He’s only boring-ass in that suit jacket. Were he to remove it, you’d be able to appreciate his hot booty. Which of course he has, because he’s a true meteorologist.
Honestly virtually all verification mail lands in spam on most free providers.
And it’s no wonder. Try running your own server sending these mails before you judge. My company needs to put a lot of work into this.
Why?
Because spam is rampant. So in return, anti-spam filters are extremely strict. And there’s dozens and dozens and dozens of hoops to jump, and holding one leg just a tiny bit wrong immediately gets you spam filtered everywhere.
You might think “This sucks, just don’t block as much!”, but you’re not seeing the thousands of mails that never even reach your spam folder because the server-to-server traffic already blocks them and they don’t make it through that. The percentage blocked is crazy. Spam is that bad.
Yes. And spam filters aren’t hand picked and written. Haven’t been for a few decades. They’re learning and statistical.
Like another comment said, the mails are hitting some traffic rules and having correlations in their text with phishing scams or something that pushes their score to the negative enough to “warn the user” level but not enough to file as spam or reject completely.
Also, even if “Google knows it’s a legitimate company”, it’s somewhere between stupidly hard and impossible to tell if an email came from that company. And again, nobody would keep a hand curated list of “legitimate companies” and their email for an ever growing list of companies. Even if that was possible to do.
Of course it’s possible to do. We’ve already done it for physical mail.
If (enormous if) the EU or FTC cared to issue a digital signing certificate to legally registered companies then this would basically solve the problem of trust. Now it’d be up to the government to deal with fraud cases, which would be much more manageable since spam offenders would necessarily have a uniquely identifiable certificate with a literal physical address attached (yes, fraud exists there, but the barrier to entry is orders of magnitude higher).
Plain SMTP’s trust model is broken but only legislative apathy enables Google to position themselves as the internet watchdog/bouncer.
If their spam filter is “learning,” and if new signup verification emails are a consistent decades-old practice, how much longer should we wait before it’s okay to question whether Google’s filter could do better at learning?
Not a lot at all, as you can run a spam mail center on a potato. People underestimate how power-/hardware-inefficient crypto really is, and how that alone already makes it unusable for banking at large.
When worked at Google I remember hearing a rumor from the GMail team that more than half of all messages are rejected early in the pipeline before even running the main spam filter. As in the majority of attempts to send mail to Google users is so obviously spam that it doesn’t even end up in the Spam folder. What does land in your spam folder is a tiny fraction of all spam.
Spoiler: It’s 0.1 tonnes of CO2e per subscriber per year. This is not mentioned in the article.
This includes for example the emissions generated in the course of constructing the rockets that launch the satellites. So far it’s unclear to me whether, when comparing to terrestrial telecom, they include e.g. the emissions produced when manufacturing the trucks that deploy the infrastructure.
This also means the amount of emissions per user will go down the more users they get. It’s not very fair to compare something new to something that’s been around for decades in something that is based solely on the amount of users they have. I hate starlink, but this report is trash.
Emissions are going to go down when starship is made as well.
Starship uses a methane + oxygen fuel which burns cleaner, and can be produced with just water and CO2 making it carbon neutral.
I don't think every flight will be neutral immediately, or what % will be consistently once its scaled up, but it'll be better.
But 1 carbon neutral flight sending up hundreds of satellites will bring it down quickly. They could even save the carbon neutral flights for themselves for PR purposes.
You can’t produce methane from CO2 for free. It requires extremely high pressures and then you have to add in as much as energy as you would get out of burning the methane to make methane from scratch.
SpaceX’s launch facility, where they’d likely try this stupid process, is in Texas. Texas gets most of its electricity from burning fossil fuels. So unless spaceX makes a private nuclear reactor on site to power the methane manufacturing plant, they’ll be burning fossil fuels to make electricity so they can turn C02 back into a fossil fuel. That’s not carbon neutral
But don't get me started on how there no such thing as carbon neutral because it took carbon to build the solar panels, or wind mills, and the person operating the facility had to eat vegetables which required someone to ship them, which required a EV which required power that came from solar but those solar panels which were made from panels produced via solar panels required someone else to clean them which produced co2 making their meals too!
