The only people who seem to get un-suspended are the ones who can generate news media outrage or who can call their friend who is a director/exec at the company. (Obviously this intuition is flawed, but it’s hurting the reputations of these SaaS providers.)

I’m not arguing for Outlook. I wouldn’t touch that POS unless I was forced to.

But maybe it’s just easier to not have to teach an astronaut to use another app. If they are using Outlook in space, it’s probably the same app and server they use on the ground.

Of course FTP or RSYNC or whatever would be slightly more efficient for the transfer or more capable or retrying / resuming. I’m not arguing that either.

Sometimes it’s more important that the astronaut doesn’t have to learn another app instead/ system.

Sometimes it’s better to choose a less efficient system that is less prone to accidental destructive. It’s not like anybody ever screwed up a sync command and accidentally wiped a directory or anything.[1]

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxquestions/comments/1kawpyu/rsy...

I’ll wait.

Vapid statement.

When emojis are stripped on one website, users of that website understand it’s a product limitation.

When links work on one email client but not another, that’s a huge issue for the email sender and a lot of headache to learn/study the differences between email clients and the stack they are built on.

The difference between HTML and CSS properties supported on different email clients is WILD.[1] the rendering differences are significant, as are the man hours required to get emails to mostly look predictable on the breadth of email clients in use today.

And remember that every time there is a browser engine (or even just a fork) people have to maintain it. They need to develop features, squash bugs, patch security issues, pull from upstream, coordinate with downstream forks, etc. webmail providers are SaaS but have to have intricate and accurate understanding of every browser parse / rendering bug/permutation and a deep understanding of all of the legit HTML/CSS/JavaScript/DOM/XML/images/URLs (including weird ones like data: blobs) supported by every browser.

“we manage it” is doing an insane amount of hiding the complexity there.

[1] https://templates.mailchimp.com/resources/email-client-css-s...

The world will be better off when we fork HTML so there is one standard email-safe version that all modern email clients support natively. There’s entirely too much security surface area to put arbitrary HTML into emails and expect any 2 email clients to render it correctly / the same.

Email needs its “no more IE6” moment.

The entire message is (or can be) compressed before transmission (eg. When IMAP has DEFLATE enabled).

Just because an intermediate encoding step expands binary to make it text safe doesn’t mean it has to stay uncompressed during the entire existence of that MIMe message.

Being the VC to a company’s round B, C, and D (adding up to maybe 40% ownership/control) is VERY different from simply throwing some money at a trillion dollar company to see some returns.

The point of the blank is to identify the base level given the current testing environment. Then you test again with the variable.

If the majority of the microplastics contaminants were introduced in the blank, the variable would show minimal, if any, bump.

I’ve heard that LinkedIn searches for several hundred known browser plugins to identify potential abusive users. If the “simple chat apps” aren’t doing that, then it’s apples-to-oranges.

The Director of the FBI is an immensely powerful position, unlike the average secretory/assistant in some FBI field office. Even the FBI Special Agents are taught OpsSec in depth at FBI cadet school and it is reinforced at every additional relevant training.

The reason Patel wasn’t is because he’s unqualified to be in the department and was a political hire who almost certainly bypassed the normal security protocols when he was hired. The FBI has an entire detail, not unlike that of Secret Service, who both secures the physical person / transport of the Director, but who also maintains intelligence about threats and OpsSec, which should cover this specifically scenario. In other words, Patel didn’t need to know about this security precaution himself — he just needed to not stifle his team from protecting him.

We don’t know how much the Trump political officials managed to avoid those onboarding requirements. It has been widely reported that at least some of them bypassed eligibility requirements and polygraph. It’s probably not a huge leap to assume these same people were not required to consent to these forever-after-searches.

Most of the time, actual harm is the most important issue. In this case because that office holds so much centralized power and authority over many aspects of American life (domestic law enforcement, some foreign law enforcement, domestic counterterrorism / counterintelligence / counterespionage, and security clearance background checks for all VIPs), the means are equally as important as the ends.

And I would throw in a wrinkle: what evidence is there that the dumps were not stripped of the most useful blackmail material? If I were in charge of a hack operation, I would dump the low impact stuff to show the world how much of a joke this guy’s security is, but only after I already used the best stuff to blackmail him months ago.