Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, just to prove that you can't.
You don't have to drive a car in the suburbs. It just will suck greatly.
You don't have to have anything to do at all with car-centric suburbs to lead a life that doesn't suck ;)
Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)
241–250 of 400 posts
Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to drive a car in the suburbs. It just will suck greatly.
Some people are into self flagellation. That’s fine. It’s when they think they’re better than you because of it that it becomes insufferable.
And some people perceive the "conveniences" that the tech sector has foisted upon us as little more than socially mandated self-flagellation.
Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Ethereum has no "owners". ENS is fully decentralized. There is no "they" to fork anything. - There is no need to have exchanges involved in that. - ENS has a token, but is not required for people who just want to buy a domain (they use ETH) Quit the senseless FUD
> There is no "they" to fork anything. What? ENS is BSD licensed. Anyone can ‘fork’ it at any time.
If a project is actually decentralized, you can't simply fork the code to fork the community. In truly decentralized systems, the consensus rules define whether one is into the system or not.
The big problem here is that most of the systems in crypto are really startups run by a small group of founders. Very few of these projects are really decentralized.
Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
What made me switch from Gmail is stories of people losing their entire account overnight with no possible appeal process due to an algorithm deciding there was suspicious activity.
Do you happen to have any actual cases you can point me to? I see this all the time in HN but it's never beyond "a buddy of mine said that he didn't do anything wrong and somehow they got locked out forever with no recourse". Or it's someone saying that happened to themselves, and then they say they never did anything bad with their gmail. Which may or may not be true?
This was the incident that made me switch off of Gmail: https://www.thegamer.com/markiplier-fans-google-account-ban-...
> Unfortunately, and for reasons that are still unclear, this triggered YouTube's auto-detect system for spam. Hundreds of accounts in Mark's 'community' have been banned. ... Being banned from your YouTube account is one thing; ... However, these fans' Google accounts were banned, meaning they lost access to their emails, ...
The accounts may have eventually been reinstated, but to me it showed a willingness to ban an entire google account from a minor infraction in some individual service, which I was just not comfortable taking the risk on.
Not exactly the same as what you're responding to, but very similar.
Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)
#245Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it known that domain registrars are better than GMail in this regard? Not asking sarcastically, but I had my domain taken over by registrar(not released to public, just registrar took control of it) after few week of notice when auto renew failed to charge my credit card, and my credit card was working fine elsewhere. Also many registrar like Namecheap cancelled subscription for Russian customers during this invas…
People from the UK that had an .eu domain were unable to renew it after brexit.
This is a good reason to stick to .com and .net
Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now you know why there are still some people that still take "web3" seriously. It's the only system where you are not at the mercy of some external entity to be always benevolent. Seriously, ENS and Handshake alone should be enough of a reason to silence all of those who keep repeating "but blockchain has no real world applications".
a better alternative to email is to use public key cryptography for authentication
Public Key Cryptography isn't an alternative to email. Public keys aren't a convenient way to refer to addressees, and PK algorithms are a very inefficient way of sending messages, which is why they are generally used to send the key for a symmetrically-encrypted transmission.
Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, not the same thing. British people didn't lose it. Nobody took it away against the public's will. They voted in favour of getting rid of it.
As I said before, it does not matter. Before someone had an email address and now they don't, and it could happen to anyone with an .eu domain. This is what matters. It is an unreliable TLD for email addresses that you want to last.
That's what I figured, which is why I never had a .eu domain.
Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the way Google locks out accounts with no support or appeal I can't think of a worse registrar to use. I use my ISP's email address with my registrar, if they want to keep getting paid each month its in their interests to keep that email address working.
At this point some government entity should provide a way to have an inalienable electronic address. There are strong protections for regular mail, that ensure that mail gets delivered. Cell carriers are required to port numbers. Since email addresses are tied to domain, there should be some usps-like service that allows to have an address, that can be related to a provider of your choosing. And this address is tied…
> ensure that mail gets delivered
Email is intrinsically an unreliable service, and always has been. It's a "best-effort" service. But at least email is honest about it up-front, and tries to address reliability in the RFCs.
Not that Google cares much about RFCs.
Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is "they" here?
The "they" you denied existed, of course. Look, the frame of your argument here is "the blockchain won't ever unilaterally make decisions you don't like like a big centralized tech company". And they do, and have, multiple times in the past. And lots of people didn't like that, in each case.
No. You are talking about three different groups and you calling both by the same "they":
- One "they" is the Ethereum developers making new developments and proposing changes to the "main" blockchain.
- The other "they" is the thousands of people who are developing and using applications that can be used by the most people, and care (mostly) about having one blockchain where they can reach the most people.
- The third "they" are the ones running the nodes and making sure that the network is functional.
What I am saying is that none of these groups can unilaterally decide the course of the blockchain. Your confusion does not make my statement wrong.