GMail is the worst for email blocking resolutions. They don't have an effective feedback loop built into their system. So when a user does block you, no one is told about it, to be fixed. Therefore lowering your reputation with them over time.
How can we as ESPs respond to them appropriately with removal of these people who don't want our emails anymore, if we don't know who the user is?
If there are any GMAIL service team members here, I would LOVE to know why a feedback loop was never implemented like the other providers.
Maybe ask yourself why some users end up blocking you altogether. Surely you didn't start sending them newsletters or the like without being completely certain that they wanted to receive them, and you provide a simple, prominent and reliable way to unsubscribe if/when they change their mind, right?
There's a block-by-default setup for new email servers. You have to go through the reputation-building process which is not at all clear nor is it always guaranteed to work.
Yes, it "works" for most people, but it also has the effect of entrenching the incumbent large email providers and preventing more independent providers from cropping up.
The current method is very lazy and collectively punishes a lot of innocent email providers for the crimes of the abusers.
> How can we as ESPs respond to them appropriately with removal of these people who don't want our emails anymore, if we don't know who the user is?
1. Don't send spam
2. ???
3. Profit!
Literally _all_ email that I've blocked has been from companies where I uncheck the box "send spam to me" and the company sends it anyway, or where the company thinks "oh this guy bought stuff from us, we can now send our daily/weekly/fuckly marketing spam!" or "we got your email from whatever shady place, and now we're sending you our information because you're in our industry" or stupid shit like that.
Gmail does not have a "block everything from this domain feature". I would love to block whole domains from my gmail account. Alas, I run my own email server to achieve it.
That country probably gave you the opportunity you have now. You might not think its worth 2 years, but the country does and everyone else in that country also did.
You should really think about going back and serving a country which gave you opportunities.
They really don't, most of my generation and their parents do everything they can to avoid it, but that aside:
I am all fine with serving my country, I would love to go back for e.g. 2 month per year or biannual to teach what I have gained to the next generation at a high school or university whatever even village schools.
The problem is military is not the one I could be the most useful, apart from the ethical questions. And they don't give you a choice about how you serve your country.
No. Fuck conscription. It's just a modern form of time-limited slavery, with indoctrination and abuse on top. It has no place in the modern world. I totally support people who flee a country to escape it.
I wouldn't call it unreasonable. They were told to clear the streets. They didn't actually clear the street. They stayed on the street. Reporters not following directions.
According to CNN's timeline the police asked them to move at 5:09 AM, the reporter asked where they wanted them, at 5:11 AM the police arrested them. The reporter was not given the chance to follow directions.
I'm not commenting on this particular case, since we don't have all of the facts yet, but it should only take seconds to comply with a lawful order, not minutes.
Just watch the video; it was a live broadcast of the whole encounter. They were told to move, asked where was OK to move, the cops didn't give an answer (ostensibly communicating with superiors over radio), and then they were simply arrested.
Y'all were right, the footage I saw earlier was clipped after the girl had ran.
That's enough of trying to see all sides for me today. This week is hell.
-----------------------
It was not a live broadcast of the "whole encounter" it was a live broadcast that started in medias res after the reporters were clearly surrounded by multiple officers of the law.
Not to mention that for the hour preceding 05:00 CDT, the National Guard and Minnesota State Troopers were announcing over loudspeakers that anyone in the area was to disperse immediately or face arrest.
So, it begs the question - what happened in the minutes leading up to when the camera started rolling?
Is it possible the crew had already been told to leave or they would be subject to arrest, and the crew did not follow this?
Are we counting being skeptical of a claim as taking the opposite side? Seems like the user is trying to understand the situation rather than advocate for a side.
It's not being skeptical, it's in fact the exact opposite of any form of skepticism: it's being so credulous to one "side" that you make up falsehoods to excuse bad behavior, instead of using that same time to look for actual facts.
I don't know how this style of thinking has in the past decade or so come to be thought of as "skepticism," it's just incredible bias against one side. A skeptical though process would be inventing equally fabulous motivations in all directions, not just one.
This is a pragmatic point of view, not necessarily what I believe is "right":
Generally speaking, you don't stand around and try to have a conversation with the police. In a tough situation, the very last priority of the police is helping CNN get a nice camera shot.
Had they moved immediately upon being given the order to clear the street, then attempted to have the conversation, they likely would not have faced arrest.
It's possible the police were saying things that couldn't be heard on television because the mic was not in front of their mouths and they were wearing huge masks.
