Have already had some bad arguments with it. It is definitely rude and doesn't seem to care as much. It's also harder to convince it it to do certain things that are entirely reasonable, but when it is convinced you're wrong, it is very hard to recover.
I like this idea, but doubt it works. People naturally coalesce around ideas. That cohesion is then call a political party. The only way to get rid of parties is to get rid of freedom of organization.
Are there opportunities for those of us in the USA to take in fiancés from other countries in the current climate? I'm currently in the dating circuit for women who have software engineering backgrounds and this situation has made me very nervous about how I'm going to actually bring a fiancé to the USA now.
I think the more reasonable interpretation is that OP is currently looking to date someone. They (as one generally does) hope it will go well, in which case they might want to cement their relationship through marriage. However, they are worried that if they do get married, they may not be able to move to the USA with their spouse.
If this deal happens, it could redefine how the US-China tech standoff is negotiated... Musk’s involvement would be fascinating - not just for the data implications, but for the precedent it sets: Can a single entrepreneur navigate and mediate two global superpowers’ interests?
It also raises the question of whether TikTok, under any ownership, can ever truly escape concerns about data security and political influence. Hmmm. Perhaps the bigger story here is the global power shift reflected in how tech companies are wielded as strategic assets.
The ESA's article claims to "reveal" Mercury's shadowy north pole, yet the image provides no actual insight into the pole itself, which remains shrouded in permanent darkness... The term "revealed" feels more like marketing spin than substance, as the image merely captures the general area around the pole.
This framing is reminiscent of similar oversights in planetary science, such as the perplexing case of Mars' north pole. Studies suggest a cyclical process where subsurface vapor escapes through a thinned crust during colder seasons, freezing into massive ice deposits, like those seen in the Korolev Crater. These ice layers, some over 1.2 miles thick (see the ESA Korolev Crater Study), challenge the traditional narrative of Mars' geophysical activity. Observations from missions like Mars Express and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter reveal hints of dynamic interactions between the crust and atmosphere, yet much of this is glossed over in mainstream discussions.
Why is there a persistent pattern of incomplete or opaque presentations regarding planetary poles? The public deserves transparency and detailed interpretations, not handwaving claims. If the evidence of crustal thinning and volatile release is as compelling as the imagery suggests, why the reluctance to address it head-on???
A commitment to clarity would foster trust in scientific institutions, rather than leaving informed observers to speculate about what's being left unsaid. This is frustrating.
IMHO using “north pole” in a headline to mean “north polar region” tells us more about the nature of headlines than about the quality of science reporting.
Let’s set aside the jokes for a second... there’s a case to be made for Canada, Greenland, and the US forming a closer political and economic union. Not as some imperialistic land grab, but as a pragmatic response to shifting global power dynamics and shared interests.
Just hang on - this isn't as crazy as it sounds!
Think about it:
- There would be a shared defense and infrastructure: NORAD already has the US and Canada tied at the hip for defense. Greenland, being strategically crucial to Arctic security, fits naturally into this alignment. Folding them into a single framework could simplify and strengthen North American defense.
- Economic integration's already there: the US and Canada are each other's largest trading partners. NAFTA (and now USMCA) means much of the heavy economic lifting is already done. Greenland’s resources are becoming increasingly important as Arctic access opens up.
- Population and resources balance out: Canada has land and resources but not enough people. The US has people and markets but strained resources. Greenland sits on untapped potential. There’s a complementary puzzle here that fits. Heck, I know a bunch of people that would move to Greenland in my circle of friends alone if it were a state of the Union.
Think about the plausibility, even if you don' think it's likely.
Sure, there's political gridlock in the US? Sure. But let’s not pretend Canadian politics are a beacon of stability. And Denmark’s hold on Greenland isn’t exactly ironclad. In unstable times, pragmatic unions can look attractive.
And yeah, there are a lot of cultural differentials, but flipping flap jacks, look at the cultural divide between California vs Indiana or TX vs Vermont. Mergers like this happen incrementally - closer military cooperation, shared Arctic development, economic harmonization.
Not saying this will/could happen tomorrow, but in a time of rethinking alliances, I think it’s less far-fetched than it sounds. If Europe can experiment with supranational governance, why can’t North America????
What are the realistic roadblocks here beyond just "politics?"
