I use Fastmail and the main difference I notice is less effective spam filtering — it’s good but not as great as Gmail was.

Overall it’s been an acceptable trade off and I’m glad years ago I switched to a custom domain for email so I can have portability.

Damn that’s wild to me, because Gmail absolutely refuses to send things to spam despite me incessantly marking them as spam.

I honestly assumed that everyone had a rotten time with Gmail spam filtering but I guess it’s just a me problem. I suppose that means I’m up for an interesting time dealing with it as I move to a custom domain somewhere else.

Anyone have any recommendations for providers that have exceptionally good spam filtering? Hell I’d even just settle for ones that honor “mark as spam,” because Gmail absolutely does not.

I get maybe one genuine spam not marked as such and maybe one false positive per month.

I'm getting a lot of emails and between 10-20 spams a day, but that's years of the very careful messages reporting and categorisation.

Similarly with important and "normal" emails - i only get one-two important per week, and marked as such for the same reasons; no false negatives.

It's not just you. I experience the same thing. It is thoroughly maddening.

Interesting, I have used Fastmail for probably a decade plus at this point, and whether it's my obsessive rating of false negatives and positives, it is amazingly rare that I get spam slip into my inbox (maybe one message a week from ~100/day received, while my spam folder gets about 10/day).

I, too, mark all positives and negatives obsessively, but still get the same obvious spam in my inbox too often for my liking. Still, though, I love Fastmail.

In my experience it is a lot like finding time to work on "strategy". There's never really explicit time given, you have to make it in the day, and its often the most valuable time spent.

I am sympathetic to the argument that I’d rather elected officials that have a path to be removed have the control of use more so than unelected executives.

Microsoft stopped chasing the education space with the wind down of 11SE [1].

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/microsoft-kills-wind...

It will be interesting to see if this is an exit for investors and which ones. Given it wasn’t an acquisition but licensing.

Axios claims that the $20B in cash will be paid out proportionally, so Trump Jr. will have his September investment tripled. The article looks AI assisted but claims "according to sources":

https://www.axios.com/2025/12/28/nvidia-groq-shareholders

While an earlier poster is over stating Ostrom’s Nobel prize winning work — it is regularly shown that averting the tragedy of the commons is not as insurmountable as the original coining of the phrase implied.

Many of the fly by night digital proscribes just jack the dosage to show rapid gains. Coupled with people lying on BMI to get a script is a bad combination and why it’s so obvious.

Likely because (very?) few would associate LLMs in their current form with "digital slaves". Attributing personhood to a non-corporeal entity is likely a multi-generational change, if it ever happens.

Don’t forget you can’t dare offer water or food to those stuck in lines else that’s considered tampering in many (all?) locales in the US.

Mail in voting is just better all around for a geographically diverse place as the US and I wish would be adopted by all states.

Rule of thumb: if Republicans are against it, it’s probably a good thing for everyone else, like mail-in voting.

So excited to see how the right-wing pedants here disagree with this.

This feels like getting taught in school not to cite Wikipedia when the actual digital literacy challenge is deeper— learn where the info comes from and to critically think.

Well you shouldn't cite Wikipedia in your paper for the same reason you shouldn't cite LLMs, they're tertiary sources. You shouldn't cite a paper book encyclopedia either. It has nothing to do with digital literacy so I'm sorry if that's what was taught to you.

You should look to an encyclopedia for information about all manner of topics. Someone did the work of organizing, verifying, and cross-referencing the information from disparate sources for you. It doesn't mean the information is untrustworthy, if that were true the paper you wrote in class would be untrustworthy which is absurd, no?

Exactly! It’s the credibility of the data once cross referenced with other sources that really matters. It could be a paper on arxiv or it could be a 4chan post, what matters is if it checks out.