> I wouldn't call it unreasonable. They were told to clear the streets. They didn't actually clear the street. They stayed on the street. Reporters not following directions.
It was recorded, you know. You can watch it yourself. They were asked to move, they asked where they should move to, and instead of being told where to go they were arrested.
In my state, one must comply with any order from a police officer who is in uniform and acting in the performance of his or her duties. This is a law with criminal consequences.
My neighbour was 'arrested' by two men in police uniform, they later murdered him, burned his body, threw remains in the river and sold his car for parts. Him family only found out after the car parts showed up in repair shops.
You're in your rights too for sure, but given the semi-recent history of not giving a fuck 4th amendment along with how quickly the general public is to justify anything done by police officers I'd be scared as hell to do so.
That's an important distinction. If you're ordered to shoot yourself in the head by a cop, "no" is a perfectly reasonable answer, and likely to stand up in court.
I don't know which state you're in, but all the state statutes I've seen saying that you must follow a police order use the words "lawful order" in the text. Also many of them have limited domain such as "while on a public road" or "during a civil disturbance".
In the "refuse to move on after police asked you to" scenario here, the NYC case "People v. Galpern" is often used as precedent. In that case the defendant was found guilty simply because he was, in the officer's view, obstructing the sidewalk. He was not otherwise disturbing the peace. From this case, the courts tend to side on the judgement of the arresting officer unless there are extreme circumstances.
I'm in California. In our state, it's part of the Vehicle Code, but courts regularly construe it as applying anywhere in public. I have personal knowledge, unfortunately, that violating the California Vehicle Code is in many cases a criminal and not civil matter. The statute doesn't include any qualifier that the order be lawful. I suspect that "and was performing his duties" is meant to cover that question, representing a legal fiction that cops would never issue an unlawful order.
For those who are interested in reading beyond Galpern, some other relevant classic cases are Terry v. Ohio and People v. Cohen.
Police abuse their power when leaders pick sides? And what about the Mayor? Has he not chosen sides? He lambasted the riots, but has allowed it to continue. Actions and words.
It will depend on the type of police force. In the case of a state police, it would be a combination of the state legislature and state judiciary. The real answer is surely lengthy and complicated, but suffice to say the mayor (thankfully) does not control the police... just as thankfully the president does not control the military.
> He lambasted the riots, but has allowed it to continue
How, exactly? I mean, it's not like the rioters are following his orders (or maybe you're saying they are?!). If you're just saying it's his responsibility, then sure, but he's not the only one. Aren't community leaders, the police, the governor and the president likewise "allowing" the riots to continue simply because they haven't stopped them?
I mean, Trump literally evoked an image of shooting rioters. Did anyone else do anything similar?
While the first half kind of threw me, your second half lined up with what I see. Im quite surprised you believe and state it more than once that NPR is right of center. Just recently their CEO wrote a book about how LEFT leaning they were and how bad he was. He realized that he needed to venture out and how bad NPR was.
The “center” in America between Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans is “center right” in other places, like Europe. And I use “Liberal” to mean “right of Progressive”. “Progressives” are seen as “very left” for advocating for things that are “center” in Europe. It is common in some circles to bind your language to the European standards, in which case NPR is center-right as a more conservative presence in the American Liberal Democrats. At least that’s how I see all this.
Is that not the hallmark of someone with no ability to make sense of the world? or a liar, or someone who adds nothing of value to a situation? someone with no perspective or understanding of the facts?
i honestly prefer to read the opinion of two opposing parties that actually believe what they say and have assimilated the presented facts from a publicly stated perspective. (note the perspective can be that they "don't know what is right" - but they should at least have eliminated what they know is bull)
Many publication try to cover all aspects/angels - however this is very dangerous.. as it means that perspectives that even people who literally no one thinks are correct get represented. if we let two (or more) opposing biased journalists report on what they thought was relevant, the true nut jobs would never get a platform.
For example, BBC posts article about 5G causing covid, they have an expert and a non-expert on. many viewers/readers/listeners will assume that these two parties are equally possibly correct as you the expert journalist have presented them for my consideration.
*its also kind of a lie to pretend you don't have an opinion or perspective as its not actually possible. so by trying to to say you are presenting both arguments is sort of lying and trying to cover up your true beliefs no?
Its a CIVIL war that has been raging for the last 200 years. It won't stop anytime soon until there is diplomacy. Real diplomacy and HARD diplomacy is needed here. It can't be stopped unless people sit down and talk things out.
