reliefcrew

Unfortunately it is very difficult in practice. And a wise person once said: “Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time.”

The problem will become thorny when you consider what can be automated vs. what can't be, and what should be vs. what shouldn't. IOW, what do you consider a "routine decision".. after all it is subjective.

It is completely unreasonable to expect that people will give you their money and then never want to control it in some way. In fact, it's a contradiction really.

So I certainly applaud you for considering the problem and more so if you make an attempt at some implementation. However, it is a bit like asking "will AI become self-aware and make humans obsolete". For the foreseeable future people will not relinquish the ability to somehow "pull the plug".

Just theorizing.

In other words, the more money a developer makes, the more fees they pay. That way there's better incentive for smaller shops and developers to join. They might also look somewhat more benevolent.

Is that how it already works?

They're really not happy about Epic games lawsuit, huh!?

See also:

https://applemagazine.com/apple-app-store-external-payment-f...

That's why I went through this exercise a couple of years ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35066894

Enjoy the new server!

TBH, I always thought YP/NIS was good enough... but I live in a tiny bubble. Obligatory:

https://xkcd.com/927/

P.S. Your cert for https://kogito.network/ is expired :(

Good luck!

Asking because as a dev I hate when sites don't allow bots... however can appreciate that automation should be rate-limited. IOW, isn't preventing bot access actually an anti-pattern since rate-limiting is sufficient?

I see a lot of marketing which bashes Turnstile [detection] rates and tries to leverage this misunderstood nuance. And, it seems to be a dishonest point of contention but am willing to hear opposing arguments.

Thanks.

https://developers.cloudflare.com/turnstile/concepts/widget/...

(EDIT: pretty random; chosen via: `grep -Po "http[^ ]+" index.htm | shuf -n1`)

A reference would be appreciated.

You should actually worry more about losing your address because now there are two people who can screw you... the ESP (email service provider) _and_ their registrar.

If you hire the ESP to host email on your own domain though (or self host), then you can screw yourself (this is always a possibility) or the registrar can screw you... but you can always just switch ESPs if they're criminals or incompetent. This is what I was referring to when I said this:

> just shuffling things around (probably in the wrong direction).

... in the first reply. Phew... what a long strange trip! I hope the picture is clearer now.

Now I have to leave you to your own devices, sorry.

Sorry, this should be a whois search to see their registrar, the dig will show you who provides their DNS. In hey.coms case both are the same.... cloudflare.

My point remains the same though. The worry of losing your address should remain largely the same because email depends on dns.

Well, where do you think they get their domain from? The same place you do, a registrar. You're just adding a layer.

For example, you mention hey.com.... do a `dig soa hey.com` and you'll see they're registered w/ cloudflare. If you register with cloudflare too, you will have the same chance of having your domain ripped away from you as hey.com does.

The email service provider isn't particularly special in that sense. That said, it is true that there's a lot about infrastructure people can use help with.

So, if you're not familiar w/ technicalities such as these I wouldn't blame you for outsourcing. It's a big world and we can't do it all ourselves. Good luck!

That's not how advertising works. If you're not looking at the advertising, you don't provide any value, nothing. In that case you're now a losing proposition and they don't want those users because they're lowering margins and ROE. It's about good decisions that make money... goodwill only goes so far on the balance sheet.

Now, you got my full explanation. If you still don't understand why it's not as bad a design as you first thought... we'll just have to disagree ;-)

Yeah, I understand you're concerned. What I question is the legitimacy.

Why would your DNS registrar turn against you, but your email service provider's not turn on them?

What else do you do with those users... let them free ride ad infinitum? Do you have a better solution? After all, you can only woo those users for so long before it's a sunken cost.

Because it's not a $1.6 trillion dollar hobby or charity. They need to make money, full stop. This can't be emphasized enough.

As such, they view users more as a hybrid of volunteers and products. Then they monetize generally by selling the engaged users to advertisers. At this point I'm pretty sure they have financial models customized to individuals and they probably determined you're not worth providing service to unless you view more adverts... thus forcing you to engage more with the feed system.

They did what they had to do and you went ahead and accepted it; that's a good design. If you stop using them or switch to another service; then it would be a bad design.

What's the alternative? Put together some aesthetically beautiful design that lets users walk all over them while Meta foots the bill? That won't work because they'd go out of business. It's a matter of give and take.

Sounds to me like you're not fixing anything but just shuffling things around (probably in the wrong direction).

There's always the chance something can go wrong... either with your registrar or your email service provider. Personally, I'd just stick with a reputable registrar since it will also ease your concern w.r.t other things (e.g. web).

In addition, if your email service provider goes downhill, your registrar will be able to help you. The opposite does not hold true.

So, can you elaborate on why you think moving your email addresses will solve your problem? Any company can, after all, change policies or flake out; whether they do DNS or email doesn't really matter that much. But the fact remains that email relies on DNS, not vice versa.

Does this help or am I missing something?

Just for clarification, competing isn't preferred because it's easier... IDK if it is or not. Competing, however, does not conflict with my ethics.

IOW, if the government deputized me to carry a gun and go around demanding people buy things from me or do as I instructed, I would decline.

Lol, am I? Ok I'll ignore the ad hominem and simply ask again for an example of something you'd rather buy from the government than the free market?

New car? New phone? Clothes? Meal at a restaurant? The only thing that comes remotely close is the mail. And let's face it, important things go via UPS, FedEx, and now more and more by Amazon delivery truck.

> Working for the Government is somewhat more stable, you don't have rank and file or any other needless churn and squeezing for profit.

Of course not, because they don't _need_ to make a profit... they're predatory. If they don't make a profit they demand capital from you anyway at the point of a gun. The only reason people get fired is due to politics.

History has proven this time and time again. It's difficult, but try to be objective.

Give a single good example of what you'd rather buy from the government?

Please, if you know of an example feel free to provide it. In fact, the government does not actually produce anything at all... not a single product or service. People only buy things from the government when they are coerced.

Even the very best governments out source everything and just keep graft to a minimum. So, working for the government is basically admitting you're unable to compete and need a handout. I'd consider changing careers before a move into the public sector. If you're burning out, just take a break and learn to pace yourself better.

Yes, easily... it would look a lot like WWDC ;-)

Perhaps it's worth looking past the implementation per se.

If the "coming soon" message is framed as a marketing tease and the features are indeed delivered as they've been promised then I don't see a problem. OTOH, if the "coming soon" message itself looks like a poorly styled afterthought then, of course.... just leave it out and rethink the rollout.

Ultimately, "ugly" is a matter of presentation and perception.