I remember hotmail before gmail. Attachments had a 2 MB limit. I couldn't even share HQ photos using hotmail. And the whole inbox had a 25 MB capacity. I do believe there were paid alternatives with more storage.
Gmail came in with 1 GB storage and grouping emails as conversations. To me, both of these aspects were revolutionary, and other email providers shortly followed suit.
* "other email providers shortly followed suit" means that it was never out of their reach to begin with, they just needed more competition to convince them to try: which didn't have to be Google and didn't have to be ad- or surveillance-supported.
* 1GB storage in 2004 to 15GB storage 21 years later suggests that something vital has stalled. Every other storage metric (price of RAM per MB, price of hard drives per MB, price of cloud storage per MB) has improved 100 fold over the same time period[1,2].
Which freemail service isn't ad- or surveillance-supported?
> suggests that something vital has stalled
Why does it have to be a technology-driven limit? I dare say Google thinks that anyone with more than 15GB of email is a serious enough user to pay for it.
> 1GB storage in 2004 to 15GB storage 21 years later
The original marketing was the the storage would grow forever, and you could believe it. Google was riding the an incredible high from smashing out what felt like constant Amazing New Things throughout the noughties. In fact, when they originally made the claim, back when Don't Be Evil was still the motto and they hadn't bought DoubleClick, I'm sure they believed it. By the time the final upgrade (or rather joining, of 5GB photos/Drive to 10GB mail) to 15GB came round in 2013, there was definitely a hint of the horns in the hairline.
It could also mean that you can't invest indefinite amount of storage to ever growing user base, if storage metrics would not improve indefinitely. There is a break down and 15GB cap is nothing comparing with Google Photos cut, which is a strong sign that storage is the problem even for behemoths.
Yes, and Gmail hasn't improved for decades. Why not? Because Google is a monopoly actor and does not need to compete.
Example: you can't create a new email label in the Android client. You have to log on to email in a browser and do it there. This was true when smartphones were a niche way of connecting to email, and it's still true today.
I would say that any function that implicitly favors a single number must be explicitly stated, and thus, if used for this game, be the number 2. So all uses of the radical must state which root (2). Dirac's solution then wouldn't work because the use of 2 is O(n).
Logs would also need to state the base. No implicit use of e or 10, and lg wouldn't be allowed in place of log2.
I haven't said much other than logs and roots are binary operators with one of the operands usually implicit in the notation, so if we don't have special notation for powers and exponentiation, then we shouldn't allow the same for their inverse operations.
Why is it ok to use "22" = 2 * 10^1 + 2 (when it could be a number in base 3 — 2 * 3^1 + 2 = 8 decimal — or any other base)? This implies base 10, just like root implies base 2, or ln means e.
As I said, this is a game, and trying to imply certain artificial constraints will be really hard with how abstract maths is.
Again, mention of successor function is apt: everything else is built from 1, succ() and another axiom, definition or so. So everything else can be reduced to this.
I said that this implicit use of 10 or some other number shouldn't be allowed. So log, ln, lg (i.e base 2) shouldn't be allowed, but log_b(x) where b and x are states is OK, just as 10^x, e^x, and 2^x require you to explicitly expose the base (and for this puzzle, disallow 10 and e since neither is a 2).
Successor is essentially s(n) = n + 1, so that shouldn't be allowed either.
FWIW, "successor" is not really n + 1: you've got that the other way around.
Successor simply "is" (it's a relation that satisfies a number of conditions), and summation is defined in terms of successor function.
My point is that you can really define everything in terms of these primitive definitions, which means that there won't be any single use of a non-2 digit for any function, or you'll be going with a set of arbitrary allowances.
But the whole point should be: what are those arbitrary constraints that make the game fun? And once you clear that bar, it's ok to open up the next one (this does not make them non-arbitrary though).
