I have 100k+ unread email messages. Probably 2x that actually read. The only mail client that can handle my entire mailbox is outlook. And only up to outlook 2013. I have used every mail client from lotus notes to thunderbird and all of them choke after reading 25% of my mailbox.
Further outlook 2013 can handle all of this PLUS handle my various offline mailboxes going back to 1997. I obviously don’t like using an outdated mail client so will give this a shot and report back on my findings!
Edit: the privacy policy is a nonstarter. This is not an offline application and the question of what happens to my data after acquisition is not answered satisfactorily. Back to the drawing board :)
I'm not saying this is right, but after every party change everything on the government websites change and links/data disappear. This is not limited to this one election, we just happen to notice it now because someone brought it up. Kinda like small chips on your car's windshield.
Notice how things like eg the federal reserve data does not disappear because it is protected by legislation. We should be asking not why is it disappearing, but why didn't we enshrine preservation of data in law?
False equivalence. This is not some cosmetic change. No administration has ever done a bulk removal of scientific data from all government websites solely because it conflicts with their policy goals.
This removal expresses not just a differing policy but a contempt for facts themselves.
When Bush took office all of the data about climate change disappeared from government websites. So this is not a post about false equivalence but a question why the previous party did not protect this specific data like other government agencies. I think the answer to that question is more nuanced than we may like to believe
Now you're just gaslighting. There is no "protection" that can prevent a new presidential administration from modifying government websites as they see fit.
> I think the answer to that question is more nuanced than we may like to believe
What is this, the X Files? Vague allusions like this don't make you look wise, they make you look like you're making stuff up to win internet points.
Ok this is getting a little too...hot for HN so just a heads up I will not reply after this one. You are absolutely right that there is no protection that can prevent administrations from modifying websites, otherwise websites would never get redesigned! However, there is a federal law that requires government agencies to retain records and different agencies have different requirements. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader on what could facilitate a records retention change within different agencies.
As you surely know, the legal requirement to retain records does not extend to a requirement to maintain those records on a public web site. You are not arguing in good faith. Please stop muddying the waters with your buffoonish rhetoric. Thanks.
In case it helps you to have someone chime in besides the person you're arguing with, "You are not arguing in good faith" applies a lot more to "stop muddying the waters with your buffoonish rhetoric" and "What is this, the X Files? Vague allusions like this don't make you look wise" than to anything the person you're arguing with said. I don't know the answer to the point you're arguing and I can't tell who's right from this thread either (neither side posts sources or disproves the other side's central claim, from my point of view), but this isn't how to go about it
When someone is wrong, you can correct them. When someone is lying, i.e. knowingly spreading falsehood in an effort to manipulate an audience, it's vitally important to call them out on it. People need to recognize who is using misinformation as a weapon. The points of highlighted are manipulative rhetorical techniques, not merely bad arguments. These people need to be identified and shunned, especially in a place as committed to dialogue as HN.
Sorry you don't like my phrasing. What method would you suggest to call alarm to a dishonest actor in a public space?
Consider your own ignorance. It is impossible to be certain of anything because of unknown unknowns. You merely assume they are lying, but you could never prove that.
A righteous condemnation with no proof and all feelings is exactly the soil the grows facism.
> Consider your own ignorance. It is impossible to be certain of anything because of unknown unknowns. You merely assume they are lying, but you could never prove that.
Good point. In fact, I can't even prove that America exists. I can't prove that you're real person, or that I'm typing on a computer, or that I even exist. My own eyes could be deceiving me. I am condemned to a universe full of impenetrable doubt.
I should probably just ignore reason and logic, and instead spend my days shivering and alone, unable to interact with a world where so much is forever unknowable.
Of course, you can't prove that I can't prove that grepfru_it is lying, so really it would be you who should consider your own ignorance. I assume that a sage like yourself has already internalized your own advice and that you strictly avoid engaging in news or debate, since all externalities are unproveable. Right?
You're supposed to add "reddit" to Google searches to make them work well.
The punchline is that you can kill somebody in California using a car, claim pedal confusion, and all else being equal, you will face no criminal consequences. You will almost never be financially ruined either. The point of this comparison is that California assembly members write a lot of bills, but they rarely seem to find bandwidth for addressing any of its numerous crises of direct responsibility. It's always some fashionable bullshit.
I was around for the development, launch, and replacement of windows 2000. It was absolutely not a security nightmare when it came out and completely revolutionized desktop security (though not enough and was further enhanced through today)
Compared to 9x? Sure, but it’s not like it was born in a vacuum. Compared to NT 4? Not really, I think. There were significant new things (MMC, Windows Installer, a first-party USB stack). I think there was a grand total of one headline new feature for developers (COM+, a continuation of MTS, a non-partition-tolerant distributed transactions thing). It’s not nothing, surely, but I don’t really see anything that deserves being called “revolutionary”.
What I wanted to say is, many of us remember Windows 2000 as this watershed moment—I know I do—but the more I look at the contemporary developer docs, the more it appears to me that innovation in core OS services at Microsoft had largely already stopped at that time.
Quite a few things that were promoted as Windows 2000 features to developers ended up being deprecated into oblivion (transactions started implicitly due to entries in the Windows Registry, why did anyone think this a good idea?..), abstracted away (thankfully nobody remembers that Windows Installer has a half-baked SQL underlying it), forgotten on the curb of advancing technology (you can still use asynchronous monikers to define custom protocols for IE, but why would you), or just slowly turning into yet another stratum in enterprise software archaeology (WMI/CIM).
