VMX's recent activity
-
Comment on Bitcoin tops $57,000 price level for first time since late 2021 in ~finance
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~tech
VMX (edited )Link ParentI wholeheartedly agree with this response, and that some of the top comments have fallen right into the very issue OP is raising. E.g.: "He's probably saying racist or homophobic things and he's...- Exemplary
I wholeheartedly agree with this response, and that some of the top comments have fallen right into the very issue OP is raising. E.g.: "He's probably saying racist or homophobic things and he's being called out for it".
Too many people have this attitude where, for any given topic, they've already decided or been convinced on which stance the "good guys" should have, and anybody who does so much as suggest that this might be wrong will just get labelled as <insert your trendy insult here>. It gets to the point where they do this unconsciously, while at the same time remaining convinced (ironically) that they're a prime example of tolerance towards others' opinions. They've completely lost the ability to engage in rational, open minded discussions with people who truly disagree with them, because they've been convinced that everything is a very simple, black and white issue. Their favourite politicians and/or social media accounts have ridiculed and infantilized the people who hold opposing views, and maybe these people have even taken part on that themselves (e.g.: sharing some of those memes, publicly defending those arguments before friends and family, etc). So by now they're just too invested in that opinion.
There's a large, personal sunken cost in there, mostly reputational but also in terms of the moral superiority that you mention, so they can't even fathom backing away now. They can no longer be impartial, because admitting being wrong would mean admitting they've ridiculed and treated other people unfairly, while also proving that maybe they hadn't actually done their due diligence or informed themselves on the topic as much as they claimed. It would also mean admitting that whatever "side" they defended (often political parties) can actually be wrong some times... which is its own problem (the other side isn't admitting any flaws, so you can't either!).
I don't know what the solution is, but I personally think it's a strategy that most political parties have followed in the last few years in most developed countries, and it has worked wonders for them. Rather than actually doing the hard work of improving our lives and the countries they rule in order to win our vote, they can simply create exaggerated moral conflicts and then pitch us all against each other, forcing us into these "black or white"/"with me or against me" type of mindsets. This eventually splits friendships and even families, but in turn encourages people to vote for their "side" just to make sure the "bad guys" don't win. They polarise us to the extreme, making us feel extremely passionate about largely irrelevant things, so they don't have to do any relevant things to win our vote. Unfortunately, the side effect of that is that we've all ended up passionately hating each other too, just for disagreeing on a random tax policy or the color of a particular sign.
I'll stop the rant here, but it makes me really sad and nostalgic thinking of how much I enjoyed back in my teenage years, when I could freely talk and exchange opinions with close friends who had completely different views from mine. And especially how often we actually got convinced by each other, with a smile on our face and the feeling that we had both learned something new. Unfortunately, it seems that's not the world my kids will grow up in.
-
Comment on Venezuelan referendum approves takeover of oil-rich region of Guyana in ~news
VMX (edited )LinkWhenever I read "Venezuelans" and "vote" in the same sentence, I can't help but wonder if the writer is messing with me. From other sources: We're talking about a ruthless dictatorship, where...Whenever I read "Venezuelans" and "vote" in the same sentence, I can't help but wonder if the writer is messing with me.
From other sources:
The vote concluded with a victory for the 'yes', with more than 95% of votes in favour of the 5 asked questions, according to the National Electoral Council (CNE), which did not provide any voter turnout figures, although they remarked the event collected nearly 10.5 million “votes” out of the 20.7 million venezuelans that were called to vote.
...
The CNE mentioned "10,554,320 votes", without explaining if they correspond to an equal number of voters or if 5 votes were counted per person, corresponding to the number of questions each participant answered. This created controversy: the opposition accused the government of trying to hide a high abstention rate, and remarked 10.5 million "votes" don't equal 10.5 million voters.
...
