thaway2839

A random selection of benefits that I see on an almost daily basis:

Combining multiple accounts from multiple providers in the same interface is a lot easier.

Alt + Tabbing to your mail client is a lot easier. It's absolutely brilliant in something like i3 where I pin my mail app to a desktop, and so my mail is always a single key combo away.

Having multiple open message/compose windows is a lot easier.

Stuff like multiple mail selections using your keyboard and even mouse is a lot easier.

Notifications work better and can be controlled in a much more granular way.

There are a ton of automations that can be made a lot easier.

Attaching files to email is a lot easier. Most OS'es/file browsers can make it a single right click process.

Rules can be far more powerful.

Downloading means you can access your messages (maybe even all messages) at anytime, whether you have access to the internet or not.

You can maintain email hygiene much better. For example, I have my email check set to once every 15 minutes, which means I will only be able to see new email once every 15 mins at most. Until I really got used to not checking and refreshing every time, I had even more aggressive strategies where I blocked network access to the email app and had to manually enable it and manually download emails, each time I wanted to check emails. There may be better strategies or alternatives, but the point is that you have a lot more control.

The downsides of desktop mail clients: Search tends to be slower and often worse.

No easy access from other computers.

Some missing "advanced" features (e.g. the GMail style promotions tabs, etc., and the additional live features GMail often provides)

Labels don't work well with most desktop clients (although GMail focused clients do an excellent job, but personally I don't prefer them because I have many non GMail accounts that I also want to use in the same interface).

IMAP syncing is slow and silly. I wish we had a better protocol. This doesn't make much of a difference in practice unless you're trying to use email as an IM application.

I still don't understand the lack of Mozilla's support for Thunderbird, right as the mail client space was hitting peak hotness.

This was the time Google and Apple were paying millions to buy the likes of Sparrow and Inbox, etc.

Road deaths in the US increased during the pandemic (2020 over 2019) despite fewer miles driven.

And it seems 2021 then saw another 10% jump in the number of vehicle deaths.

I have never seen any of those claims being made.

1) The 9% was surprising because everyone believed Musk had not taken any steps, because he was legally required to publicly declare when he acquired 5%.

Which he did not do until much later, in order to lower his acquisition price, and is now under an SEC investigation for it.

2) I'm not sure who was predicting a hostile takeover. His suggested price was high enough that most commentators said it would be fiscally irresponsible of the board to turn down the offer. Which is why the board accepted the offer the moment Musk showed any signs of raising funds.

3) No one believed that he wouldn't be able to raise funds. It was pretty obvious he could. The question was whether he was interested in, considering he had taken no steps to raise the funds and it was fairly obvious that it would require him to sell/pledge Tesla shares hurting the TSLA stock price, and it wasn't clear he would want to do that.

It's consistently 1/10th of a cent below the peg.

That's not maintaining its peg. That being said, it has been stable at that price for several days now, but let's see what the next few weeks hold.

Distributed Finance:

> Deus Finance reacted by halting the redemption process in order to try and stabilize the coin

The Aristocrats!

Except the 49C here is not a weird microclimate of some small part of New Delhi, but rather is the average temp across the city.

Which means that places with weird microclimates that were 49C when the overall temp was 46C are now 52C and above.

Wasn't Amazon's increase over a year ago?

And I have never heard of Amazon being a low payer. I guess the people I know worked at AWS and maybe that was an outlier in terms of their payments, because they are paid as much, if not more, than people in similar roles in MS/Google.

I think this is increasingly true of us as a society. We have been consistently elevating "ease of use" over every other objective and/or subjective quality.

We've reached the point where easier is better, even if it is objectively worse.

We are all settling for local maximum that are significantly lower than several other maxima because apparently making the effort to move further along the x-axis is now almost considered the worst thing one can do.

I thought RPis were extremely power efficient. Is that wrong?