The launch facility they have in Boca Chica is surrounded by wildlife preserves, where are they going to put a solar farm big enough for a usable methane plant?
To put it in perspective, a square meter of solar panel puts out about 200 watts.
At atmospheric pressure, a cubic meter of methane gas contains about 40 million joules of energy.
40 million/200 = 200,000 square meters of solar panels needed to produce a cubic meter of methane.
And that’s assuming the process is 100% efficient. It’s also not counting the energy needed for the pumps to pressurize plant, or the methods they would use to extract or move the carbon dioxide, or cool down the methane.
That 40million joule figure is for gaseous methane, starship needs liquid methane to run, so the methane would need to be cooled with industrial refrigeration to turn it into fuel, which adds even more energy to the equation.
For the amount of fuel Starship needs, the Sabatier process is not feasible if you’re doing it with solar panels and planning on launching more than once a year or so. Not unless they want to pave over a small city with solar panels.
Putting energy back into CO2 to get fuel is not really economically feasible. It’s a useful process for mars for example, because you can drop off the plant and have it trickle fuel into a launch vehicle while you build the base and wait for the crew to arrive.
Boca Chica isn't going to be the main launch center in the future due to things like the wildlife preserve around it. They're going to be restricted at some point. It's a R&D center.
They could also build the solar/wind elsewhere to offset anything, or maybe they could even invest in a SMR. They'll have the cash once those start coming online.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're investing money to optimize the process as well, just like we see new advances in desalination continually making it more efficient. (Edit: e.g https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.35848/1347-4065/ace831)
Also even in Texas, it isn't going to be coal forever, more and more renewable sources are being added to the grid every year. I'm not trying to say this will be an immediate thing.
They almost certainly do not. Embodied energy is conveniently ignored 99% of the time because a) awareness of how much carbon goes into everything could result in consumers consuming less — couldn’t possibly do the almighty economy dirty like that — and b) it’s extremely difficult to calculate with any reasonable degree of accuracy.
Thank you, I was wondering how high the emissions could possibly be for Internet access from the customer’s perspective. I figured simply owning a car probably smashed even “30x as much” as other ISPs
Blocking out the names but not the @s was certainly a choice. Or was the inanity part of a stealth advertising campaign where people point out the inanity and thus call attention to the @. The internet’s friggin weird.
Before I left Reddit it felt like almost every post that reached the front page had a typo or some dumb mistake or worst a title like “Which PC game is your favourite?!?”.
It’s not too bad here yet, but I have a feeling it’s only a matter of time.
Given how bad most name censoring is, I think most people doing it don’t actually want to but also don’t want to be accused of blatantly violating rules requiring it.
It’s a pretty stupid rule to extend protections against doxxing to publicly visible usernames. They’re already posting publicly with that name. Even with them blotted out, you can search for the text or reverse image search and find it in 2 seconds.
Yeah but 95% of people will be too lazy to do that and this will be enough to avert most brigading that might happen. I think this is about ad-hoc harassment campaigns more than doxxing which evokes more organized and focused harassment campaigns.
I just do it as a courtesy to the people as I’m usually making fun of them in forums they didn’t originally post in. It’s not like I’m thinking about it as being doxxing, more just that I’m poking fun at someone behind their back - if they’re a public figure that’s one thing - but the average Joe? Just feels impolite. That’s why I do it anyway.
Elon Musk is a total fool and an idiot, but like others said, this article is hogwash. The satellites do not pose a risk for Kessler Syndrome due to their LEO. They will fall to earth and burn up. They also maneuver to avoid collisions. It is highly unlikely to contribute anything at all to Kessler Syndrome.