Henrique Capriles, two times presidential candidate from the opposition, reported in X a number of "2,110,864" voters, each of them with the right to cast up to 5 votes, which, according to him, constitutes a "resounding failure". "It's very difficult to understand these results", said Luis Vicente León, director of the survey institute Datanálisis.We're talking about a ruthless dictatorship, where "elections" have probably been rigged for over 20 years, opposing candidates have been prosecuted, fled the country and possibly even murdered. There's extreme violence and poverty, a massive shortage of basic goods (including food), and people get routinely killed in the city just to steal their sneakers or whatever phone they're carrying.
Whoever thinks any significant part of the Venezuelan population cares enough about this to actually go out and vote... probably needs a serious reality check.
In this context, referendums and similar nation-wide polls are usually nothing but an attempt to justify whatever atrocities the government has already decided to embark on, or just a smokescreen to create fictional, external "enemies", so people will partially have someone else to blame for the misery they're suffering.
-
Comment on Cop28 president says there is ‘no science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels in ~enviro
VMX Link ParentWell... it's your text. You told me to read that, and I'm just quoting your own article. And as always, it takes a few paragraphs to debunk a 1-line lie. Your point was that this problem can be...That's a lot of text.
Well... it's your text. You told me to read that, and I'm just quoting your own article. And as always, it takes a few paragraphs to debunk a 1-line lie.
Shame it's so marginally related to my point.
Your point was that this problem can be solved with 5.6 trillion, which is false as your own article says. I'm debunking that. How can that be "marginally related"? You're the one who brough it up!
On the other hand, I guess what the US has done in the Middle East is much more on topic...
Btw, labelling 20 years and 8 trillion dollars in the ME as "one mistake" is one of the most fucked-up statements I've ever read on the matter. Well done.
I don't even know what you mean here. I 100% agree with you that what the US has done in the ME has been a complete and total disaster. You can pick whatever adjectives you want to describe it, and I'll likely be with you on that. I just don't see how that could somehow make it OK to go ahead and make all the wrong choices again, this time when it comes to energy policy.
-
Comment on Cop28 president says there is ‘no science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels in ~enviro
VMX Link ParentI've already addressed that option in my comments. Pumped hydro is one of the best storate methods we have, we have lots of that in my country. But I don't think people realise the scale we're...The most efficient, and conceptually simple options just store the power as kinetic energy. You move a cart full of rocks up a hill and roll it back down, you build an elevator to move bricks up a tower and then drop it. You pump water up a slope and then run it back over turbines.
I've already addressed that option in my comments.
Pumped hydro is one of the best storate methods we have, we have lots of that in my country. But I don't think people realise the scale we're talking about when dealing with nationwide power supply in developed countries, and how far off that mark we are in terms of storage. It's just not realistic to expect to cover everything with renewables + storage, not anytime soon at least.
-
Comment on Cop28 president says there is ‘no science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels in ~enviro
VMX (edited )Link ParentThat article (which honestly reads like GPT), and the non-paywalled link I could see, offered no details on how exactly one would achieve 100% renewable in the US. In fact, the source confirms all...That article (which honestly reads like GPT), and the non-paywalled link I could see, offered no details on how exactly one would achieve 100% renewable in the US. In fact, the source confirms all my points one by one.
From the '5.7 trilion' source:
- A “Green New Deal” that includes a proposal to move 100 percent of U.S. electricity production to renewable sources would require at least $5.7 trillion of investment in renewable energy and storage.
...
While the GND stretches beyond environmental policy, this analysis is limited to the GND’s 100 percent renewable energy target. It finds that such a target is impractical and, even using extremely favorable assumptions, would cost $423.9 billion annually—more than the entire retail cost of electricity in the United States in 2016. This finding is broadly in line with other estimates. The analysis further explains that such a policy is not the most efficient way to abate greenhouse gas emissions.
...
