- Search is atrocious
    - I can't find emails from this week but it'll dig up stuff from 5 years ago
  - no tagging
  - no filtering (tbf, this could be a lot better in most platforms)
  - Mail automatically renders PDFs (helps spammers)
  - doesn't play well with aliased emails

  > they ask you for a state-issued ID to appeal bans

"Move fast and break things" mentality, so IDs leak

Pedos use your leaked ID. You land on a list. Meta/Google/Discord/Persona/whoever pays you $20 and gets a slap on the wrist

IDs become useless, so Altman promotes WorldCoin and we all get our eyeballs scanned

Rinse, lather, repeat. Surveillance state grows. Terrorists continue to do terrorist stuff. Pedos continue to do pedo stuff. Normal people get random visits from gestapo because they are 110% sure you were involved in a crime despite proof that you were in a different state at the time.

We're really creating a great world...

I also notice it doesn't handle relayed emails well. I have a bunch of dummy emails and Mail doesn't show me the relayed name, which really hinders my ability to track and combat spam

If I only had one email account I probably wouldn't care as much but that's not as common these days

I also don't like that it renders PDF attachments. Just seems to be enabling scammers

What I like about Mozilla is they made a hackable browser so we can have things like Zen, WaterFox, or whatever floats your boat.

It's such a petty argument when everything is so hackable and Google is eating the internet. I wish people would put half the energy they use to complain to solve the things they are upset about.

Clothing companies do typically put items on sale first. They'll even sell "at a loss"

It's very simple: some is better than none

People have been saying "we don't need docs", "nobody reads docs", "they'll figure it out". They experience the pain of a new employee onboarding but never treat this as a signal for the user experience. The user can't just walk over to the developer's desk. But luckily we got stack overflow, blogs, and Google. Somewhere someone explains it! The problem became finding it!

But hey, why do things the "hard" way when you can just throw money at the problem? Or better yet, dismiss the problem by calling the user an idiot.

You're right. What a time to be alive. We've created a world where this product is useful. And not even to because dark patterns exist, but simply because we've always wanted to avoid taking a step back and thinking or getting an outside view. Because it isn't obvious if a robot has to teach you what button to press. If it does, you probably should be ashamed (there are, as always, exceptions)

That said, I do think there's still a lot of utility you this. Those exceptions aren't uncommon. This'll help people learn programs like FreeCAD or Blender, or whatever. Where the complexity is naturally high. But also I do think we should recognize the silliness of many problems that this does solve that shouldn't be problems in the first place.

  > I don't think Copernicus did any explaining why at all.

But Copernicus's enables us to say more. It is more elegant (it was not simpler though). Copernicus was seeking realism. He was the person annoyed with how complex a system was while everyone around him was saying "who cares, it works".

  > That's what I mean by it being a matter of taste, not of truth.

  > It is good for the company.

  >> IDK, with a lot of things it seems like big companies are just incredibly myopic.

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tL8_caB35Pg

  > but Ptolemy and Copernicus weren't talking about mass or causality

My critique is that there's a difference between "x is the center" and "motion looks like y when sitting at x".

Those are different claims with very different consequences. You're dismissing this as minutia but that minutia is the critical point. In a geocentric model you need to explain why things revolve around the earth. In a heliocentric model you need to explain why things move around the sun. Predicting the motion of the planets doesn't answer these. But answering these *correctly* allows you to build a generalized model in which you can predict the motion of planets, in any arbitrary system.

I'll also add that I love the geocentric model as a good illustration of why observation alone can't give you causality. There's far more to science than data fitting. In fact, that's why all the mathematicians are getting upset and what Tao has been talking about this whole time

While you're technically correct, everyone already understood. We could be more technically correct by talking about the galactic barycenter, or even more by talking about the universe as a whole, but the accuracy gains by that added complexity doesn't benefit the conversation

  > you're not incorrect if you pick a frame that puts the moon in the center or any other point

What classical relativity does not allow you to do is place yourself at an arbitrary point and call that the center of mass of the system (i.e. things orbit around you). That's not invariant. It's a very different thing than predicting the motion of objects from your vantage point.