This is a very inaccurate and misleading characterization, there was no one single war, and the warring sides have changed alliances and some were wiped out completely.
Until about 1920s kurds were mostly on the same side as turkish government, and were helping turks to quell rare rebellions of non-muslim population (mostly armenians, greeks, assyrians) who were treated as second class citizens. Only in 1920s after most of the non-muslim population was killed in genocide, or displaced during population exchange with greece, Turkey started using their honed ethnic cleansing skills against Kurds.
There is as much reason for Kurdistan to be part of Turkey, as for African countries to be part of France, but Turkey not only doesn't agree to this but also fights against kurds in neighbouring countries. It can be stopped either when Turkey becomes civilized (1) country, like european countries did, or when stronger countries force it to behave in a civilized manner, like US was doing until now.
(1) denying genocide, having laws against "insulting Turkishness", oppressing minorities are not things that civilized countries do
In a war situation you don't have access to facts until after the dust has settled and the bad things have happened, so two years from now I will revise my assessment of the situation based on "the facts". The facts we do have available are historical record of what happens when self-interested, oppression happy Turkish dictators decide that a group of people are terrorists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
We don't know the facts. This absolutely might be leading to genocide. The fact that they are cutting social media is even more evidence it might go in that direction.
I see a pro-Turkey bias. They let a guy go on there from the Turkish government and push his propaganda, mostly unchecked. They didn't have anyone from the YPG giving their side.
There was a similar operation last year, was it genocide? Please, that is not a light word you should throw around without any evidence. I am always disgusted by censorship, but thankfully there are many other channels of information out there. Also you know that Turkey is home of at least 15 million Kurds already.
Many of the estimated 500,000 people displaced from their homes in areas under the curfews across the southeast of Turkey in 2015 and 2016 lacked access to adequate housing and livelihoods. Many were unable to return to their homes that had been destroyed during or after military operations during which state security forces clashed with armed individuals affiliated to the PKK.
Many times? During the US Civil War, Great Britain gave serious thought to intervening on behalf of the Confederacy on whom they depended for cotton supplies (India at the time was still experimenting with cotton horticulture), and gave tacit financial support throughout the war. Virtually all of the Latin American civil wars of the second half of the last century saw the US give material or military support to anti-communist forces.
Its actually a regulation problem. City councils, local govts create this problem with restrictions on buildings and what type of things can go into their city. These people should rise up and realize their living in something created by govt.
This response is a common issue we run into when discussing policy. When people do not understand that policy is the absolute bedrock foundation for any and all subsequent law or regulation, they tend to not be able to visualize how wide of a net “policy” is and what falls underneath it.
Example:
Policy simplified: No more than X number of multi-family homes allowed.
Regulations and zoning laws are second: We only have room for X, so we can have no more than X number of multi family homes in Y sq miles.
As you can see, a decision does not start as a law nor regulation, it is broad policy.
So with your claim that it’s a regulation issue, how would changing the inferior part of the policy ensure it promotes change from the bottom-up? It will not change the issues that are created as a result of the original base policy (i.e. X number of MFHs allowed).
All regulations and laws must have a basis which can help explain the what, how, and why of implementation to ensure it falls within the boundaries of the initial policy decision.
Back in 1962 my grandma had her house built on some undesirable empty hills, in the city but far from the action. There wasn't a tech industry. That house is in the geographic center of San Francisco and is now worth about $2,000,000. It's still on a lovely tree-lined street with plenty of available free parking.
You would take that from her and the other people who created the neighborhood you now covet. You would change it forever, adding all the charm of a trailer park or housing project. The free parking would be gone.
No. You go make your own desirable neighborhood in a different city.
You're trying to cheat by skipping a step. You don't want to wait half a century. You want that nice neighborhood now, without investing the time to create it.
Nobody is trying to take your grandmother's house away. She can keep her house until somebody offers her enough money for her want to sell it. What you want is for your grandmother to be able to control what everyone around her is allowed to do with their property. If others want to sell their homes for millions so that apartments can be built (bringing in more people and raising their quality of life), why should she be allowed to stop them? The whole point of property rights is to allow this sort of thing.
And free parking? It's city-funded parking. The city owns the roads and maintains them. Long ago, density and car usage was low enough that the city had more than enough parking spots to go around. Now it's different. You have to drive around for a while to find an open spot. You pay in time instead of money. For many of us, that's not a worthwhile trade.