An accurate assessment of what a 100 percent renewable target costs is extremely difficult, and presumably only feasible with econometric analyses, like those published by the Energy Information Administration
Then they go on to say exactly what I mentioned in my comment:
For the sake of estimating the cost of a 100 percent renewable target, this analysis makes a series of substantial assumptions. These are as follows: the United States could entirely use solar power during the day, and wind power during the night; for the hours in the day where neither solar nor wind produce their stated capacity (due to capacity factors of electricity sources), it is assumed that a mixture of hydroelectricity and storage is used; the United States builds the entirety of all potential hydroelectricity resources; storage costs associated with batteries is their average operation and maintenance cost, rather than the (significantly higher) costs of batteries that can discharge a lot of electricity quickly and repeatedly throughout the day; electricity demand is roughly flat (rather than demand spiking during afternoon hours); and there is no increase in the price of wind, solar, hydro, or storage, even though a GND would cause the price of those resources to increase as demand is artificially inflated.
Hint: NONE OF THIS IS EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE
Despite the apparent popularity of a “100 percent renewable electricity” goal, there is surprisingly little academic research on what it would cost. This dearth is because renewable electricity is not the same as clean or low-carbon electricity. As explained by Jenkins in the MIT study, restricting low-carbon electricity objectives to renewable electricity creates much higher policy costs—10 to 62 percent higher. This expense results from a phenomenon known as the “duck curve,” which is that the more non-dispatchable (i.e. renewable) resources you have supplying electricity, the greater the demands are upon your dispatchable (i.e. fossil) resources.
There are two commonly cited analyses, though, which are used to claim that a 100 percent renewable electricity target is affordable. The first, and most notable, is by Dr. Mark Jacobson of Stanford University. In his 2015 analysis, Jacobson et al. assert that it is net beneficial to switch to 100 percent renewable electricity, and that the reason it has not happened yet is because people are “unaware” of the benefits or ease of transition. This study has since been widely debunked, as it assumes far more hydroelectric usage than is even remotely technically achievable in the United States.
Also, from your original link:
Conclusion
As these two studies indicate, a 100-percent renewable electricity system is not realistic by 2030 as the Green New Deal requires and certainly not at a reasonable cost. Wind and solar technologies are intermittent, as they depend on the weather and have low capacity factors, meaning that much more capacity would be required than the coal or natural gas capacity that they would be replacing. Further, battery storage is currently not a viable option as the technology is expensive and still developing.
And, fwiw, there are countries much poorer than the US that are already hitting the 100%+ renewable for months at a time, for real, right now; your linked Tweet notwithstanding.
Yes, which is why I tried to be precise in my wording:
As far as I know, there's no real way to shift most large developed countries to 100% renewables
...
Save for some notable exceptions, such as the Nordic countries with their abnormally high hydro production (not reproducible elsewhere)Of course Costa Rica can live 100% on renewable energy. They use a grand total of 9 GWh anually, their weather is ideal for renewable energy and they can live with constant power outages every other day. Now try a developed country with 200-500 GWh of annual demand to cover, while also requiring reliable power 24/7. Let alone the US at 4,000 GWh or China at 5,500 GWh.
Would that we had as much skepticism on the cost before heading to the Middle East for them mythical WMDs.
So because the US did something stupid once, it should continue to do stupid things forever?
You cannot create something that doesn't exist out of thin air, and today we simply do not have a way to shift the whole world to 100% renewables, at least not in the foreseeable future. But as long as some interested parties keep spreading that myth, we will struggle to make any progress on the right fronts, and we'll continue to depend on what's already widely deployed: coal, oil and gas. The fossil fuel industry is of course very happy with the current state of affairs, and they let the 100% renewable myth live on because they know it ultimately benefits them, while our CO2 emissions keep going up.
But we've already wasted 20 years doing that... I honestly hope we can get past that already and start being pragmatic and realistic.
- A “Green New Deal” that includes a proposal to move 100 percent of U.S. electricity production to renewable sources would require at least $5.7 trillion of investment in renewable energy and storage.
