Ooh, it's time to pull out the classics! Please feel free to check the boxes as you see fit, as I am currently too lazy to have Claude do it for me.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
This site is designed so that the wannabees are incentivized to lie and show off to get some of the sweet VC the whales are sitting on. The ease of lying at volume is down to zero, and here be nerds trying to solve a human problem with technology. Maybe show first that you can solve spam or bot networks.
Somehow lighthearted solution: employ Unix graybeard volunteers to weed out the garbage. I'd like to see HN showoff slop like "Distributed Kubernetes Package Manager using Blackwell-Hermann CRTDs in 500 lines of Go" get past Linus or Stallman.
Just did Galway-Rome and enjoyed it! I'll check back in a while when you've had time to implement the minimap and tourist center, as you wrote elsewhere.
What was weird: Paris did not seem to have any public transport - I had to walk from one train station to another for 70 minutes, and the only bus I could find was an overland bus, not an inner city one.
Also, it's a bit unintuitive that the "Journey Details" at the end start at nine hours — to me, when I begin my journey at 9 'o clock, that is hour zero.
Full-stack Rails has been my day job pretty much exclusively for almost twenty years now, for both long-term projects and one-offs in agency contexts. So I am generally interested.
Two things put me off:
1) I have to hunt around to find out whether this would fit into my project, dependency and workflow-wise — turns out it doesn't. I use neither Hotwire nor Tailwind, and "latest Rails point release only" is a rather harsh restriction too.
IMO, this information should replace the fluffy marketing speak in "Who is Rails UI for?" right at the top of railsui.com/docs .
2) Absolutely every paid product should have a pricing link in the top nav, spelled out in large, friendly letters. If the landing page only implicitly implies "paid product" but is then going to be sneaky about that fact, I close the tab and do not come back; in this case, I only stuck around because it's a Show HN.
Oh, and _that_ perennial topic ... a subscription? No thank you. Especially for the kind of money you're asking, I expect a perpetual license for the version at time of purchase, plus at least a year of updates.
I never actually thought to try such an obvious and definitely-not-ridiculous approach, and I can (happily?) confirm it works, so thanks for that. Apple are certainly leaning into Think Different with this.
We cannot, no. A break break, as clean and hard as can be under the circumstances is required.
There will be gnashing of the teeth, doomsaying galore, a few actual minor catastrophes... but we will be okay.
Not just okay, but we will be better off for it. The Internet will be better off for it, because the inescapable side effect will be at least a bit of re-decentralization.
Any European equivalent replacing what is lost will be better. Not because we have better coders or are even better people, mind you - far from it. It will be better because we will have the gift of hindsight; any replacement for web-based productivity services, search engines or social media springing up will be the product of a society and legislative system which has caught up at least in some sense to technological progress and which has been there, done that. The actual web two point oh.
So let's pull out as many plugs as we can. It'll hurt for a bit, but not only is it without alternative - it'll be fresh, it'll be fun and it'll be good in the end.
As the ACLU notes, Obamas use of ICE is similar to Trumps. I believe if people are sincere, they should condemn either neither or both.
If they refuse to condemn Obama, but do condemn Trump, I do not believe they can make a good argument about compassion. That may change the conversation, which I think would lead to a more logical discussion.
You've used this Obama deflection half a dozen time already, and everytime you do people will answer that they were never fans of ICE, even under Obama. Yet you continue to use it, again and again and again... The real question is why, among all these blatantly illegal actions and violent acts perpetrated against the US population that we keep hearing of, you still feel the urge to jump in and defend ICE and Trump?
Because the Democrat politicians encouraging the agitators are aligned with Obama.
Obama is a great orator, and a historic figure. If we don’t remind people that he used ICE much like Trump did, we could end up with a historic injustice. If you call Trump a monster for his use of ICE ( as the ACLU does ), you should also call Obama a monster ( also as the ACLU does ). It’s only fair.