Also, I do wonder what the property taxes are on that $2,000,000 home. If the owner hasn't changed, it could be ridiculously low. In most states, the outcome of property taxes is that they encourage more economically efficient use of land. This is very important because land is a scarce resource in cities. Sadly, prop 13 has made this not the case in California.
My grandfather fought in the Vietnam war. About a decade after he retired, two new families moved into the houses next door to him: a Vietnamese family on his left and a Russian family on his right. This caused him great distress. Should he have been allowed to stop those families from living next to him? I don't think so, and I think building apartments in the neighborhood causes far less distress than that.
> Nobody is trying to take your grandmother's house away.
Wrong, because of:
> the outcome of property taxes is that they encourage more economically efficient use of land
County assessors routinely change the valuations of real property and the taxes you pay are proportionate to that valuation -- not what you paid for it. If she bought the place for $20,000, which is likely in 1962, then she likely cannot even afford the taxes on the property anymore and would be forced to leave.
Prop 13 means that property taxes on residences in California cannot increase more than 2% per year. It also mandates that reassessment cannot happen unless ownership changes hands or significant construction is done (such as tearing down the house and building something else).
Basically, the longer you own a house in California, the lower your effective property taxes are.
But your main point is correct: A more productive use of the land would be for grandma to sell her home to a developer who would then build apartments. Reassessing property taxes every few years is a great way to encourage such developments. Again, the end result isn't to take someone's home. It's to tax them commensurate with the value of the land (a scare resource in cities). If they don't think the taxes are worth it, they can sell their land (usually for millions of dollars) and move to a place where land isn't as expensive.
I don't think the neighbors want apartments either. That would instantly crater the desirability of the neighborhood. This matters both for the people concerned about finances and for the people who just want to live their lives in peace.
You can't just move a really old person without increasing the risk of death. She would lose her connections to church and family. She would lose the familiarity of her home, both inside and out. This would likely cause depression and might even cause confusion.
If we're going to be coveting land, what about the park? The land value of Golden Gate Park is immense. People wanting a park can go visit one where the land isn't as expensive.
California has a law called Prop 13 which sets the valuation of a property, for tax purposes, to what you bought it at. It then can increase at a maximum of 2% per year. This started in 1976, so this person might only have to pay tax on a valuation of say $100k for the $2 million house.
> then she likely cannot even afford the taxes on the property anymore and would be forced to leave.
So you're saying she can't afford it. She can't afford to support the city that she now finds herself the beneficiary of? Perhaps because not enough people are paying property taxes? If there was more housing to go around, there would be more people to share that responsibilty.
If she sells she'll be well compensated. She can move somewhere more affordable and have plenty of money left over to give her kids.
Good for her. She could actually afford to own. This generation doesn't have the same luxury.
I hope Millennials and Gen-Z will be courteous enough to not defund social security and Medicare. They're growing pretty angry with student loans, cost of living, and inability to afford housing and retirement. They'll be looking for someone to blame when they're 40 and jaded.
> You would change it forever, adding all the charm of a trailer park or housing project. The free parking would be gone.
That's extreme. I was going to say apartment tower, which makes much more sense than single family dwellings with wasted space for parking cars.
> You're trying to cheat by skipping a step. You don't want to wait half a century. You want that nice neighborhood now, without investing the time to create it.
I own a half million dollar condo on the Atlanta Beltline. By all rights I should be a NIMBY too, but I empathize with those that are struggling and hope for densification and affordability. I didn't buy my place as an "investment" - I bought it because I love it and the neighborhood I live in. Lower house prices will mean lower property taxes, so it'd be a win-win. I want them to build more here.
Housing shouldn't be an investment you horde and keep from others because you've already got yours. Housing is an escape from constant shackles of rent-seeking. It should be accessible. People this generation don't even have that as a dream anymore...
> neighborhood you now covet
SF is a smelly and cold quagmire, and I only travel for business. It's a total monoculture without a thriving art or music scene. I've no interest in ever living there.
Tech either needs to pack up and leave, the law needs to enable denser building, or land owners need to see their values drop through steep, progressive taxation.
SF the city is extorting too much from business for not much in return - all of their employees are getting fleeced by the cost of housing. Businesses should shop elsewhere for a better run town that isn't controlled by rent seeking leeches preventing progress because they refuse to work hard and add new value.
I'm hoping tech leaves. My startup will be on the east coast.
