Neither of those things are CAN-SPAM enforcement. I’m not trying to move the goalposts on you; that’s what this thread is about.

As for what you linked, the number of robocalls has not gone down and there’s still no real penalty for being one unless you’re terribly egregious (combine both our sources). Neither fiber nor cable have the same protections as phone lines so it doesn’t really matter. All the FCC has done is deregulated the transition, which is a reduction in consumer protection. Remember how we’ve already been charged for the fiber upgrade? Carr just made it easier for us to pay for it yet again.

Right now the FCC is under regulatory capture and wants to deregulate as much as possible. It’s very excited to approve big mergers and attack journalism. Despite robocalls being a huge issue, they continue to do fuck to really combat them. I don’t know that the FCC did anything with CAN-SPAM in 2025 and given the pervasive capitulation to broadband providers (aside from the squashed and panned attempt at net neutrality) , especially under this administration and its previous iteration, it is not reasonable to assume the FCC gives a shit about cable companies spamming you.

Either everyone knows everything all the time about tech or you should reconsider your approach to sharing solutions.

The FCC has stopped doing stuff about this.

Software co-ops are often indistinguishable from startups in the US. Without money they don’t matter and getting money turns you into a shitshow or requires full-time staff fighting for grants and other forms of not blood money. Maybe this is easier outside the US.

Fuck big tech tho

It’s a cynical way to view the C-staff of a company. I think it’s also inaccurate: from my limited experience, the people who run large tech companies really do want to deliver good software to users.

From my much broader experience, this is missing the required cynicism that C-staff want to deliver software they think is good based on the criteria cynical yes staff tell them constantly is good. I’ve never met an exec that didn’t want to deliver something good; most execs I’ve met don’t actually understand what good is or how to benefit people.

No, that’s disappointing enough. Thanks for the info!

Can you share some background on Jane? I really enjoy his stuff and would hate to have to stop recommending him.

Please don’t take me as a GH shill because I’m not. I’m not sure we read the same email given your projects. Actions on GH runners are dropping in cost and there’s a new fractional cost for self-hosted. For the average user, especially those on GH runners, costs are going down. Looking at your repo, you haven’t run anything since July. Your workflow files use GH runners. Nothing in your history suggests you’re leaving the free tier so I don’t get this FUD at all. General Microsoft hate? Fuck yeah. Shitty GH service? Fuck yeah. Plenty of reasons to dunk but this was not one of them. M

She’s 2nd gen and follows the same patterns other active higher Scientologists show with social media blocking of large anti bullshit creators. It could be a coincidence that a major star whose parents were Scientologists blocks a bunch of folks who are rabidly anti-Hubbard but it would certainly be a very odd one.

One of their current leads is huge into Scientology too. I’m all for them taking some flak right now.

I highly recommend the Scuf Nomad. It’s a bit more expensive than other options. I think it’s worth it. I play a bunch of games on my phone and can’t be happier. In the past I used GameSir products and think those are pretty rad for budget options.

I do not recommend SteelSeries at fucking all. They used to ship the Stratus with known issues. Support would actively admit the problem. Sometimes you could get a replacement. Sometimes you couldn’t. I have no idea if their newer products are better; I have stopped buying them since then.

I’m incredibly skeptical of the self-hosting email server claims. With the past 30 years of spam, most of the majors make it nigh impossible to do so. I know there are diehards out there that make it happen; it’s not as easy as it was 20 years ago though.

Edit: Very useful HN thread with multiple perspectives (not just my doom and gloom)

The big given example was gigabit throughput. Most consumers in the US, businesses included, don’t have access to internet infrastructure capable of multigig because of regulatory capture. Those that do are already using multigig hardware which, unsurprisingly, hasn’t really changed much.

I assume it’s ROYGBV not WUBRG since there are six colors arranged in ROYGBV. It also comes from Pride Across the Multiverse so it’s most likely supposed to be a rainbow.

You’re missing the initial step.

1. Assume that these proposals are correct.
2. Given the proposals are correct, all of them contain a common structure.
3. Given the common structure…

Both OP commenter and myself take umbrage with #1 (if I can speak for them; they make disagree with me). I assume that if we trace the sources for the letter that we’ll see the reasons we’re able to make all of these logical leaps using other results in the field that come out of these proposals. I also assume that, if one of these systems is the foundation for a fully consistent theory of quantum gravity, then its conclusions are valid. This paper doesn’t address that initial assumption though so things like the article summarizing it are begging the question.

There are many situations where we just have to agree to assume. If you read 14 and 36, you’ll find some of the core assumptions that go into this letter (both interesting ideas and the same authors so you can understand why they’d continue). An assumption Faisal makes is the rejection of objective observability which is one of those things you either believe or don’t believe. It’s analogous to the axiom of choice in that it could be contested but could be generally accepted.

Actually, F_QG is itself an assumption which isn’t backed up. See the paragraph before the one you quote when defining it. The beauty of axioms is that we can assume whatever we want but we need to either show nothing goes underneath it (eg Peano axioms) or have a very compelling case to make them (eg non-Euclidean geometry like parallel lines meet at infinity). This is a metasumary of some similar research at best. It’s not a proof in the way you think it is. Just because you don’t understand what you’re responding to doesn’t mean you’re right.

Yeah, the opening of the second paragraph on the page marked twelve basically says “we don’t have a true theory so we look at some proposals.” If anything, all it’s shown is that these specific proposals fall prey to the normal inability of mathematical systems to fully describe themselves, not that quantum gravity actively disproves a simulation. Everything after that might be sound if we trace all the sources. Nothing stood out as implausible or anything beyond some logical leaping. There was nothing that showed adding more to the system won’t fix the issues, which is the whole point of things like the updates their choice of set theory added to ZFC.

The current administration believes the same stuff. She left with the admin change yet agrees with things like the current admin’s approach to AI regulation.

The Expanse (books, never finished the show) went really hard on this. It was difficult for me to finish because it was all just people being dumb for more than 100k pages with aliens thrown in for no reason.