-
Comment on Cop28 president says there is ‘no science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels in ~enviro
VMX (edited )Link ParentWell, by "never" I really meant not in any reasonable timeframe and scale to avoid massive damage from climate change. E.g.: in your and my lifetime. I obviously don't know if humanity will have...Could you clarify where you're getting the idea we'll likely never be able to store enough energy from intermittent generation to power cities?
Well, by "never" I really meant not in any reasonable timeframe and scale to avoid massive damage from climate change. E.g.: in your and my lifetime. I obviously don't know if humanity will have some incredible storage solutions 500 years from now... but I think that's not very relevant to the topic at hand.
And I'm basing that on the fact that, well... there aren't really any readily available technologies that we can expect to use to solve that problem in the next 30-40 years, are there? Which is where we need to put all our efforts today if we want to have any hope at all of making it past the next century or two.
As said, save for some spectacular, miraculous breakthrough in battery technology, those are out of the question for this kind of problem.
The next best thing is probably pumped hydro, which works well where feasible, but is obviously very limited in terms of locations as it's very geography dependent. For instance, in my country (mid sized European country, bit bigger than California), we have around 120GW of total capacity installed adding all sources. We have VERY favourable weather for renewables, which is why wind is our 2nd biggest source in terms of capacity (29GW, only after gas at 30GW), and solar comes 3rd at 20GW. In other words, we're pretty much maxed out in terms of renewables.
Pumped hydro has also been widely deployed due to favourable geography and lots of existing swamps and dams. Still, it only accounts for... less than 6 GW. We might be able to maybe... double that in the next decade or two if we go nuts building dams? Still won't solve the problem.
As a result, much of our solar and wind production simply goes to waste, and we often have to turn wind turbines off at peak hours or just give away renewable energy at 0 cost (or even pay other countries to take it off our grid), because it's useless in that moment and nobody can store that much energy. So where does our energy actually come from when we need to heat our homes at night? Well, there's the 7GW of nuclear that we have, that ends up producing around 20% of our total year-round energy despite making up just 5% of our total installed capacity. And the rest is obviously covered by gas, which accounted for 25% of our production last year.
And keep in mind, I'm talking about a country with one of the most favourable situations here. Extremely favourable weather and geography for both renewables and hydro storage, insane amount of subsidies to build renewables in the last 20 years... I don't think you can realistically expect most developed countries to replicate this.
So, what other solutions are there? Hydrogen is likely going nowhere in the short term considering all the challenges in terms of storage, transport and even difficulty (and pollution) splitting it out of water. And every other technology I've heard of is little more than a pipe dream at this point. Hell, I'm pretty sure nuclear fusion might be closer (this time for real) than many of those storage technologies that are still in the inception phase.
So I was pretty suprised to read the parent comment saying that not only is this a "solved" problem, but you guys actually have an accurate figure of the cost needed to somehow shift a huge country like the US to "100% renewables"? As far as I know, the only thing we can realistically hope for in the next 50 years or so is to achieve around 50% renewables + 50% something else. Nuclear is probably our best net-zero option for the other half, especially considering some of advantages of the newer reactor designs that are already being built and deployed. But we'd need to start building all of that capacity NOW, so that it's ready in 20 years or so.
As you can probably tell, I'm honestly quite pessimistic about this whole topic. My feeling is that we've just been collectively beating around the bush for the past 20 years, signing meaningless "agreements" while selling people hopes and dreams. It also doesn't help that this has sadly become a heavily politized/ideological topic, with many people hyping up renewables and other "futuristic" solutions far beyond what's realistic, while at the same time discouraging solid technologies that we absolutely need if we want to have any shot at the problem.
Anyway, sorry for the rant... went a bit offtopic there 😅
-
Comment on Cop28 president says there is ‘no science’ behind demands for phase-out of fossil fuels in ~enviro
VMX Link ParentOut of curiosity, what do you mean by this? As far as I know, there's no real way to shift most large developed countries to 100% renewables, no matter how much money you throw at the problem. The...The cost to entirely convert the US to renewable energy? $5.6 trillion.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by this?