Basically, I am saying your take at those arbitrary decisions is not a very fun one ;-)
I didn't say it was. Browsers display an alert when full-screen mode is activated. Full-screen mode isn't a security feature, but the browser does something the website developer can't control so that users can conclude that something fishy isn't going on. I think the ability for one website to hide that they've redirected to another is a vulnerability.
I'm inclined to agree that websites should know when they're the target of a redirect but that has nothing to do with Referer! That header does not work the way so many seem to think it does. As I've laid out elsewhere in this thread, HTTP redirects do not show up in Referer under any circumstances. Right now, one site doesn't have to do anything to "hide" that it's part of a redirect chain, since there's no tracking of that chain to begin with.
Hypothetically, but parties are also incredibly weak right now.
In California, we run an Open Primary system for every partisan office outside the POTUS so parties can’t even guarantee they’ll get a candidate into the general election even if they are otherwise eligible to put nominees forward and sometimes it’s Democrat vs Democrat (this has been happening for US Senate elections) or in some legislative districts Republican vs Republican.
Then coming from the opposite direction, you had a complete outsider in Trump effectively takeover the Republican Party in 2016 and he’s still holding the reins in 2024. Bernie Sanders almost managed something similar with the Democratic Party and they just barely held strong enough to keep that from happening. Twice.
Frankly political parties are incredibly unlikely to come together to impose any restrictions that would impose any kind of extra burden on their elder members, let alone age-gate them.
I missed the part where you explain how Bernie Sanders is a meaningful analog to Donald Trump, such that his primary defeats should be hailed as “holding strong” against an insurgent candidate?
Well the unknown variable is whether like Trump he would prove to be more popular than the party he ran under after a successful Presidential election effectively taking it over so you got me there; but they were in 2016 both outsiders who came into their parties to run for President under an already successful Party-brand and made a helluva run, one more successfully than the other.
Either way, neither of them should have gotten as far as they did.
How about the login service send the code encrypted in the SMS such that it can only be decrypted on the phone of the actual user? Still vulnerable to phishing attempts, but better than relying on deficiencies of SMS technology .
The other day I tried to install Chrome on a new laptop. (Insert joke about what Edge is good for.)
However, Edge wasn't letting me actually download the Chrome installer. When I clicked the download button on the Chrome website, instead of any indication of its progress or completion, Edge instead displayed a pop-up that kept reassuring me that Edge was just as good.
So it turns out, Edge isn't even good enough to fulfill its meme.
I just tried it out, Edge showed the banner twice, once over the Chrome download confirmation (when the browsers asks if you're sure you want to keep an .exe file), and the second didn't obey the X to close. I had to click on the downloads list to be able to tell Edge to keep the Chrome installer.
I just tried it out, Edge showed the banner twice, once over the Chrome download confirmation (when the browsers asks if you're sure you want to keep an .exe file), and the second didn't obey the X to close. I had to click on the downloads list to be able to tell Edge to keep the Chrome installer.
I think most people were just used to the old UI and resistant to change, so they complained about it. Yet, if you asked someone completely new to computing which UI they'd prefer, they would choose the ribbon.
If anything, placing the Styles menu front and center in the Home tab with live preview has made document formatting very discoverable. I used to receive so many Word docs with manually adjusted fonts and line spacing. Not so much after the ribbon was introduced.
> Yet, if you asked someone completely new to computing which UI they'd prefer, they would choose the ribbon.
How do you know that? This seems like a made up thing I’ve seen it stated by multiple people and it’s probably not true. If you take someone new to computing and show them the old idioms of UI and they’d likely prefer it since it makes way more sense.
Perhaps if people were more literate in programming, they could demand more from software vendors. Think spotting BS/over-promising by vendors.
I think too many managers/execs sign off on software that's of such low quality because everything is magic to them and they don't know to dream bigger.
Gmail came in with 1 GB storage and grouping emails as conversations. To me, both of these aspects were revolutionary, and other email providers shortly followed suit.
reply