So if it was a watershed moment, it seems like it was more for Microsoft marketing than for general-purpose Microsoft APIs: Windows 2000 was the first NT promoted to consumers, as well as the first NT to run acceptably on respectively contemporary consumer hardware, and the contrast with 9x was indeed stark. But if we are speaking about when Microsoft innovated in its OSes, it really does seem like the period between maybe 1998 and 2005 was a lull, and that contrast that so shocked us then had little to do with the Windows 2000 release specifically and could just as well have happened for NT 4, if only RAM had been cheaper back in 1996. (Recall that Windows 95, née 93, was supposed and even announced to be the last release built on the Win16—or “Windows”—foundation.)
That’s not to say that Microsoft was idle. USB, PCI PnP, ACPI (and before it APM—remember APM?) are all bound to have taken serious kernel-level work, let alone the great Vista video driver rewrite. DirectX for X≠3D basically died, but that last part got really really important. HyperV I hear is competent and people do actually run it.
On the application side, Java was going to be the next big thing on Windows before it was shot in the head, .NET was of course unveiled shortly after Windows 2000, then Vista came along with transactional NTFS and the transactional registry and transactions everywhere were going to be the future (and you can see how that followed from the DCOM/MTS/COM+ work even if it wasn’t marketed that way). And there was WCF and WPF and XAML and XPS’s attempt to displace PDF and replicate Display PostScript and then COM was reborn as Metro/WinRT. And you see how a lot of that last paragraph is a mix of the unhinged (WCF) and the genuinely cool that ended up going nowhere either way? Much like the new Windows 2000 stuff I listed above was a grand vision of the future that fizzled out, there are like a half-dozen grand visions of the future here that were all at various stages at fizzling out at the same time.
Again, none of this is lazy, much of it is even novel. Yet somehow none of it ended up truly significant. Transactional NTFS could have been as large a shift as ZFS—but it wasn’t. Vista’s libraries could finally have brought BeOS’s filesystem-as-a-database to the mainstream—but it didn’t. And now ads in the Start menu are entering their second decade. Part of it is probably the slow death of the desktop in general. I can’t help thinking it’s not all of it, though. In retrospect, Windows 2000’s largely unused new features feel like the start of a trend.
As an oldtimer, when Redhat 9 came out at the same time as Windows 2000, Windows 2000 was ridiculously far ahead. Many engineers switched back to Linux from Windows for a while.
Yes, this. I also use a service to capture all emails (catch all) so that I can detect any loose ends that might have been overlooked. Services like ForwardMX or Cloudflare can do this for you at relatively low (or no) cost.
Presumably after 10 years of failing to collect on their invoices, Microsoft would have killed your O365 account, so there's one fewer SaaS account left to log into.
Those hippies didn't consider the decommission process of wind turbines. Drove past several farms during my holiday and there were a staggering number of turbines that were either not turning or turning at a fraction of the speed of their peers. I do worry what we are going to do with all the failed gearboxes and blades :\
>I do worry what we are going to do with all the failed gearboxes and blades
There are three companies I'm aware of in the United States who have commercialized, and are, today, right now, recycling turbine blades.
Additionally, there are multiple startups in both the US and Europe who have developed more easily recyclable blades and those are starting to be deployed.
Blade lifecycle is a solvable problem.
The steel in the gearboxes is a problem that solves itself.
It's dumb and a reflection of our business and regulatory environment that it's cheaper/better to invest labor and energy to shred something like blades and columns than to simply truck them away in whole or in part and then use them for other things.
We're basically talking about huge glass reinforced resin cylinders and non-flat sheets here. I can think of tons of potential uses at the right price.
Decommissioned blades are probably not that useful as raw material. What use could you have for a randomly curved segment of carbon fiber or fiberglass resin which has already been weathered and worn down for years?
You can't use the entire blade: for one they're ridiculously huge and have a very inconvenient shape. You'd have to hire people to cut them up, test each segment for defects, and somehow find buyers for randomly shaped offcuts. It'd probably cost a lot more than grinding them up into powders that already have commercial use.
No one would want the used sections. They're pre-damaged and would come at the same or higher cost than new. At the same time, new material gives you the choice over size and shape. I don't see it as a really practical solution.
Some things just can't be reused, so we have to break it back down to raw materials and recycle it. That's about the best you can expect from something intended to be a consumable replacement part.
About the only thing I agree with you in terms of repurposability would be the vertical column. And even then, you have to find the right buyer. For everything else, my intuition is the shredding it down for recycling is by far easier than repurposing. I haven't done any math on it though.
I'm sure if you filled a field full of 8.5 x 20/30/40ft slices of blade someone would buy them for something. Interleaved and stuck in the ground as a retaining wall or similar seems like a fairly obvious choice.
Any screeching about quality or defects can pretty much be overcome by just using more since they're waste after all.
This is an uphill project. I spent 3 years getting my last car supported in open pilot and it honestly felt like a waste of time when I picked up the keys for a car with less digital hoops to jump through. I plugged and played and immediately had a platform to test on vs a test bench of wires which always had a new error when you powered it up for the first time
We also found a diminishing return the older the car we supported. So now we are currently only focusing up to gen n-1
reply