The current state of the US is the roadblock to this. We already have very high economic integration between Canada and the US, but we now have to deal with a belligerent and incompetent American administration coming in that seems dead set on extracting as much from Canada as possible.
Canada needs to move away from the Americans as much as possible. Easier said than done given that America is an economic powerhouse.
Greenland is Denmark. Why are you including it? (FWIW Inuit in Greenland are better off than their peers in Canada [or Alaska]. Higher quality of life)
The reason Canada and the US are not closer than they already already -- which is very close -- comes down to the same story it has for over 200 years: massive political cultural divide.
"Peace, Order, and Good Government" vs "Don't Tread On Me" or whatever.
American expansionism, manifest destiny, and the populist politics that go with it only sell well to a minority here. This is a country that has deep loyalist roots and a long history of preference for our Westminster style gov't and the balances it has.
Not because we love being ruled by a king -- the monarchy is not popular -- but because we don't like to be ruled by demagogues and militia-men. I say "we", but of course there's people who would disagree, like anywhere else.
If this was still the Obama-era US I think the case for closer ties could be made -- a currency union, perhaps, some kind of Shengen-style border arrangement. But as long as US politics is taking the form it is right now, not a chance. I, for one, want nothing to do with it.
But yeah, Greenland's not just Denmark's icy backyard... it’s a strategic Arctic outpost sitting on rare earth minerals and shipping lanes that are about to become prime real estate as the ice melts. The US already camps out at Thule Air Base for a reason, and with Russia and China eyeing the region hard, folding Greenland into a North American framework isn’t about expansionism, but rather it’s about locking down resources and supply chains before someone else does. Greenland’s been flirting with more autonomy anyway, and when the time comes, stronger North American ties could offer stability without the economic freefall of full independence. Ignoring Greenland while the Arctic heats up (literally and politically) is leaving the back door wide open.
I get the hesitation. 'Manifest destiny' doesn’t exactly have the best branding. But this isn’t about expansionism or flag-planting; it’s more like making sure the neighborhood’s in order before someone else moves in and rearranges the furniture. Greenland’s interest (if it ever happens) wouldn’t come from the US kicking down the door, but from their own evolving relationship with Denmark. If anything, the US would probably just be the least disruptive option on the table.
Honestly though, what do you think about China’s own 'manifest destiny' moves in Africa, Brazil, the US, Canada, and basically everywhere else?
Haha, fair enough! Let’s just hope no one ends up eating their own words if Greenland - or even Canada - starts rethinking their options... Arctic politics can shift fast, and it’d be a shame to see China further sink its teeth into the region while closer ties with people who actually share similar cultures and values were on the table. But hey, I’ll happily shelve this take if Denmark and Canada keep things locked down! Good luck!
As a Canadian, the idea of becoming part of America makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.
Our country has problems, yours is broken.
It's been broken since its inception. Giving every state an equal representation in the Senate and an outsized representation in Congress meant that it was ALWAYS going to break.
I the 70s a few people tried to change this by abolishing the electoral college and ensuring you vote directly for the president at a 1 to 1 ratio. Unfortunately, that was shot down by some selfish liberals who thought they'd get more representation in particular situations (they won't for anything more than shilort term). There hasn't been a proper chance to fix it since.
Now Democrats simply do not have any power whatsoever. If Republicans don't want to let something pass, they just hold it up in the Senate. Something Mitch McConnell has done relentlessly.
Oh, and since the senate has to approve Supreme Court appointments, they've taken control of that too. McConnell blocked Obama's picks, using the excuse that it was an election YEAR. That handed the pick to Trump. That evil little man then let Trump have appointments much closer to an election.
Now your Supreme Court is fully stacked with Republicans. Some of which engage in open corruption.. And they're wiping out decades old rights. Anything is on the table.
Youre living in a country that has fallen into fascism and don't even know it.
Also, states being able to run their elections has allowed for an absurd level of corruption. Some states specifically design their voting districts for a particular outcome.. Like come on..
Anyway, I'm hoping for a CANZUK alliance or joining Europe. I will reluctantly flee the country if our sovereignty is threatened by the US.. Which is unfortunately looking more and more possible.