As far as I know, there's no real way to shift most large developed countries to 100% renewables, no matter how much money you throw at the problem. The sun still won't shine at night and the wind also doesn't blow 24/7, and we don't have (and likely never will) the battery technology or capacity to power entire cities like that.
Save for some notable exceptions, such as the Nordic countries with their abnormally high hydro production (not reproducible elsewhere), most developed countries can probably aim to cover somewhere around 50% of their year-round demand with renewables... but you're always going to need some other energy source(s) for the base load, which is the other half. Hopefully nuclear or some other net-zero, non-fossil source, but... something.
I'm not from the US so apologies if this figure is well known in American circles, but I'm just suprised to see such as precise pricetag attached to a problem that, as far as I understand, doesn't even have a technical solution yet.
-
Comment on Play Windows PC games on Android using Winlator 3 in ~games
-
Comment on Play Windows PC games on Android using Winlator 3 in ~games
VMX Link ParentThanks for this, it does sound cool! Sorry if this is mentioned anywhere, I couldn't find it. But I guess it doesn't require an x86 Android device, right? So it basically emulates x86 Windows...Thanks for this, it does sound cool!
Sorry if this is mentioned anywhere, I couldn't find it. But I guess it doesn't require an x86 Android device, right? So it basically emulates x86 Windows games on ARM Android?
I have a Shield TV so I'm wondering if it would work there and what the performance would be like.
-
Comment on Is Signal safe and appropriate to use also as way to sync and retain files? in ~tech
VMX Link ParentThe question was about how Telegram was doing, and in the case of OP, about its usage for file sharing between devices. Regarding privacy and security, yes, I'm aware Telegram doesn't use E2EE by...The question was about how Telegram was doing, and in the case of OP, about its usage for file sharing between devices.
Regarding privacy and security, yes, I'm aware Telegram doesn't use E2EE by default, like most other communications services (including email). I'm fine with that, as I believe it introduces more problems than it solves during day to day usage.
I also know about Telegram's API and how powerful it can be. In fact it's one of the reasons it's so widely used in large communities, as bots allow for very effective moderation and administration.
And yeah, I have no doubts the Russian government must have found ways to infiltrate it and spy on people through Telegram, considering how popular it is in Russia. Just like I have no doubts the same thing happens with WhatsApp in Europe and India, FB messenger and iMessage in the US, Line in Japan, WeChat in China, etc. Any platform that becomes popular enough will eventually become too big of a target to pass on for governments, E2EE or not.
For situations where privacy and security are critical, I would certainly not be using any smartphone apps, especially popular ones. If I have reasons to believe I'm being targeted at that level, I would also assume my SIM card is or will be compromised soon, just like my Google/Apple account. SIM swapping and similar exploits require a lot less effort than MITM attacks, so it would be ludicrous to think my conversations are private just because I happen to use an app with E2EE.
But for normal, day to day communication, Telegram takes the lead for me. It just works so much better than everything else, and offers so many little "quality of life" features, using others apps feels like going back a few years.
-
Comment on Is Signal safe and appropriate to use also as way to sync and retain files? in ~tech
VMX Link ParentTelegram is doing exponentially better than Signal. It always was, given it predates Signal by several years and is a much more mature app with a huge userbase and a much better feature set. Just...Telegram is doing exponentially better than Signal. It always was, given it predates Signal by several years and is a much more mature app with a huge userbase and a much better feature set.
Just going by Google Play Store numbers alone, Signal is above the 100M+ threshold, while Telegram passed the 1000M+ threshold a long time ago (next milestone is 5000M+ I think, which only the likes of WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger have reached).
