As a gmail user who may or may not have had to enter an email address to do something on the web, and who gets annoyed by spam, let me describe my decision points (anecdote is not the plural of data, of course, but here I am) when it comes to "unsubscribe" vs marking something "spam."
If your email reminds me (upfront!) how and when and why I specifically gave you (and not some other third party) my email address, and promises that you are advertising this newsletter one time, and it is opt-in, and you keep your promise, I am highly unlikely to mark it spam.
Now, this presupposes that it was really me who gave you my email address. I have a fairly generic email address because I got on gmail early. There are many variants of it, but sometimes people forget to add the trailing numbers or letters, so I get misdirected email all the time.
If the misdirected email is personal, I usually respond letting them know of the issue.
If the misdirected email shows a clear understanding that I might not have been the one who really signed up then I give them a pass.
If the misdirected email blithely assumes that I am the one who signed up, then I blithely assume that its senders are too fucking stupid to use the internet and it goes straight into the spam bucket. (And this is usually an easy call because they use the name of the person with the similar email address, which is not my name. My email address is firstinitiallastname@gmail.com and there are many different first names that start with the same initial.)
Any failure on any of those other points starts to increase the likelihood of it being marked spam, and...
> The unsubscribe links must work without even opening the email, according to gmail rules.
So here's where I'm a hard-ass and maybe even worse than google's rules.
If I see the RFC8058 unsubscribe link, it is too late. I only notice that link after I've decided to mark your email as "spam" and google asks if I'm sure, or if I merely want to unsubscribe.
Why did I decide to mark your email as spam? One possible reason is that I read through it, decided that the sender legitimately had my email address and was acting honorably, and then clicked the unsubscribe link embedded in the email.
When I do that, one of two things happens. Either I get some form of "thank you, you've been unsubscribed" or nothing happens because the sender assumes that I am OK with them executing javascript on my computer.
This is a privilege I jealously guard and only reluctantly offer to as few websites as possible.
Even if I previously gave you my email address, that did not come with an open invitation to use my computing resources for your own purposes.
So by your own description, ANYONE sending you a newsletter, by complying with Google’s rules, they piss you off and make you mark their email as SPAM because, according to you, they made “javascript execute on your computer”. Actually, gmail is the one executing tons of javascript. The mandatory unsubscribe LINK uses HTTP, not even HTML. Google just requires that the unsubscribe instant.
It is an unwinnable situation.
With all respect, why would I care what an impossibly hardass tech person would do if I sent them an email in an unwinnable situation? The vast majority of our users are not this technical, let alone a hardass HN denizen who advertises the fact that the mere compliance with Google’s rules will piss them off due to a misunderstanding of how unsubcribe works.
Here is what we might both agree on: email sucks. You shouldn’t be reachable by anyone who just has your address, and it is not your job to be vigilant. Then all these problems go away.
> So by your own description, ANYONE sending you a newsletter, by complying with Google’s rules, they piss you off and make you mark their email as SPAM because, according to you, they made “javascript execute on your computer”.
Are you deliberately being obtuse, or is it natural? I don't need to use gmail's web interface if I don't want to, but as it happens, I do let google's javascript execute on my computer.
> The mandatory unsubscribe LINK uses HTTP, not even HTML.
Two links are required. One in the header, and one in the email. As I wrote, if I read to the end of the email to make a decision, then I will click on the link in the email. Which often goes to a webpage with javascript on it.
> It is an unwinnable situation.
Did I write that I mark everything as spam? No? Why not, I wonder? Did it ever occur to you that if I am describing when I mark things as spam, that there are things that I don't mark as spam? No? Do you even read what you yourself write? No? You should try it sometime.
> With all respect, why would I care what an impossibly hardass tech person would do if I sent them an email in an unwinnable situation?
With all respect, if you wrongly believe the rules I gave are unwinnable, you shouldn't care. I won't be receiving further missives from you, and nature will take its course in determining whether I was an outlier or the canary in the coalmine.
>So here's where I'm a hard-ass and maybe even worse than google's rules. If I see the RFC8058 unsubscribe link, it is too late. I only notice that link after I've decided to mark your email as "spam" and google asks if I'm sure, or if I merely want to unsubscribe.
The way I read it, this is an unwinnable situation. We must supply this link, in order to comply with Google's rules. If you see this link, it's too late. You're making it as spam. Because I may run javascript on your computer.
Having re-read it, it sounds instead like: you're likely mark it as spam before you get to this link (even though the web interface surfaces the unsubscribe button right in the list of emails -- but you don't use that interface).
Well, I guess there is a narrow path to "victory": mention that it may have been someone else who signed up, then if you see the unsubscribe link, you click it, then I'm supposed to say "thank you" and not serve any javascript. Anything else, and you click SPAM. Or maybe you already did.
> The way I read it, this is an unwinnable situation. We must supply this link, in order to comply with Google's rules. If you see this link, it's too late.
That's an obtuse reading.
I am looking at the email. The email has a different link, mandated by the can-spam act in it.
Gmail has a bunch of icons at the top. There is not one for "unsubscribe".
So, I read your email, decide it is legitimate but I am not interested. I click on the link (not RFC8058) in the body of the email message itself to unsubscribe.
If that link takes me to a page that does nothing because it wants to execute javascript on my computer, then we are done.
Look, I'm not a terrible writer and this isn't that difficult.
> Well, I guess there is a narrow path to "victory": mention that it may have been someone else who signed up, then if you see the unsubscribe link, you click it, then I'm supposed to say "thank you" and not serve any javascript.
