Well it's true in the us, Russia, china, Australia. That's not everywhere but that is quite a lot of ground.

Russia does not have actual meaningful elections. That's a fairly fundamental difference.

Neither does the US really, in the sense that no matter who wins, you lose.

It's true. You can only win an election with piles of money. With gerrymandering and lying. The US government is a train wreck

A contract won't stop him from suing you.

yeah, but a bad contract makes it easier to.

Maybe she just did it for the money.

And a book about spam filtering could be reduced to the sentence, "Just make sure users only get the email they actually want." Since the filtering of both email and personal possessions is rather more complicated than that, we end up with entire books written on the subject.

For email you might use a combination of DKIM+DMARC, whitelisting, blacklisting, graylisting, string matching, and bayesian filtering based on word corpus. I guess nowadays you might be using more sophisticated ML techniques but I'm not really familiar with email.

For personal possessions, Kondo recommends sorting items by category before discarding things, she has a bunch of tips on how to store things (don't get a bunch of boxes, don't store stuff in a pile so you never see whatever is at the bottom), and a bunch of tips for how to sort through each category of item.

Common sense applies… I heard somewhere in this thread that someone throws anything out they haven't used in six months, but if I did that, I'd have to buy a winter jacket every year (and an air conditioner, camping gear, etc.). That doesn't mean the rule is bad, it just means it wasn't written like a computer program.

There's an entire section of the post office devoted to verification. I can guarantee you that they are checking this.

Indeed. The only relief will be the rich factory owners paying livable wages to the public via taxation.

yes and Tax consumption instead of production and it doesn't matter where the robot is set up!

We are going to have to find a way to tax robots as if they were humans doing the work. Social security can't survive in America unless we do some pre-planning. Robot displaces 10 people? Robot pays the payroll tax times 10, or something like it.

Not robots, but output of robots.

that way we just force robots out of country, we should tax consumption! that way it doesn't matter where the robots sit! and we might get some high paying jobs for maintenance back.

Where are the consumers you want to tax going to get their money from?

Government, basic income!

And where are those money coming from?

import tax, consumption tax, property tax, capital gain tax. money just needs to circulate enough!

import tax paid by whom? property tax paid by what money? capital gains tax from what?

If people don't have jobs they dont' make money only very few of them can offer to invest in stock let alone property.

So thats hardly a solution.

I am with you on basic income but it has to come from where the gains are being made and that is from those who own the robots.

I agree, my only point is if we tax robots, then they move it to somewhere else, you can't move consumption!

I am assuming people who own the robots don't work to earn money so there has to be tons of capital gain around!

increase the tax rate to %75 and you have your money for basic income. tax rate should be really high, otherwise the wealth moves very quickly to robot owners, and there should be no loop hole. that is why I think we should tax consumption because there is no way around it!

you can't have tax on consumption if people don't have anything to pay with outside of basic income. Then you just end up in the same situation that Africa is in where the economy spirals inwards.

You need access to outside value creation and that will come from the "means of production" which is the only place a society will be able to make money if we end up automating most of society.

If the people that profit from the means of production live in the same society their spending is going to be taxed as well.

my whole point is you can't tax production and expect companies to stay and pay high taxes, they are going to move to somewhere with less taxes. and if that happen and we are only relying on taxing productions then we end up with nothing! how do you suggest we set it up to prevent companies from moving? and keep in mind we have a fucked up political system and corporations own congress, so your solution can't be a complicated tax regulation because there is going to be tons of loopholes in it!

looks like they just need to start clicking a lower random percentage.

TLDR, an article by someone who doesn't know how email works nor how companies use email queues.

Author here.

I'm writing from the perspective of a customer. As a customer, I don't care how your email queues work. I do care that you sent me an email and forbid me from replying to it. It chafes. And you want my money?

From the perspective of a company, I can sympathize. I've been directed to create noreply-sending mailers in the course of my job. In every case, it would have been better sent from support@, but because of understandable but dumb reasons (bureaucratic laziness; not-my-problem-itis), it's way easier just to turn on the mailing hose and forget replies. So that's what we did.

I've also worked on handling bounces of both email replies and (cringe) faxes. Yes, handling bounces can be annoying, but to create a good customer experience I think it's worth the cost.

I hope I don't seem critical because that is not my intent. It seems like this is about misusing no-reply@ not that no-reply@ is inherently bad. Github completing a merge of a branch onto master seems like a fine use case for no-reply@. Using no-reply@ to tell someone they are overdue on their bill is not. Or are you saying there is literally never a reason for a no-reply@ address?

Additionally, if a service is over sending, there are lots of unsubscribe laws and rules to address that to your own personal preference.

I won't say never. I think your distinction (GitHub merge vs bill overdue) might strike the right balance, but I'm having trouble sorting out what the principle is that distinguishes those two.

As I've never even paid attention to the sending address of GitHub merge notifications, perhaps the principle is: "If someone notices that your email came from noreply@ then you shouldn't use noreply@"

(And, no, you don't seem critical -- more like thoughtful)

I agree, but I think it's best to just have an email address right at the top of the email for a customer to reply to, or use the reply-to headers.

or.. you know, a reply-to header where real emails can be sent to...

But if I'm on vacation, I don't want to read your email right now. I'm just letting you know that your email might not get a reply, especially not any time soon.

Yeah, it seems like it's providing meta-information about the status of the email address owner rather than actually conveying information from the owner of the email address. Perhaps there should be a separate channel for such meta information.

Having worked in email queues, filters are nowhere near good enough. Nothing is more infuriating than wasting hours on bounces.