Tesla was basically a fully government funded entity for the first decade of Musk's ownership. His greatest skill with Tesla lay in promoting it (and doing an even better job of promoting the myth of Tesla being hand built by himself alone) and in securing government benefits.

There was the direct half a billion dollars in loans the government gave Tesla after the financial crisis without which it would have collapsed. But even more so, the only reason Tesla could survive financially during the 2010s was a combination of government subsidies and government green credits which essentially had the likes of GM and Ford paying Tesla to build cars (so they could offset their credits).

What I will never get over is GM/Ford being so short sighted that they were willing to pay a competitor hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than investing in coming up with an electric platform of their own.

But why is anyone else buying Tether at above $1 if the entire strategy is based on selling above $1 and buying below $1?

You can't just sell something. For someone to sell something someone else needs to buy the same thing.

So to be able to execute the strategy correctly, you need an anti-human or anti-robot that always executes the strategy absolutely incorrectly.

Lol, sounds like the mortgage backed assets before the housing crash.

"Back it up with enough securities that are backed up by enough securities that are backed up by enough securities, you will turn the literal shit the eventual security is backed up by into gold".

Even that never really happened, did it? Madoff was never not able to make a payment.

His kids reported him to the police before they could be found out by anyone else. Of course, as part of the reporting, they also got immunity from the consequences of the company they worked for being an elaborate ponzi scheme.

I suspect it's highly likely that this was a scheme they came up with to ensure that no one in the family, other than Madoff himself, would have to suffer the consequences of their crime.

And that's because a lot of such mergers/buyouts fail.

That's why the price is never on parity.

Putting everything on hold until the merger closes is a severe dereliction of duty.

The point of analogy is that it's very different from the actual issue. In fact, an analogy will always be different from the real situation, otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be the thing in itself.

There is nothing contradictory in using an analogy to illustrate a specific point (in this case, how a lender may be hesitant to lend something to a borrower even if the borrower acted unwisely with a small part of the money that was lent to them), and pointing out that the analogy is not the same as the actual situation.

None of your analogies make any sense whatsoever.

What does a President having "skin in the game" mean? That is the kind of talk you would make when talking about an investment. From the perspective of a sovereign nation, it's currency is not an investment. The goal of a currency isn't to provide maximum returns for people who hold that currency. In fact, from the perspective of a sovereign nation, an ideal currency is one that depreciates in value in a controlled manner. The fact that cryptocons don't even understand this simple fact is remarkable.

The NBA is a zero sum organization. There can only be 1 winner, and everyone else will be a loser. 1 team getting better than the others strictly means that the other teams are worse off. Nations and the world economy do not operate in a zero sum environment. Ukraine being attacked by Russia means nearly every country that relies on its produce and output are worse off. This is unlike the NBA where if suddenly every player in the Warrior's lineup got injured today, every other team would have a better chance of winning.

> 0 percent chance they had before their crypto actions.

Citation needed really really badly. There's a million things countries can do to improve their wealth. The one thing that is not gonna help them is investing in a speculative and highly volatile asset like crypto currencies.

The destruction of RSS greatly damaged the Blogging ecosystem.

It used to be that if I followed a /. link to an article on a blog that I enjoyed, I'd immediately subscribe to their RSS feed. I'd made a collection of a few hundred blogs related to computer science alone this way.

At the time I was on a mac, and NetNewsWire was THE RSS reader of choice (backed by Google Reader for syncing feed info) and every morning I'd click on the folder which housed those 100s of blogs, and would probably find 10-20 posts, skim through them in minutes, only reading those that seemed interesting to me in depth. NNN also made it extremely easy to open the post on the original website in a background tab, so I'd keep opening them in the background if I wanted to read it, and then just go through all the background tabs.

It was an amazingly efficient system of following hundreds of independent blogs that were offering uncurated first person information.

