I have my own server for a few mailboxes as well but the spam detection isn't great. I still receive emails from Ukrainian billionaires who want to wire me all their money for safekeeping.
I use rspamd, which is supposed to be great. How are you dealing with spam?
If your provider supports IMAP, you can use imapsync https://imapsync.lamiral.info/ to sync emails between two mail boxes. I did it a few times and it was straightforward.
For libre options available from Linux distributions' repositories, see isync (aka mbsync) and offlineimap. And mail clients in general should be able to handle IMAP and standard formats (Maildir, mbox). If one cares about mail backups, it is also useful to archive and backup one's mail in one of those standard and portable formats, and/or to synchronize between multiple machines regularly.
That's how news websites are supposed to look like. It's not good for revenue though, because there's no way to trick the user into clicking ads, nor dive into mindless scrolling.
I wonder if it would be possible to align revenue generation with user experience, instead of both goals being incompatible with each other.
Just like how I don't try to run the latest edition of Flight Simulator on my 4-GB, GPU-less device; I also don't try to visit websites built with latest web features using browsers that are clearly not trying to support those features.
NYT doesn't have to hinder its innovative efforts to create informative content just because of a couple of folks who refuse to admit that tech evolves over time.
I understand that ads can be annoying, and for that I use ad blockers where necessary; but for everything else, I appreciate the advancements in the web tech capabilities that enable the creation of amazing stuff.
Well, tbf, I'm speculating based on the evidence provided. But, if NYT provides a poor—or non-existent—experience to anyone, for example, without JavaScript enabled, then it fits my definition of "bad".
> Most users happily open bloat sites and pay with their privacy and being manipulated.
You can use bloat sites and pay with your privacy and be manipulated for free or you can pay for the experience, but you'll be using bloat sites and pay with your privacy and be manipulated no matter what.
Most user will probably want images, slightly more styling and recommendations on what to read next... other than that it's a perfectly usable website for the everyday user, something that can't be said about most news sites today, sadly.
I mean who even reads ad-spam websites in the first place? They used to host little bits of knowledge you'd search for... now I can reach that better via ChatGPT (eg. How to do mission X in video game Y)
I can only imagine... I read some well crafted news, no ads, no malicious tracking, no ad-blocker-blocker popup, no newsletter popup - and at end of the article: "This experience was great because we're supported by XYZ company, they have no control of our editorial process" (with company logo). Tasteful, still supported by ads, probably completely unsustainable.
I agree. I'm about to start paying for news again. Had only 2 years worth of subscriptions for news publications in print in about 20 years of adulthood. That's kinda crazy.
And if I subtract university and active library times, I really wonder how I didn't turn towards the conspiratorial kind of thought patterns instead of viewing it all in the light of "cooperation in a complex world full of prenatally brain damaged magic money people".
So...perhaps worthy of further study, maybe including to understand where exposure comes from, and whether the particles are absorbed? Like this study.
Unclear doesn't mean safe, it just means hard to quantify. Your child could be in a car accident and their survival odds could be unclear, scientifically speaking. Doesn't mean "totally safe."
This is the wrong analogy because the article states that there's only theoretical harm. It could mean that one has to drink from 100 tea bags a day to get any adverse effects.
It’s reasonable for people to take either approach: are microplastics more like asbestos or are they more like cellulose in terms of harm?
The answer being unclear means it makes sense to treat them, from a regulatory standpoint, closer to asbestos. It also makes sense to treat them as an unknowable and not regulate, because any alternative might be worse.
But it does point to there being a dearth in research and answers, and we should solve that as quickly as possible and maybe limit our exposure when viable, known to be non-toxic alternatives exist.
>The answer being unclear means it makes sense to treat them, from a regulatory standpoint, closer to asbestos.
I'm not sure the follows logically, it ignores a bunch of known facts about biology to imagine that there is a pathway for these to cause major issues.
Damage that is bad enough becomes easy to quantify, so no, "unclear" actually does put a bound on it.
Survival odds in car crashes demonstrate this nicely: count the outcomes and divide. If "the survival odds were unclear, scientifically speaking" then car accidents would have to be orders of magnitude more rare and less lethal than they are.
Sudden damage that is bad enough is easy to quantify. You should take a look at the decades long struggle to prove that cigarettes are harmful to see what it is like when the harm is chronic.
