Yup. Got my own domain(s) and use a different address for all my services (like with Gmail where you could append +service to your email but with a completely distinct email per service like paypal@mydomain.com). Helped my several times to identify spam & phishing without even having to check the E-Mail itself.
My guess is that you probably know what I'm going to write, but a lot of people don't realize this 'Gmail trick' doesn't really work.
The problem is that foo+bar@gmail.com and foo@gmail.com are delivered to the same inbox, so if you are trying to scam someone it is safe to remove anything after the + in a gmail address.
And having a custom domain on gmail doesn't improve your situation, because with just a simple 'dig mx' you can know if the domain is hosted on gmail and apply the same regex to remove all labels.
So, to be less inflammatory the feature works as expected. But it only protects you if the bad actor is really dumb/lazy or if he is honest.
I do the same as the person you're responding to. There is no '+' in my email, I just create random strings @mydomain. It's impossible for a scammer to know they all go to one inbox.
Some people really love putting dumb validation rules for emails in forms... You would be surprised to know how many system in the real world will just refuse anything that is not a letter or a number in your email.
And the 'fuck them, I won't do business with them' attitude doesn't really work if the system that wont accept your email is the local gas company.
And there is another problem, some systems will just remove any label without informing you. I've had this problem logging in some random websites. My account was created with foo+bar@gmail.com but to log I had to use foo@gmail.com.
Not surprised at all, I've been using the Internet and writing software for a couple decades now. Heck, I might've written one of the validators you're complaining about. But they are typically written to avoid +, for the exact reasons you described.
For those sites, you can add a dot in your username. Then you can ignore any emails sent to an address without the presence of a dot or a plus.
I'm sure there are sites that don't accept dots either, but I've never run into one. So you have to make an exception? Oh well.
I agree that it's easiest to do with service@domain.tld, like the grandparent suggested.
IIRC dot is one of the characters that can't be discarded when checking local addr part (RFC 5322). So fubar@domain.tld and fu.bar@domain.tld are different addresses really. As far as I understand - it's a Gmail's team decision to configure local addr interpretation and allow `helloworld@gmail.com` and `hello.world@gmail.com` to be treated as the same address.
I'd expect that dot trick rarely works anywhere outside of gmail world.
+ sign is part of the standard (`atext` token, RFC 5322), so sites, which disallow it in address are doing it wrong.
The fact, that industry adopted a practice of using everything after + sign as a "tag" is not captured anywhere so this creates even more mess in already messy space (e.g MS followed GSuite in this too and added subaddressing - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/recipients-in-exc...)
My girlfriend (who has quite severe ADHD) is exactly like you. Before she can get any work done in our office everything needs to be put away/organized/in it's place or she'll get detracted all the time.
It's not just software. Law and policy do the same thing. So does science - even ostensibly fundamental concepts such as "temperature" are really just a simplifying stochastic model of a complex physical system. This is what natural language does, too.
As another commenter pointed out, "The map is not the territory."
The full Korzybski quote is perhaps more insightful, if less pithy: "A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness."
Right, "the map is not the territory" is just half of the quote, and the worse half at that. It's like saying "well, you never know" to everything. Okay, thanks for your help.
> The full Korzybski quote is perhaps more insightful, if less pithy: "A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness."
Right, nobody is expecting a map to actually be the territory. The only question is whether it's useful. We do have a pithier quote for that; one of my favorite quotes of all time:
"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."
Yes. That was the point of my original post: abstractions generate problems.
But abstractions are also useful. You can't just not abstract anything at all.
I took a look at my company's metrics this morning. Approximately 30% of the candidates we send to clients (and who have not ended up out of the process for reasons outside of quality, e.g. the company hired someone else) have ended up getting an offer. That's an important piece of information: it tells me that my company does not have a problem with failing to screen out weak candidates.
Is that leaving out some important details? Yeah, of course! One of our candidates failed an interview because he was too aggressive in questioning his interviewer about their company's prospects. That's a useful piece of information, too; it was (along with a couple other anecdotes) a clue that we should try to do more basic coaching for candidates before interviews.
The data tells me how common the problem is, and suggests which problems are most critical to solve first. The anecdotes can tell me in detail about the nature of the problems, and suggest to me possible interventions. Both of those things matter.
Same for leaf blowers. I worked on a farm in the Swiss mountains where we used large Stihl leaf blowers to get the hay down the mountain [1] so we could pick it up by machine and electric leaf blowers were only used for cleanup jobs in the barn.
Nowadays I live in the city but I still get sweaty flashbacks whenever I hear a gas leaf blower during the summer months.
Oh, I hear you, every fall in Ontario (and now Wisconsin) the sound of gas leaf blowers and that high-pitch whine drives me crazy. I have an electric one to basically clear off the front porch but I feel like even that is noise pollution (much worse than a riding mower to my ears) and so I rake an acre of mixed hardwood next to the house by hand spring and fall and trailer the leaves a half mile up the road to compost.
I'm sure it was hard work, but a farm in the Swiss mountains for a period of time sounds like a life experience!
Sorry, I should clear that up. I mulch (mower) as much of the leaves as I can and leave it on the ground, I only rake up what I can't mulch. And that's to protect the ground cover under the oak trees from dying under the leaves and turning everything in to mud/eroding.
Hasn’t the percentage an average person spends on housing significantly increased in the past 50 (or 20) years?
Additionally I can’t follow your second thought: are you saying that the inflation rate is directly correlated with the rate of the value of innovation dispersement? E.g. a high inflation should eventually lead to a high dispersion of innovations/a more innovative culture?
the idea with the second statement is: the cost of bringing innovation to a market where inflation is higher makes it easier to pay back to cost of the innovation. ie. you pay your salaries at index 100 and get to sell them at a higher index.
Not arguing for the OPs argument but observing a pattern over a longer timespan doesn’t mean that the pattern can be observed during the whole timespan.
At the same time IMHO you’re right in pointing out that gold is a poor measurement of the true cost of a house.
To understand this you need to know that >. and <. are the min and max functions, and that in J three functions separated by spaces, f g h, constitutes a new function mathematically defined by (f g h)(x) = g(f(x), h(x)). An example is (+/ % #) which applied to a list gives the mean of the list. Here +/ gives the total, # gives the number of elements and % is the quotient.
