zjs

Evil Wordle: "caver". I won after 6 guesses

  Y____
  YY___
  _____
  _G_GG
  GG_GG
  GGGGG

I requested my report using the link in the OP. The only place Equifax could have gotten this information, with this granularity, is my employer. It's not just a ballpark number or anything like that; it's detailed salary information for the last 10 years, broken down by category (salary, bonus, equity). For the past year, they have granular information for each pay period, including both gross and net.

At least in my case, the number/email they were willing to send a one-time passcode to were the ones I gave to my employer, not the ones I had entered earlier in the form.

As a data point: I pay Google $5/month to accomplish essentially the same thing.

I pay for Google Workspace, have a handful of domains configured, a single "real" user account and a catch-all rule that forward all mail to that real account.

Other than inertia and pricing (I have >10 domains, so I'd fall in the enterprise tier), there's one key feature that keeps me from switching: I can set up custom routing rules.

For example, when I RSVP'd for a wedding last year with a plus one, I set up a custom rule for that alias so that my plus one also got any updates.

I suspect you could build a significantly better UX around that, where someone could link additional recipients to an alias with some sort of special reply to the email, see that those other recipients are included when receiving messages (as a reminder they're "linked" to the alias), etc. I'm probably over thinking it, but I'd love to be able to somehow react to an email with "[email protected] for 2 hours". (Example use case: you place a food delivery order for a group of friends and want them all to get the rest of the confirmation emails until the meal is actually delivered.)

Random ideas:

It'd be interesting to have an easy way to "bind" aliases to a domain/sender. Most of the time when I invent a new alias, I only expect it to be used by whoever sends the first message to it.

It'd also be interesting to be able to have a "snooze" feature for an alias. I use this a lot on social media (e.g., Facebook makes it easy to say "don't show me anything from this person for 30 days") when I don't want to totally unfollow someone. I think I'd do that with some merchants' emails.

Maybe these could take the form of message headers that get added? That way, it's easy to configure a client-side skip-the-inbox rule (or mark it as low priority or whatever), so it's not in your face, while ensuring you can still search for stuff you think you might have missed.

I always appreciate alternatives to using an arithmetic mean.

I haven't had success with no meeting days because it just leads to cramming more meetings into the other days that week.

I suspect this would be less of a problem with a no meeting week.

I wonder though how broad it needs to be to work — can a single team do this successfully, or does it need to be coordinated across an entire organization?

The PDF linked from the post clarifies the rule for PA: "Wearing a t-shirt or button supporting a candidate, campaign, or political party (except voters in the act of voting)"

(Other jurisdictions may have other rules, of course)

One of my favorite benefits was the ability to take a 3 month paid pseudo-sabbatical.

You had to spend the time doing some sort of work, but it's flexible. It could helping another team out (intern style), focusing on a useful side project, taking a trial run at a new role (or just walking a mile in someone else's shoes), or volunteering with a non-profit ("technology pro bono").

You needed 5 years of tenure to qualify (it's not an annual thing). I think the bar is a little too high, but I understand the intent – looking forward to it was definitely a source of motivation and factor in retention during my fourth year.

Let's try this differently: what would you accept as evidence that they are extremists? What evidence can you cite that they are not?

> That doesn't mean he's some secret conspiratorial white supremacist talking in code.

> ...

> But it's equally reprehensible to have a crowd on the sidelines chomping at the bit to exaggerate, fabricate or concoct stories, simply because they don't like someone.

I'm confused. Where in this comment chain does what you describe seem to be happening? The closest I can find is the great-great-great-great grandparent, which states “The guy had armies of white supremacist supporters and advisers. He told right-wing extremists to “stand by” on national TV.”

From my perspective, the key here is that right-wing extremists interpreted his words as code — and he refused to correct that interpretation. From the point of view of the extremists, it was intentional, and that's enough to embolden them.

Even though it was likely the result of a mistake and stubbornness, it was damaging to the country and the impacts are worth acknowledging.

At this risk of taking a bit of a tangent: it's not as if this is the only time his carelessness with his words and stubbornness to correct the way they were interpreted caused problems. In those cases too, we need to acknowledge both the cause and the effect. Accidentally causing damage and intentionally causing damage are distinct problems, but they're both problems — especially when you're the leader of a country.

Very cool! Some simple feature ideas:

It'd be interesting to be able to use size or color to indicate additional dimension(s). I like to measure “return” in terms of impact/urgency and “investment” in terms of cost/complexity, and then maximize “ROI” instead of just maximizing “return”.

The ability to sequence things seems to be the biggest thing you lose with the no-list representation, but I think that's easy to fix: let the user add “edges” between “nodes” to indicate dependencies.