I haven't found anything today that comes close to recreating that system, and I can't imagine even finding the kinds of articles I did through this process (an example...I had an HP MediaSmart server, and one day someone randomly posted a How to on replacing the CPU on it with a newer CPU...it was an easy process that cost me about $7 to buy the compatible faster chip on eBay, and a couple of dollars for the heatsink gel). And lo and behold, a week later, everything was running so much better.

Changing the CPU on the Mediasmart server was something I wouldn't even have considered searching for, and even if I did, I'm not sure Google would have turned up anything useful.

Exactly this. The EU may be the greatest red tape destroyer ever created.

The single market has led to many many landfills not being filled due to the paper that trade before the single market would have generated.

I get the feeling that there's a bunch of people working for, or being paid by, Microsoft who really love functional programming. Some of Microsoft's best outputs comes from those teams/folks.

It could just be a coincidence/confirmation bias, so I wonder if there's actually something to that.

Removing a credit or a reference is probably the worst way to add succintness to an article.

It's literally saying "the contributions of people whose work I based my work on is less important than the least useful sentence in describing my work".

Yes, those people usually speak out before the end of the meeting.

That's not whom I'm talking about.

And it's very easy to tell the difference between someone who is thinking and waiting to speak, and someone who is trying to get a word out but is unable to because they are more introverted or less confident than most of the other people in the room.

Since you're clearly using "spending" in a more economic sense, but most people will read it from the perspective of household finances and therefore interpret spending as morally wrong, I'll add that the spending you're discussing includes, and primarily is, investment.

Both your run of the mill, deposit money in the bank which loans it out so all sorts of businesses can be built, and people can buy houses, cars, etc., and your more exotic VC and hedge fund investments.

So (a) it's not a sleight of hand by the article, and (b) Welcome to HN (and almost every other discussion forum), where the commentary almost always has nothing to do with the article and has everything to do with pet peeves of the commenters related to the topic of the article.

IF you want issues like these to be fixed then you should support the paring back of features.

It's the sprawl of features that leads to those features being poorly implemented.

One of the greatest challenges I'm facing running team meetings virtually is getting input from the less extroverted team members.

When we had a meeting in a physical room, if I noticed someone hadn't said much, I could go "Hey John, any thoughts on this idea?", and it would largely be appreciated by John because it gave him an opportunity to speak in a room filled with other folks who were much better at getting their 2 cents in.

However, doing the same thing on a video or voice call feels completely different. It feels like I'm calling out the person who has been quiet, and comes across as a psychologically negative experience both for me and for John.

Game theory shows that systems involving multiple people making decisions without coordination can very easily settle into subptimal equilibriums.

And that's almost certainly gonna be the case here.

I honestly don't understand some of the ideas people have about remote work. Remote work may be great, but there will be challenges associated.

For example, so many people are going about saying that they should be paid the same whether they work in SF or Topeka. And the assumption is that means people in Topeka will be paid SF salaries. And that may be true for a few years while we are still inside an extremely tight labor market. However, once there is the slightest bit of slack, it's far more likely that employees in SF will be paid Topeka salaries.

A few years further it's even more likely that people in Topeka and SF will be paid Bangalore or Rio or Mexico City salaries.

If there's no benefit from being geographically co-located, then the market should drive everyone to locate themselves in the cheapest geographies possible.

Now, this may not actually be true, even in a looser labor market, and there may be other reasons that would lead to salaries across Topeka and SF remaining at SF levels, but a clear eyed discussion would start from the earlier assumption, that salaries would drop, and then justify why that wouldn't happen.

What I'm seeing instead is that everyone is assuming that salaries will rise, and then operating based entirely on that assumption, without any discussion about why this may or may not be true.

White collar careers outside of tech are not as stable as you're indicating.

The incompetence could also be a result of the fact that a lot of shit is happening at the same time.

I suspect that the world after WW1, where they also faced many similar situations at the same time (pandemic, financial crash, etc), also looked pretty incompetent to everyone.