I get the sentiment, but let’s not pretend Canada’s running some utopian alternative to the US. Canada’s got deep, deep, DEEP structural cracks that are hard to ignore. I've got family that fled Canada and I've got some more that are miserable up there at the moment. They hate the government, they hate the cultural evolution, and they simply hate all the possible futures right now. Think about this:
- Trudeau’s leadership is on life support, with his own party circling the wagons to push him out. Even Liberal MPs are openly calling for his resignation. The country’s direction feels more dictated by party infighting than any grand vision.
- Economically, Canada’s in a rougher spot. GDP contracted last quarter, the Canadian dollar’s getting steamrolled by the USD, and political uncertainty is scaring off energy investments. Meanwhile, the US economy is actually growing. That’s not exactly a great look for the 'better system.'
- Housing? A total disaster. Young Canadians are stuck renting indefinitely, and wages haven’t kept pace with living costs. By comparison, even in US cities with high real estate prices, the economic mobility is still better. I know twenty-somethings who are buying homes, living life, and having large families. One friend is 25, already has three kids, and owns a home—stable as can be.
- And don't forget groceries... food prices in Canada have been soaring to the point where one in five families are skipping meals or turning to food banks just to get by. That’s not just bad policy, it’s a slow-rolling humanitarian crisis!
I’m not saying the US isn’t broken. Sure, it’s a mess in a lot of ways, but which country isn't right now?
But if we’re comparing corpses, at least one of them still twitches. Canada’s problems aren’t just political, they’re economic and cultural... and there’s no clear path out. Maybe that stomach-turning thought of joining the US will feel a bit different if things keep sliding downhill.
And about the US being 'broken since inception' - come on. Canada’s flaws run just as deep, if not deeper in certain areas:
- Political gridlock? Trudeau’s barely hanging on, and Parliament is a powder keg of internal rivalries. Party leadership fights dictate policy more than voters do.
- Representation imbalance? Alberta’s voice gets drowned out, while Quebec rides on political privilege. Sounds familiar, right?
- Judicial interference? Trudeau’s government meddling with court decisions drove his own Attorney General to resign. LOL
- Corruption? From the SNC-Lavalin scandal to WE Charity, Canada isn’t exactly shy about political favoritism and backroom deals.
- And don’t even get me started on voter disenfranchisement! Canada’s own electoral system ensures whole swaths of the population feel ignored. I mean, this is what I’m hearing from Canadians, so you’re not gonna convince me otherwise. I’ve even heard talk of civil war scenarios if the government doesn’t change, and that’s saying a LOT for Canadians. You know it’s bad when folks known for telling each other to go to hell with a smile stop smiling - and forget to apologize halfway through.
I get the appeal of CANZUK or joining Europe in theory, but let’s be real, Canada’s fate isn’t going to be saved by cozying up to the Commonwealth. If Canada collapses under its own weight, it won’t be US 'fascism' that’s the biggest threat. It’ll be watching foreign powers scoop up influence while we argue about which utopian club to join!
Alberta's voice being drowned out? Civil war? "Fled" Canada?
C'mon. Get real.
You sound like you've been talking to a pretty far right-wing echo chamber.
I'm from Alberta originally and ... no... not drowned. Shrill, and a with a strong persecution complex, but... very well heard. And with way more power than it pretends.
There are certainly forces... American forces included... that would like to characterize things the way you are. For their own interests.
Look, I get that you don’t see it that way, but dismissing this as some far-right echo chamber narrative feels pretty shortsighted. When I hear this stuff from actual Canadians - family, friends, and people living the experience - it’s hard to chalk it up to 'outside forces' pushing an agenda.
I’m not saying Alberta’s voice is literally drowned out in the sense that it’s silent. It’s drowned out in the sense that for all the noise, policy-wise, Alberta’s concerns often get sidelined while other regions take priority. That frustration isn’t imaginary. You might be comfortable with how things are, but not everyone is.
Shrill? Persecution complex? Maybe. Or maybe people are just fed up and tired of feeling like they’re being patronized when they point out legitimate issues. You can call it overblown, but the cracks are there whether you acknowledge them or not.
>there’s a case to be made for Canada, Greenland, and the US forming a closer political and economic union. Not as some imperialistic land grab, but as a pragmatic response to shifting global power dynamics and shared interests.
Canada I understand.
But why Greenland, other than the fact that Trump saw it in the window and decided he wanted it? The US already has a base there, it doesn't seem to be that vital to our strategic interests.
