lucb1e
Joined 15 years ago
Joined 15 years ago
Doesn't Apple helpfully offer logging in with their email address constantly? At any rate, they were receiving emails on it and I don't think the user knew how to add an email address. They couldn't find their email client's account settings in iOS, but they struggled with several inboxes in the email client.
I assume that when you start using the device (since that requires Apple account tying) they create a new 'free' email address and provision it onto your devices. From what I later found online, indeed Apple has separate settings for their cloud offerings as compared to when you buy it from a competitor, which afaik is anticompetitive but until all countries get around to sending desist notices... apple does what apple does best
The solution is probably to tell the senders that they're effectively sending out spam / doing a variant of open relaying by emailing the spoofed address, but even internet-savvy institutions like an IP address assigning organization (RIPE) sends me backscatter so I don't have a ton of hope
met someone a few weeks ago. They said their email address is @<german ISP>.de but half the time they're sending from @icloud.com, I guess because they have an phone from Apple and don't understand the settings
I volunteer at a library where people can come with tech questions. Just last week, someone asked to help sort out their email addresses because they have various, from Microsoft, from an ISP, and because they have an Apple phone of course Apple also pushed an icloud address onto them that they didn't want
Seems quite common to have a second sending address with how Apple is pushing its lock-in (email addresses are some of the hardest things to migrate). Though, also without that, I tend to think people typically migrate their primary email address at least once or twice in a lifetime, not counting business emails that are sometimes also allowed for reasonable amount of private use (not saying that's a good idea but people do it). Not that unusual
The image is blurred beyond readability, but via tineye.com I found what seems to be the original: https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4f68/2515569/99b99587... It splits out what environmental factors cause cancer. Unsurprisingly, your chance is already 25% lower if you don't smoke, but the rest of the pie chart is also interesting
Email receivers (be it Gmail or your local council) don't differentiate if you're self hosting or a business. So long as small businesses can manage (who have like one part-time sysadmin that also manages a ton of other IT stuff; email doesn't take much of their time), so can you. If you set up the usual suspects like SPF and DMARC, the domain is not a known spammer, and the IP not in a blocked address range, it's mostly hands-off (source: I self host my email)
If you need it to really be super reliable, yeah, you need to send through one of the big companies who have not just a dedicated sending IP address but entire ranges dedicated to email sending, as well as staff that will respond to delivery issues 24/7. Microsoft rejecting email from Google and vice versa isn't unheard of, so there aren't guarantees anywhere, but that would be your best bet. For my personal use, that extra nine of reliability isn't needed
The population crisis is that the current population isn't sustainable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day (and most of those haven't a rich lifestyle yet; most people on HN are in the top 10% worldwide income). We need either to become more sustainable per capita, have fewer capita, or get more earths. Any solution is fine. Otherwise, we'll run out, and the remaining 90% of people get a lot of undeserved worldsuck
Note that we are already doing what you want: world population is projected to increase by 25% (!) in the next 75 years. At the same time, we're lifting people out of poverty (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-in-ex...) which causes them to be able to buy more stuff, live richer lives, and be less sustainable (e.g. visible on a CO2 chart for the same countries: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?c...). Which is fair right? Why shouldn't they get to live like us. But we can't go on like this; something has to give.
More people isn't helpful for at least another century. Let's evaluate the baby-making situation in 2100 and work on the real problems we face today
As a secondary problem, people (traditionally women, but with a two-income household it could be either party) often already can't leave a relationship because they can't support themselves and their child(ren) without the other half and so they're stuck in relationships that might either not work for them or that are downright abusive. With a big tax on leaving your partner... oof, why in the world would you want more lock-in?! Is this a manosphere control thing that I'm not aware of?
- The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks comes to mind. I had no idea how rampant purposeful discrimination was so recently for example, but the point of the book is the HeLa cells - and biology is also not my forté so loads of new information there as well. It was very interesting in expected and unexpected areas for me
- Daniel Suarez' Kill Decision has only gotten more relevant since its release in 2012. Not sure I'd call this meaty though, but his thrillers are always good (near-ish future tech) and the author iirc also said this particular one is meant as food for thought and not only entertainment
For contact info, see: https://lucb1e.com/email-address