I also end up using Telegram to transfer files between my devices. I've tried other dedicated apps, but I always end up coming back to Telegram because it's just there all the time, one tap/click away on my phone and PC, so I don't have to "remember" to use anything else. The fact that files are stored in the cloud and not on my device means I don't have to worry about losing them, and it's so fast I've never really had a need to switch to anything else.
-
Comment on What programming/technical projects have you been working on? in ~comp
VMX (edited )Link ParentCould you elaborate on what this is? I googled around but couldn't find anything! Edit: Nevermind, found it!nn (No News is good news newsreader)
Could you elaborate on what this is? I googled around but couldn't find anything!
Edit: Nevermind, found it!
-
Comment on What password management solution do you use and why? in ~tech
VMX Link ParentI was a pass user for a while, and the main reason I used the command line option was due to some development tasks that rely on private repositories. So every time I do a make init or something...I was a
passuser for a while, and the main reason I used the command line option was due to some development tasks that rely on private repositories. So every time I do amake initor something like that, my IDE will fetch all the packages from their repos, including the private ones. The way our scripts are set up, they require our user credentials to be set up as env variables in the shell, so they can read them at runtime.I didn't want those credentials to be stored in plain text in .zshrc, so instead I made .zshrc load them at startup from pass. E.g.:
$MY_PASSWORD=$(pass itemname)However, once I found out BitWarden also has a CLI client, I dropped pass altogether and switched over to BitWarden 100%. The convenience of the smooth multi-device operation of BitWarden (due to it being cloud-based) trumps the extra security (perceived security at least) of self-hosting pass in github for me.
That said, I struggle to see many other use cases for this other than software development or system administration.
-
Comment on This is the gayest World Cup ever (and no one’s batting an eyelid) in ~lgbt
VMX Link ParentYes, I partially touch on this in my other reply. I agree that's an interesting analysis to make. I was just pointing out that the article doesn't really seem to go in that direction. Instead,...Yes, I partially touch on this in my other reply.
I agree that's an interesting analysis to make. I was just pointing out that the article doesn't really seem to go in that direction. Instead, they imply there ARE a lot of gay players in the elite of men's football, but they just aren't coming out. I think it's pretty obvious that's not the case, and yet they go with that as their working hypothesis.
-
Comment on This is the gayest World Cup ever (and no one’s batting an eyelid) in ~lgbt
VMX Link ParentI agree those are the interesting questions to ask, namely #2. I was just pointing out that the article doesn't really start there, but instead automatically assumes #1 is the answer and jumps to...I agree those are the interesting questions to ask, namely #2.
I was just pointing out that the article doesn't really start there, but instead automatically assumes #1 is the answer and jumps to trying to justify why.
I think it's pretty obvious that reality is actually #2, not #1, given the overwhelming majority of football players are in straight relationships well known to the public, with very little indication that any of them are "faking it" to look straight. Most of them have had multiple female partners, kids, extramarital affairs, etc.
It's very strange to me that the article would choose #1 as their working hypothesis, and I can only assume their real intention was to push a biased narrative rather than making a level-headed analysis.
-
Comment on This is the gayest World Cup ever (and no one’s batting an eyelid) in ~lgbt
VMX Link ParentI wasn't aware that "homosexual" had become a derogatory term for some people. It's definitely not the case where I live, as my close gay friends use it naturally all the time. Probably varies a...I wasn't aware that "homosexual" had become a derogatory term for some people. It's definitely not the case where I live, as my close gay friends use it naturally all the time. Probably varies a lot by country and environment.
Either way, that's just another example of the euphemism treadmill, so whatever word is used instead of homosexual will eventually face the same faith and will have to be replaced with something else.
-
Comment on This is the gayest World Cup ever (and no one’s batting an eyelid) in ~lgbt
VMX LinkHonestly, I think the article goes out on a limb to try and push a narrative that doesn't really explain what's going on. I agree that it's a good thing for the world to see homosexual people (in...Honestly, I think the article goes out on a limb to try and push a narrative that doesn't really explain what's going on.
