reneky

To opt-in to something means to consent to it, to enable it, to take action to have it.

So "opt-in by default" doesn't make any sense.

However, I do see this opposite usage increasingly often, which means "opt-in" shouldn't be used any more.

Using "on by default", "enabled by default", "off by default", "disabled by default" would be clear and make sense.

There are actual undo in Gmail as well, for example when applying a label to a message.

Since send is making the change in an external system it has to be simulated, but that doesn't change the point of the post.

> Why would Google want to invest resources on giving Microsoft an unfair advantage over themselves?

Because it's good for the users.

There are more low-hanging performance fruits in the immature languages.

That said, of course all should be up to date.

When letting Google or Yahoo store the email in the cloud one assumes that _they_ keep a backup - indeed that there are several copies of the messages stored - so this seems weird.

You can put people in as many circles as you want.

The point is, he doesn't have to work with these people any more, since he is no longer a programmer.

How does the org -> latex -> pdf look in the end? Could you post it?

Also: Microsoft is charging for updates. I'm not sure people are ready for a paid subscription service for windows.

Sun poured billions into Java; is it so bad to ask for one of the biggest benefitors to share the profits?

> I understand emacs's architectural reasoning for it -- and that is a choice.

I think the choice they make is to spend their very limited time on more useful features. I'm sure many of the core Emacs developers would be very happy if someone would fix this limitation. It would be a very invasive change, a fair amount of work.

Isn't that just windows?