So while it's kinda hard to see at first blush perhaps, Greenland plays an actual critical role in North American security and economic interests - far more than it might seem at first glance. Yeah, Trump's interest aside (which definitely brought some unnecessary circus to the topic), Greenland’s value lies in a few key areas:
- Strategic Arctic positioning. It's central to Arctic geopolitics. While the Arctic ice melts, new shipping lanes are opening up, and countries are vying for control over these routes and untapped resources. The US already maintains a military presence at Thule Air Base, but integrating Greenland more formally would secure this position and reduce the risk of competing interests (think Russia and China making moves in the region - which they are very, very much doing).
- Resource potential. Greenland's rich in rare earth minerals and many others that are critical to modern tech and defense industries. These materials are currently dominated by Chinese markets. Greenland’s dev could diversify supply chains and reduce Western reliance on Chinese exports. This is SO insanely critical right now.
- You might not like this one, but: think geopolitical stability... Denmark’s grip on Greenland isn’t absolute. There’s been growing interest within Greenland towards greater autonomy, and while full independence is really complicated and economically (ultra) risky, stronger ties to North America would absolutely offer an appealing middle ground and protect the people of Greenland itself.
Ultimately if we ignore Greenland it feels like we're leaving a crucial puzzle piece out.
These all seem like post-hoc rationales to me, because as far as I know (and I may be wrong) no one was talking about Greenland in this context until Trump brought it up.
If Greenland is that important, we already have all of the money if we wanted to buy it, and all of the tanks and planes and nuclear submarines if we didn't want to take no for an answer.
LOL, right? Somewhere between ‘affordable defense budget project’ and ‘sell your national debt to make it happen.’ Either way, the geopolitical value is worth more than the sticker price, and that’s the part people underestimate.
Yep, and it’s not as far-fetched as people think. The US tried it under Truman too. This isn't just a Trump brainwave. It’s been on the table before, and it’ll probably come up again as Arctic competition ramps up. The question isn’t 'if' the US stays involved in Greenland but how. Whether through diplomacy, economic partnerships, or something more official, Greenland’s future is tied to who secures influence there first.
Honestly, Greenland’s probably tired of feeling like a geopolitical football at this point. But as long as the Arctic’s up for grabs, expect it to stay on the radar.
For the cost of only $14 per American per year, we could pay everyone in Greenland $85k/yr for life. It’s $4.5/bln a year.
Greenland has already obtained some independence from Denmark and is looking for more. It’s unlikely they sell themselves to the USA directly but something that is effectively the same with a fig leaf on it could certainly happen.
And if actual world-scale conflict broke out, it would de facto be a US protectorate at best, and just another territorial acquisition at worst.
That $14 per American sounds like a deal, honestly. But the tricky part is less about the money and more about convincing the people of Greenland that closer ties to the US are better than sticking with Denmark.
Economic incentives only go so far—there’s a cultural and political dynamic at play. If Greenland leans towards more autonomy, stronger US ties as a protectorate might happen naturally without needing to 'buy' anything outright. If they drift away from Denmark, North America becomes the obvious landing zone.
I get why it feels like that, but Greenland’s strategic importance didn’t suddenly appear because Trump made headlines. The Arctic’s been heating up (literally and politically) for a while now. Russia’s been militarizing its Arctic coastline, and China’s trying to gain influence in the region through ‘research stations’ and resource deals. The US presence at Thule wasn’t just for fun... it’s part of a broader strategy that predates Trump by decades. Trump just made it louder (and weirder), but the underlying value of Greenland has been quietly escalating for years.
I'm on Debian stable, not OpenBSD, but SpamAssassin + razor + pyzor works really well. Roughly 1 spam per month, and 1-2 false positives a year. This is for an email address that has been used and openly spread widely for 25+ years.
The real work is making sure that outbound mail gets delivered, but even that is just making sure you have a clean IP and setting up reverse DNS + DMARC/SPF/DKIM...
Nice never heard of those until now. Link for anyone here cause it's kinda hard to google razor email filter for some reason. What does that setup have over amavisd?
I understand and respect this opinion, but it is clearly not true that you need "years of carefully built reputation" as per my own write up in this thread and plenty of others here and elsewhere. Still, I do respect and understand that e-mail is a particularly nasty hole to dive into with potentially serious consequences so I do not look down on those that bow out and go for alternative solutions.