I agree that it's a good thing for the world to see homosexual people (in this case) as role models and, more importantly, not being defined by their sexual orientation but what they actually do, like the article said.
However, they later go on and imply that the reason this is happening is because women's football is more "open" and "accepting" of gay people, and hence more women are "daring" to come out in public. That's just not what's going on here.
While there are some gay players in men's football, they're an extremely small minority, as can be seen by the fact that most of them are either married or in public relationships with women. Some people may argue that a few of them may be marrying women just out of appearance and as a PR stunt, and while we have no way of confirming or denying that, I find that increasingly hard to believe, especially considering most of these elite players live in European countries where homosexuality is hardly a taboo anymore. They're not coming out more because there's usually nothing to come out of... because most of them are heterosexual.
On the other hand, if we look at women's football, the situation is very different. I don't know about other teams, but in the case of the Spanish National Team, a quick glance at the squad shows that AT LEAST, around half of them are in public relationships with women, with many of them in stable, long-term relationships (e.g.: married). From the other half, it looks like it's a split between those in straight relationships and those whose relationship status is unknown.
As said, I haven't checked other squads, but going off the examples from the article itself, it looks like the situation of the Spanish team isn't an exception, but rather the norm.
In other words, it's not a matter of women's football being more open or accepting of queer people. It's just that, for whatever reason, there's a vast overrepresentation of homosexual women in women's football, so we obviously see a lot more of it in public.
-
Comment on Where is everyone hosting their email these days? in ~tech
VMX Link ParentThanks! Yeah that's exactly what I'm doing, including that option. It was also bothering me a bit that I still have to log into Gmail from time to time to avoid having those emails piling up...Thanks!
Yeah that's exactly what I'm doing, including that option.
It was also bothering me a bit that I still have to log into Gmail from time to time to avoid having those emails piling up unread in the inbox. But I just realised I can easily configure the rule on Gmail side to mark them as read and archive them as soon as they're forwarded to Fastmail, and I can still respond from my Gmail address in Fastmail too. So all should be good.
Thanks again!
-
Comment on Where is everyone hosting their email these days? in ~tech
VMX Link ParentHey, I just did this exact same thing recently (from Gmail to Fastmail with my own custom domain), and everything's going good, including the unique addresses per website. But I have a question if...Hey, I just did this exact same thing recently (from Gmail to Fastmail with my own custom domain), and everything's going good, including the unique addresses per website. But I have a question if you don't mind:
How are you handling the emails sent to your old Gmail address?
For now I've just set up email forwarding in Gmail to a specific inbox in my custom domain, and I even have a rule that puts those messages in a separate folder as they come.
It works fine, but I'm wondering if there's even any point in separating them to another folder, as I still need to check all of them just in case it's important. Maybe there's a more practical way of doing this?
If you have any advice on how to handle that I'd love to hear it!
Exactly.
I think the recent ECB paper on it, although obviously not an impartial entity, did a good job at summarizing the issue highlighting what is, for me, probably the biggest problem with crypto in general (Bitcoin or otherwise).
Coiners can keep ignoring all the flaws and obvious lies in their arguments and pretend it's all fake. Namely:
And yet... I'm fine with all of this. Like you said, if people still want to throw some of their hard-earned money at it or just give it a shot like they would with sports bets, that's their choice.
What really bothers me, though, is that due to all the above reasons, in practice crypto has become one main thing for most people who take part in it, whether they want to admit it or not: a huge, ridiculous speculative bubble driven by FOMO and super aggressive marketing targeted towards uneducated, financially illiterate people. And that bothers me because:
I don't know what the solution is, so I'll stop the rant there. But it just irritates me that the people who look you in the eye today and tell you that you just "don't get it" and to "have fun staying poor" are exactly the same people that will be begging you for help in a few years. And it irritates me because it's not even their fault... I would've fallen for it too when I was 20 year old. It's the lack of regulation and proper safeguards that's allowing this to happen.