idea that you don't want to learn how to use a new product. Many people have convinced themselves they can't adapt, and I think this follows from the marketing ploys described in the article.

Why didn't she need to escalate it?

I can imagine the hospitality industry would not want the WiFi sporadically going down for their guests; that's not a very hospitable experience.

I was waiting for the article to mention why the author chose not to employ that option. Though the author mentions in passing that one solution is brittle because it requires parsing output, I don't see why that's a problem. It's exactly what 'expects was designed to do.

It may not be a law here in the US, but most stores do it anyway. Meijer, Kroger, Walmart all have per-unit prices in a corner of the tag. Most of the time, sale prices have them too.

It may not be a search under that case, but plenty of folks disagree with that assessment. It's not like the telcos publish metadata for anyone to read. It is private data, and the fact that government officers think they have carte blanche to get it, and worse, can find judges that agree with them, is disagreeable to a significant portion of the population.

Is it warranted (figuratively, not literally) in this instance? Perhaps. But nonetheless, it re-opens the conversation about the wider implications about warrantless searches.

I guess I'm doing overkill then. I actually use Keycloak for Tailscale. It also serves as authentication for my Nextcloud and Mastodon instances, so maybe slightly less overkill.

> However it is not a public charity, which is a sub classification that comes with stricter rules and higher donation tax write-off limits.

It sounds like you mean public charities have stricter rules. I find the opposite to be true. There are additional rules and reporting requirements that apply only to private foundations because of the limited funding and tight control of such organizations by a close-knit group of people.

All valid points, but I think the biggest reason is:

- It's what's available.

There is a bit baked into this statement which the article breaks down further:

- Companies won't approve anything else in the hands of ordinary users

- Companies' developers are too busy with too high priority items

And some things not mentioned in the article are also baked in:

- Even when developers get around to a project that could replace VBA, they don't understand the project, underestimate the time and resources required, and deliver a subpar product as a result

- Companies lay off people doing work IT and developers can't be bothered to support with no real plan other than overburdening the remaining ordinary users with extraordinary problems

I'm not sure what you mean by limited reach, but for added context: Resist Bot is an automated service that can be used to contact elected officials in the U.S. Believe it or not, some elected officials actually pay attention to what their constituents say when writing to them.

Libel is an intentional act. Agencies are not intentionally reporting false information. Banks may be reporting false information, but even they are unaware until the fraud has been discovered, by which time information they thought was true has already been reported.

It was creating for the purpose of tracking an individual's account by the Social Security Administration. It later became a de facto identifier and, even worse, is many times abused as a form of authentication, but it was never designed to be either.

As a result, we have processes that ask for or require a social security number that aren't even related to the purpose for which it was created: Health care, loans, debt collection.

Notably, some citizens of certain religious sects, like the Amish, do not have social security numbers.

I wouldn't want this built into my car. The list thing I want is to pay yet another fee for something I already have. I'll stick to plugging my phone into the vehicle for this feature.

Are you asking if it's counterfeit if you say it's counterfeit? If it weren't, and you said it was, wouldn't you be lying?

Google's argument is, "users prefer us." If that's true, why pay Mozilla? There would be no incentive. If users prefer Google, following their theory, users would switch from an alternate default. Meanwhile, Google would continue to make revenue and even save on expenses by not sharing that revenue.

Users may have preferred Google at some point in the past. But more and more I hear not so tech-savvy individuals talking up and recommending other search engines. I don't think Google has nearly the defense they think they have in Mozilla. Mozilla has placed their own pockets above user preferences too many times to count.

I think this is more about ads then copyright. All these recipe blogs I've seen still follow with an uncopyrightable list of ingredients and simple directions. The recipe still isn't worthy of copyright, even if the content accompanying it is. Sure, the author may be working on something they are passionate about, but the site itself is all about the ad revenue.

Even the FBI suggests using an ad Blocker.

https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/22/fbi-ad-blocker/

Leave it to Google to encourage ignoring safety advice so it can keep pocketing profits without any real innovation.

> It seems a + b = 1.

I've seen this before, and it makes no sense. Is it common to ignore that you are carrying a one?

> hope we can see some government movement about this at some point.

I do too! I get so sick of Ticketmaster's fees upon fees upon fees and "sorry, your browser isn't Chrome" junk.

Google taking down a result from their site doesn't stop theft on a third-party's site.

> I also learned recently that the realtor lobby has fought hard to keep the mortgage interest tax deduction which helps home owning persons but hurts everyone else.

> Why am I able to use my single rental as a tax shelter?

The tax deduction is only available on your primary and secondary residences. (Where secondary here refers to a second home, not a third, etc.) You don't get to claim a primary or secondary residence mortgage interest deduction on your rental properties, because you aren't living there.

This arose out of a previous law that generally allowed for the deduction if interest on all loans because it was administratively unfeasible to differentiate between business and personal interest expense (or so said the wisdom at the time). Even today, business interest expenses are generally deductible. This is wholly separate from the mortgage interest deduction, which is for owner-occupied homes.

I have the WRT3200ACM and it works great.