If it’s still not clear, I’ll give a historical example. Bill Clinton molested several women, paid out large sums of money, etc. The man was a lech. But women’s organizations supported him and gave him cover for several years. ( I.e. NOW, the national organization of women ). Clinton was named ‘Father if the year’ by some organization. Can you imagine how this galled people on the other side of the political aisle? It seemed there was no end to the hypocrisy. Finally, thankfully, #MeToo came along and the truth was acknowledged.
That’s why I keep throwing this out there. The truth must be acknowledged. You can’t call Trump a monster without calling Obama a monster, too.
> That’s why I keep throwing this out there. The truth must be acknowledged. You can’t call Trump a monster without calling Obama a monster, too.
Except no one is disputing this "truth". You're making up a strawman. Clearly, no one on the Left cares to defend Obama over his use of ICE, you must have realized this by now. But you keep bringing him up whenever ICE does anything illegal or abhorrent (which is daily now). Why is that? And I am yet to hear you condemn anything.
> Can you imagine how this galled people on the other side of the political aisle?
Not really, when the current President was Epstein's best friend, a known pedophile, and is embroiled in several rape affairs. Clearly the Right does not care about women, they even ran on an anti-feminism agenda. When Trump said "grab her by the pussy" during the campaign it did not make any waves in right-wing circles.
On the other hand, outside of the most dickless liberal circles, people on the Left are extremely quick to criticize/condemn democratic leaders: Biden, Obama, Clinton... Even Harris, people were extremely mad over her awful campaign.
Meanwhile, I am yet to see a single republican criticize Trump over literally anything. The guy did multiple crypto-scams, received obvious bribes (one of them an entire plane) from islamic dictatorships, is knee-deep in a major international pedophilia scandal, etc. Dead silence from the right.
Like right now, you keep deflecting whenever ICE does something bad. I have not seen you even acknowledge that ICE stealing from citizens is bad. You keep doing whataboutisms for some reason.
And the moderators are nowhere to be seen. I'm really tired of this bullshit, I wish they would clean this website of these obviously bad faith actors who only bring negative value to the table.
So I don’t understand why you say Republicans don’t criticize Trump. As you can see, they criticize him very harshly, for a number of things. Please explain what you meant.
Now for the Democrats, please show me an article about a Democrat disowning Obama for his use of ICE. The bigger the politician, the better.
Mike Pence, the one that Trump sent his supporters to hang on Jan 6th for "betraying" them? Bush and Romney who don't hold office and don't hold influence over the populist MAGA movement?
Republicans in Congress (the ones who can hold him accountable) are clearly sycophantic towards Trump, but you know that, hence the irrelevant politicians you named.
FFS stop talking about Obama. Why are you acting like Trump didn't make the situation 10x worse? We already told you we didn't like Obama's ICE. That is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
I think you made your point, anytime ICE shoots at civilians or steals stuff from citizens, it's OK because Obama or ACLU or whatever Fox News told you to think. Got it.
You are yet more living proof that republicans are completely unable of going against Trump on anything. You guys will keep deflecting, changing the subject and using other fallacies to avoid it. (These three dudes you mentioned were de facto excommunicated from the GOP, Pence was even threatened by the Jan 6 thugs that wanted to hang him for not stealing the election).
If your next comment does not contain an acknowledgement of the most basic fact that "ICE stealing from citizens is bad", (something they did not do under Obama btw), this conversation is over.
That is Blink, not Webkit. Both have diverged significantly enough over the last fifteen-odd years to be counted as separate engines, even if one is a fork of the other.
I primarily use Safari — same story here as with you and Firefox.
It is a commonly used abbreviation for "the f...ine article". On discussion sites of the Internet of yore, people would tell you to RTFA — "read the fucking article" — when it appeared you were chiming in without having first read the item under discussion. This is an extraction from that.
I discovered Ruby (through Rails) about twenty years ago on the dot. Coming from Perl and PHP it took me a while, but I remember the moment when I had the same realisation you did.
I still love this language to bits, and it was fun to relive that moment vicariously through someone elses eyes. Thanks for writing it up!
I'm glad folks are having fun reading this. I want to write a few more articles, particularly dissecting the internals of Ruby and how amazing it feels.
reply