Can you really say that email is a decentralised protocol that has stood the test of time? It’s more centralised than the web that you complain is dominated by Google, Meta, and Amazon. What proportion of mail isn’t sent or received by Google or Microsoft?
Even if there are 1 million independent email servers, if Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple send, receive, or pass along 98-99% of emails, there's still a fair bit of centralization in the network which should be acknowledged, though this is admittedly not the same as the protocol being inherently centralized.
Amen. The difference is vast when it comes to discussions like this.
If you’re talking about AI-assisted development, then an AI agent being able to do 80% of the work is a fantastic win. The developer can pick up the remaining 20% and come out massively ahead.
If you’re talking about vibe-coding, then an AI agent being able to do 80% of the work is useless. What’s a non-developer going to do with something that still has 20% of the development left to do? It’s not 80% useful, it’s 0% useful.
The problem is there is no continuity. An email from an organisation that has emailed you a hundred times before looks the same as an email from somebody who has never emailed you before. Your inbox is a collection of legitimate email floating in a vast ocean of email of dubious provenance.
I think there’s a fairly straightforward way of fixing this: contact requests for email. The first email anybody sends you has an attachment that requests a token. Mail clients sort these into a “friend request” queue. When the request is accepted, the sender gets the token, and the mail gets delivered to the inbox. From that point on, the sender uses the token. Emails that use tokens can skip all the spam filters because they are known to be sent by authorised senders.
This has the effect of separating inbound email into two collections: the inbox, containing trustworthy email where you explicitly granted authorisation to the sender; and the contact request queue.
If a phisher sends you email, then it will end up in the new request queue, not your inbox. That should be a big glaring warning that it’s not a normal email from somebody you know. You would have to accept their contact request in order to even read the phishing email.
I went into more detail about the benefits of this system and how it can be implemented in this comment:
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. It’s extremely common for the same organisation to send emails from different addresses, different domains, and different servers, for many different reasons.
So if an organisation emails you from no-reply@notifications.example.com, mailing-list@examplemail.com, and bob.smith@examplecorp.com, and the phisher emails you from support@example.help, which filter based on their from addresses makes all the legitimate ones show up as the same sender while excluding the phishing email?
The article starts off with a graph showing the UK has 2 deaths per 100k people, with Norway, Malta, Singapore, and Sweden at 1.9. It then finishes by saying:
> If every country could lower its rates to those of the UK, Sweden, or Norway, this number would be just under 200,000. We’d save one million lives every year.
The article wasn’t making the case that the UK is the absolute best, it was discussing what the UK did to change from being unsafe to much safer.
Z.AI is the company that created GLM and the link goes to their official documentation. It’s really weird to complain that their official documentation on their official website has a “conflict of interest”.
The title has been changed. The original title was wildly positive, and OP has acknowledged it was inappropriate and changed it (see comments below).
My issue was with an article being posted with a title saying how amazing two things are together (making it seem like it was somehow an independent review), when it was actually just a marketing post by one of the companies.
> Telsa is not — nor was ever intended to be — a car company. Tesla is fundamentally an "energy generation and storage" (battery/supercapacitor) company.
> The cars were always a B2C bootstrap play for Tesla, to build out the factories it needed to sell grid-scale batteries
This seems like revisionist history. They called their company Tesla Motors, not Tesla Energy, after all.
This is a blog post from the founder and CEO about their first energy play. It seems clear that their first energy product was an unintended byproduct of the Roadster, they worried about it being a distraction from their core car business, but they decided to go ahead with it because they saw it as a way to strengthen their car business.
I think that blog talks about selling their batteries to other car manufacturers.
But, to support your wider point, there's some reporting that the initial grid BESS Megapack batteries had a test setup in the car park at Tesla and Elon was unaware they existed until they got mentioned to him in a meeting and someone pointed out the window to explain.
He immediately wanted to shut that project down to focus on cars.
This is the exact opposite of pretty much every criticism I’ve ever heard of LinkedIn before.
Normally people hate LinkedIn for the thought leader broetry and begrudgingly wade through that crap because they want to use LinkedIn to find jobs. You think the worst part of LinkedIn is that you can find jobs through it‽
This is a great move if you think there’s a vast number of jobs that can be completed by AI almost all the time but you don’t think that AI will be able to close the gap enough to replace employees altogether. If this is the case, then the winning move is to abstract the work behind an interface that can farm out tasks to both human and artificial agents. That way, people who need the work done will come to you, and you can charge less than humans on average but more than AI agents on average. To do this, you need a strong supply of knowledge workers ready to do gig work and a strong supply of people wanting to spend money to get knowledge work done.
> Chrome and Firefox on iOS in the App Store are simply skins for Safari
They are not. They are required to use WebKit, which means they use the same rendering engine as Safari, but there is far more to a web browser than just its rendering engine. They are not just skins.
reply