Was the most important part of all the tobacco research the bits that said “Smoking tobacco is healthy”? Or the studies of lead in gasoline the caveats that said “These are small samples”?
It removes the possibility of fear mongering. I'm not aware of any modern research where smoking anything is claimed to be healthy, nor anything about lead in gasoline being too insignificant to pose a health risk.
What is that supposed to mean? Most science is based on theories but you don’t wait for the Theory of Everything to take learnings of science. Fear is a very useful emotion and you shouldn’t fear it.
You are mistaking "theories" and "hypotheses". Theory in science is not some wild shot in the dark, imagined by some random guy in the eureka moment. And neither it is a something yet unproven. Theories in sciences are usually sufficiently proven and stand on the other previously proven theories. Like for example evolution of species is a theory, despite it having more than a century of research and hard proofs. So yeah, science is based on theories, but not on a collection of lucky guesses.
Now hypothesis is what you were probably mistaking a theory with. A hypothesis is something unproven and may or may not be a real thing.
I did mistaken those, thank you for pointing that out. My point remains that science operates in the real world, where decisions often have to be made based on incomplete evidence, rather than waiting for certainty.
I also enjoy working on small firms. My current network IRL is small, so I want to use things like "seeking freelancer" more but I'm not good at standing out. What did you post in the thread that got you the gig?
My comment history is short if you're curious about the comment itself. But in general for writing sales copy, I found The Copywriter's Handbook by Robert Bly very helpful, especially the first five chapters. Some of it can seem a bit sleazy to IT folks (the book is primarily written for people who write ads for a living) but there's great advice in there.
Thanks for the recommendation. I've been looking into copywriting to improve this aspect. But I wasn't sure if it works in the tech industry because most copywriting advice seems to be geared at B2C copy where you write for a generally less informed audience.
> Some of it can seem a bit sleazy to IT folks
That's what I mean. Using copywriting techniques can make one seem fake if you don't know what you're doing.
> The absolute worst Django feature is the templating language. It seems to be designed to slow down developers to the like of old time Java web apps, almost mandatory templatetags et all.
They wanted to provide safe and clean templating, so they decided to force developers to write tags instead of putting logic inside templates.
I agree it's quite overkill because I still want to run code like I would with ERB or PHP sometimes instead of being forced to write a tag. But this can lead to difficult to debug templates and security problems.
> The query language is moderately bad, quite verbose (Model.objects every time) for no good reason.
The idea was to make the separation between Model and QuerySet objects obvious. When you access the objects property on the model object, you're actually accessing the QuerySet.
It seems weird because in Rails, everything is encapsulated in the model's class. But Python devs tend to prefer explicit code. In Django we also have the Manager class as an additional layer used to build QuerySets. I'd say it's just a different architecture instead of a shortcoming.
> The lack of common project structure means that every project is different.
This is a real problem but I reckon that big Rails projects aren't as easy to navigate either because most don't stick to the Rails way as soon as custom business logic is needed.
I would say that Django isn't worse than Rails. They just decided to be more strict in some places, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. In the end, you just need to work with whatever you prefer.
> > The query language is moderately bad, quite verbose (Model.objects every time) for no good reason.
> The idea was to make the separation between Model and QuerySet objects obvious. When you access the objects property on the model object, you're actually accessing the QuerySet.
> It seems weird because in Rails, everything is encapsulated in the model's class. But Python devs tend to prefer explicit code. In Django we also have the Manager class as an additional layer used to build QuerySets. I'd say it's just a different architecture instead of a shortcoming.
Also, you're supposed to enhance the models with additional functionality independent of views. Not just in the form of just adding new class or instance methods, but you can also redefine or add alternate QuerySet Managers. For example "Model.objects" could be replaced with a pre-filtered one that includes "deleted=False" and you can add "Model.deleted" for "deleted=True" and "Model.all" for the original get-everything QuerySet.
I need help getting web development work as a self-taught Django developer without a degree. To make things worse, I'm from a developing country with an unfavorable time-zone.
Check my profile for details and let me know if I can be of help or if you know anyone who would like to work with someone like me.
I use rspamd, which is supposed to be great. How are you dealing with spam?
reply