Additionally, how are they comparing carbon footprint? Article is behind paywall. The internet infrastructure on earth didn’t pop into existence out of thin air, carbon neutral. The trucks and ships used to lay wire, the mining and manufacturing of everything involved in the process, creates carbon for both. The carbon that would be created to provide access to rural areas as an alternative. If you are going to count the carbon to make and fuel spaceships, you must also count the carbon to make the ships that lay and maintain undersea cables and trucks that maintain cable on land. The SpaceX ships are largely reusable as well, so the carbon to make the ships also needs to be split among its voyages to space just as a ship at sea makes multiple trips.
Even if they’re in low earth orbit an impact could spread pieces into higher orbit due to the energies involved. That could in turn impact other satellites at a higher orbit and just keep going.
Quantum mechanics also says that all the air in my lungs could collapse to a single point, but on the grand scale, these things don’t happen. Risk analysis requires evaluation of probabilities.
It is very improbable that there will be a collision caused by a starlink satellite. While Musk is certainly an idiot who can’t be trusted, there are intelligent people who work for SpaceX who have considered all this and more before launching their satellites.
Edit: If you can’t switch to Firefox and you’re looking for a good alternative that’s privacy-focused and functionally similar, take a look at Vivaldi. Solid chrome-based browser.
I personally use nothing expect librewolf(hardened Firefox fork). but brave is a sane choice for those who are spoiled by chrome.
the only praise I hear about Vivaldi is their tabs(?).
Most of the article talks about the CEO and the company, the only criticisms of the actual product (the browser) is that it’s bloated, which is very subjective because one mans bloat is another mans feature and the affiliate link injection scandal from 4 years ago, which definitely shouldn’t have been done but at least it wasn’t malicious and now is gone.
To be honest I think people on here dislike brave primarily due to ideological reasons, completely ignoring the fact that 99.9% of people aren’t hackermans™ and don’t want to install gnu icecat or librewolf with 7 different extensions. For those people it’s either chrome/edge or brave, the latter, even if not perfect is a way better option both for them and the internet.
Ahem. I was referring to “Adblock” as a class of software, not referring to one specific program (the same way that websites refer to blocking ads as “Adblock”).
Hot take: I don’t want / need more people to use adblock.
Right now it is in a good position where the numbers just are not that high for advertisers to really give a hoot. Yes there is the ocasional shit like with YouTube, but the thing is - they are not really trying, they only put enough effort in to inconvenience, hoping more people will drop blocking.
However, if more people start blocking, I think they will be forced to find more concrete solutions, like the whole DRM fiasco.
Ads being trackers, and especially being a vector for malware is nothing new, yes screw ads, I block them, but I really don’t give a hoot if my neighbour blocks ads. I’m certainly not gonna go out of my way to preach the gospel of adblocking.
And part of the reason is the above - more people blocking ads will probably cause ad companies to make ad blocking more inconvenient, and you will end up with the same situation - only tech literate people will block ads.
Now don’t get me wrong, that is not the reason, just a reason, mostly I just don’t give a fuck if others block ads.
However when it comes to the idea in the OP, the reason does become more salient, because someone is going out of their way to preach the gospel of adblocking.
Obviously my original point was a bit lighthearted, realistically it doesn’t matter, I doubt any dev who would do this is making products to reach masses that do not already adblock, so this shit is probably just some virtue signaling anyway.
Im so radicalized, I might vote Neoliberally, woahhhh~ i make compromises with existing powers, oooooo~ I understand that people with different views than me can be reasonable people, ooooh~ spooky ghost hands
Hexbear is naïve, clinging to foundational theory without understanding the basic tenant of people. If you adopt a lick of psychology or sociology, you quickly understand how no one theory ever solves anything, and antagonizing people into your movement is not a way to turn hearts.
I was shocked to realize that the degens on that instance aren’t just trolls setting out to make the far left look as stupid as possible, they’re true believers and really are that dumb. For a few harrowing days until they received defederation in exchange for their cool emojis and tankie wordvomit, I wondered whether McCarthy maybe wasn’t such a bad guy after all.
files.catbox.moe
Top