I've been running a private mail server since the early 00s, spam protection has actually improved drastically in the past ten years or so. For the most parts, SPF and dkim make it very easy for servers to identify scam, for everything else rspamd and clamd seem to take care of the rest.
If you don't want to run a completely custom setup, there's projects like mailcow out there that can do the heavy lifting for you.
I really don't see a quantitative or qualitative difference between the gmail experience and mine, with the caveat that my setup doesn't label ham from other private mail servers as spam (arguably a good thing)
The big thing is that you're presumably already established, which means your IP/ASN is clean and "warm".
I self hosted for several years and gave up because even with a clean ASN, I simply wasn't sending enough emails to keep my reputation score high enough, and so deliverability into the big players (Microsoft in particular) was very spotty.
Email isn't that hard it's just laborious to administrate.
> I simply wasn't sending enough emails to keep my reputation score high enough
I’ve used a smaller hosting company for over 25 years run by a competent admin and it’s now dying a slow death I believe exactly because of this reputation problem from infrequent outbound emails from my domain.
I don’t know what to do tbh because putting my fate in big tech seems super dangerous.
Anyway, everyone is worried about spam but the real problem is sending and having people at outlook.com and gmail.com actually receive your emails!
I've long been convinced that Big Tech wants email to go away because it's neither fashionable nor particularly profitable. Gmail was famously somebody's "10% project", after all, and not a real product initiative.
Now that the era of free money appears to be over I'd not be surprised if I was reading a blog post about an "incredible journey" at Gmail within the decade.
While I think that everyone hosting their own email is the ideal, it's not really feasible on today's Internet. I content myself with fastmail. They're big enough I'm not worried about them dying any time soon.
I tried hosting my own email server again earlier in the year. I’d forgotten the process so when googling around I found numerous YouTube videos of spammers doing this themselves …
Get a clean IP and start long form email threads between this new domain and personal Gmail / outlook accounts: checking ‘this is not spam’, and coherent responses.
They also mention getting DKIm and SPF working.
The need for separate caldav , and all the major cloud providers blocking port 25 bummed me out.
Even more amusing is when half your customers are in Gmail, the other half in Exchange, and Gmail and Exchange are having some snit so the emails ain't happening. You call up Microsoft and they want you to reboot (??) or login to some windows account (??), and good luck getting someone from Google on the line. Fear not, for outsourced email saves money, and increases productivity, or anyways something like that, and if you have sufficient faith those big old corporations will fix things, eventually, maybe.
I have no explanation for it, but I also run a tiny mail server and I'm always fascinated that despite extremely low volume I still manage to get through without being flagged or blocked.
Best I can guess is that my host's netblock just happens to be sparkling clean, but it sounds like even that may not be enough anymore
Similar story here; my only guess (which I don't want to verify in case it jinxes it) is that I've been on the same name and netblock for an extremely long time (~20 years) and so I'm grandfathered in to a lot of undocumented IP rules at the big houses. Long may it continue.
You don’t have to choose between big tech and self hosting though. There’s thousands of medium sized, sustainable businesses that host your email for money and provide human support on top.
One of the good ones would be Fastmail but there’s many more.
I wonder if anyone has tried training an LLM on known spam and measured it's performance? Such an LLM would ideally be run local to the mail server for maximum privacy.
Ignoring e-mail content and throwing Naive-Bayes on the header alone is pretty much hove we got amazing spam filters about 15 years ago. All of course using a millionth or less of the resources a large language model would use.
It feels as if Automattic doesn't do a complete paradigm shift and become truly open with their software everyone is going to give up on them entirely - at least everyone with significant talent and investment.
I agree with you that Automattic needs a paradigm shift (massive leadership change, probably), but I don’t think the openness of their software is the problem.
Automattic has other issues (leadership, especially!!) but software development happens largely in the open. Just look at the GH issues and PRs in the WP-calypso and Gutenberg repositories, and you’ll see even a lot of technical discussion and planning happening completely public. You can even chime in if you want :)
Automattic has lots of issues. But they simply have much more open software development practices than nearly any other tech company (most of which are completely private and closed source). I just don’t think this is the core problem.