Oh, well, you did understand. Sort of. Except I view this as a common-sensical extremely wide path. If it's the first time that you're emailing me, you damn well better realize that it might have been a fake signup, and how the fuck am I supposed to know your intentions if you attempt to serve javascript? What part of removing me from your database requires you to execute shit on my computer?
And by the way, about this part of that statement:
> if you see the unsubscribe link
If you're playing "hide the link" then you've already shown that your intentions aren't honorable.
> Anything else, and you click SPAM.
I don't actually click spam all that often. Only on, you know, spam.
Look, you're the one who mentioned that you might have collected some of these email addresses 10 years ago. I'm just giving you a heads-up. Not only may they have forgotten about signing up, but the addresses themselves might have been recycled by now.
> Or maybe you already did.
Nope. I've been upfront and transparent. I thought you were being that way, too, given your first comment. I even upvoted it because I thought all the downvoting was a bit excessive.
But the intransigence and mischaracterization here is stunning.
Look, there are two possibilities here. (1) is that I'm not that extreme, in which case you're probably fucked. (2) is that, yes, I'm an outlier, and if you satisfy my needs, then you probably won't have enough emails marked spam to trigger google's filters.
Now, if you truly feel that my conditions offer only a narrow path to victory, then you're probably not really someone I should be offering this advice to in any case, because our interests are not congruent. My only solace is that maybe you won't take the advice and you'll receive a banning for your efforts.
I don't think this is ever making it past the editor of any journal, let alone peer review.
Elementary functions such as exponentiation, logarithms and trigonometric functions are
the standard vocabulary of STEM education. Each comes with its own rules and a dedicated button on a scientific calculator;
What?
and No comparable primitive has been known for continuous mathematics: computing elementary
functions such as sin, cos, √
, and log has always required multiple distinct operations.
Here we show that a single binary operator
Yeah, this is done by using tables and series. His method does not actually facilitate the computation of these functions.
There is no such things as "continuous mathematics". Maybe he meant to say continuous function?
Looking at page 14, it looks like he reinvented the concept of the vector valued function or something. The whole thing is rediscovering something that already exists.
This preprint was written by a researcher at an accredited university with a PhD in physics. I'm sure they know what a vector valued function is.
The point of this paper is not to revolutionize how a scientific calculator functions overnight, its to establish a single binary operation that can reproduce the rest of the typical continuous elementary operations via repeated application, analogous to how a NAND or NOR gate creates all of the discrete logic gates. Hence, "continuous mathematics" as opposed to discrete mathematics. It seems to me you're being overly negative without solid reasoning.
its to establish a single binary operation that can reproduce the rest of the typical continuous elementary operations via repeated application,
But he didn't show this though. I skimmed the paper many times. He creates multiple branches of these trees in the last page, so it's not truly a single nested operation.
Some of us had the wondrous epiphany as children that we could build any digital device we could dream of (yes, up to and including a full computer, CPU, RAM, peripherals, and all) out of SN7400 NAND gates that we could buy down at the local Radio Shack, if only we could scrape together enough change to buy the requisite number of parts and sockets and Tefzel wire.
Obviously, I can't speak for all of us who had that epiphany, but I strongly suspect that most of us who had that epiphany would find this result joyous.
Well, it is still the case, even if not explicitly shown. Personally I think it almost boils down to school math, with some details around complex logarithms; the rest seems to be simpler.
The principal result is "all elementary functions can be represented by this function and constant 1". I'm not sure if this was known before. Applications are another matter, but I suspect interesting ones do exist.
Hell, I'd be happy if, when I started reading text, the websites would just let me keep reading text rather than popping up an interminable number of ads, video, alert/app/notification options, etc.
I mean, you know that if they can't do that, any other idioms from last century are right out the window as well.
The problem is that the same word is used for different things.
The comment you are responding to was correct in what "property" means in some settings.
The article itself says:
> A property is a universally quantified computation that must hold for all possible inputs.
But, as you say,
> but as those terms were adopted into less-than-academic contexts, the meanings have diluted.
And, in fact, this meaning has been diluted. And is simply wrong from the perspective of what it originally meant in math.
You are right that a CPU register is a property of the CPU. But the mathematical term for what the article is discussing is invariant, not property.
Feel free to call invariants properties; idgaf. But don't shit all over somebody by claiming to have the intellectual high ground, because there's always a higher ground. And... you're not standing on it.
My point was not that there exists some supreme truth about what words mean and that either you use words "correctly" or you're an idiot.
Yes, words have different meanings in different settings, but that's not the dilution I was referring to. It's absolutely fine that a word can be used differently in different places.
The "problem", such as it is, is that there are people who use terms from programming languages research to discuss programming languages and they use these terms inaccurately for their context, leading to a dilution in common understanding. For example, there is a definitive difference between a "function" and a "method", and so it is inaccurate to refer to functions generally as "methods". However, I see people gripe about interactions where these things are treated separately, and that is what I am addressing.
The parent comment to mine tried to offer some examples of such terms within the context of programming languages, so my corrections were constrained to that context. But your correction of my point is, I think, incorrect, because the meaning you are trying to use against me is one from a different context than the one we're all talking about.
There's no intellectual high ground here; my point was not to elevate myself above the parent comment. My point was to explain to them that they were, from the point of view of people like the author of the post (I assume), simply incorrect. There's nothing wrong with being wrong from time to time.
> Megacorporations making profit is not some evil that needs to be stopped.
Externalities are a thing. It's not about the profit per se, but about how (a) the making of that profit might negatively impact others, and (b) the deployment of that profit in pursuit of rent-seeking and other antisocial behavior in order to insure its continued existence might also negatively impact others.
reply