This generation also has the luxury of building homes on undesirable hills in cities without a tech industry. Nothing has changed. My grandma might have wished to build in lower Manhattan, but that was already occupied and expensive. She went where the land was affordable.
She also didn't really get her home as an financial investment, and she is unlikely to personally benefit from the increase in value. There was no way to know she'd get lucky. She used the home to raise 7 kids and will probably die there. As you say, it was her "escape from constant shackles of rent-seeking".
It's not smelly on her street.
I also hope that tech moves elsewhere. It's insane to cram everything onto a tiny peninsula. I did go to an east coast start-up, and it worked out nicely. There's also that whole middle of the country. Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Wyoming are all fine places to live.
> She also didn't really get her home as an financial investment,
Probably good thing she didn't. You say the home is worth $2m today... Well if she invested $7397 in the S&P500 in 1962 it would be worth $2m today.
I'm going to guess she spent more than $7397 for the home and a lot more than $0 on taxes and upkeep. :) So if the home had been bought as an investment it wouldn't have been an amazing one.
I think it's important to point this out due to the other comments that seem to think that she's the recipient of some kind of astonishing windfall, she isn't.
The point the other commenters are making about Prop13 is a good one, however. Your central argument is essentially the problem Prop13 is intended to and actually does solve.
And bonus: You can inherit the property from her and preserve its tax level... so rising property values won't even force it out of your families ownership, not at least until you start running into estate taxes.
[Unfortunately, prop13 is also a lot stronger than what would be minimally required to solve the problem of property taxes pushing people out of their homes. E.g. some other states have similar rules but they only apply to a single residential property per person that they're required to live in, and as a result it causes a rather extreme burden shift onto newer residents including ones who opt to live in less expensive locations...]
There are plenty of reasons why nearby development can be a serious taking of an existing resident's property rights... but in California jacking up your property taxes is not one of those reasons.
Your point about parking is an actual argument that you could probably develop further. But I'm guessing that young able bodied posters who are used to living in an urban hellscape won't buy any argument that reliable nearby parking is a quality of life issue. :)
>They'll be looking for someone to blame when they're 40 and jaded.
No need to wait. I'm 23 and I already feel jaded.
I can't comprehend why anyone would want to treat their primary residence as an investment. My mom bought a tiny apartment in an eastern European country 30 years ago for almost nothing that has appreciated and is now worth $35000. The problem? She wants to move and an actually desirable apartment costs twice as much. Two times almost nothing is still almost nothing. Two times $35000 is $70000 which is something she can't afford.
House appreciation ends up being a a net loss because it kills any potential exit strategy.
Want to cash out? You will have to sell your house and then rent for obscene prices. Want to upgrade? Better houses appreciate faster than your low end house, so you have to cough up more money. Want to move to a different location that costs the same? Your taxes have appreciated too.
So the only way this investment strategy can pay off is if you want to move away from the place which is obviously what doesn't happen because people buy homes to stay there, not to move away in 30 years after their homes have appreciated.
They can start their own company too for a job, maybe bring their own venture capital firm to fund it, and probably they should also bring a few tens of thousands of like minded employees with them to get a liquid job market going and good network effects. The problem is that it's super hard to do those things, even for nation-states.
It's actually very hard to imagine that your grandma did those things either.
There exist plenty of nice tree-lined streets around the country with free parking. In hardly any of them do houses cost $2,000,000. I think the reason housing is so desirable/expensive has very little to do with your grandma's choices and more to do with historical and economic factors that individuals have little control over.
There are certainly trade offs to be made. Housing has already become unaffordable for middle class people growing up here (that don't inherit a house), and many lower income people already commute multiple hours each day. But solving this problem might involve some homeowners (with already huge financial windfalls), not exactly giving up their homes, but having to look at some buildings and/or people they don't like.
All that being said, strip malls in the south bay would probably make more sense for redevelopment than already-dense SF neighborhoods (and I've been to the area of SF you're talking about and can certainly acknowledge the charm).
Those policies are influenced at the local level. Unfortunately they’re also often basically controlled by special interests. If anything could change it, it would be people en masse taking an interest in local elections at significant rates. There’s no voting power larger, in the US, than the people who sit out. It’d also mean going to meetings, probably.
How can we as ESPs respond to them appropriately with removal of these people who don't want our emails anymore, if we don't know who the user is?
If there are any GMAIL service team members here, I would LOVE to know why a feedback loop was never implemented like the other providers.