That feels... somehow creepy compared to the Claude conversations I'm used to.

Are the two LLMs that different, or will Claude too talk like that if you prompt it ri^Wwrong?

They're staying in the places where they already are, except Twitter.

There was a brief unfortunate episode a couple of hundred years ago, when the US was as little over twenty years old.

Some Africans started capturing American citizens and ships, maybe enslaving some, etc. Really quite unpleasant. The US eventually decided that its best option was invading Morocco.

It didn't have a commitment to defend anyone nearby, except the many Americans who traded all over the world.

The US has worldwide trade and interests now too, more so than in 1805.

"The Long Tail Will Not Be Patched": really?

AIUI the long tail routinely is covered by other tools. I don't see why xint.code and tools like that won't be marketed to the people who write long-tail systems.

There are many hightech companies there, including Samsung, which is one of the most important foundries.

I think it means they're telling banks to act promptly or else. In the understated language central bankers and banking regulators tend to use.

Some people have a view of open source contributors as some sort of amorphous mass of strangers, and that leads to unrealistic suppositions. The contributors aren't really amorphous, they exist, they're knowable, they have personalities and jobs.

A project such as wordpress(.org) depends very strongly on those who do the work. And in the case of Wordpress, that's some spare-time volunteers, some employees of other companies, but the biggest group is Automattic employees. If you do most of the work, as Automattic does, the project depends on you and you get to call the shots.

I understand that point, but I disagree. Automattic controls the process, which keeps a lot of initiatives out because there's no reasonable expectation of improvement unless it aligns with Automattic.

I don't believe the project would fold were Automattic to quit -- there's a lot activity outside of the core that is alienated by Matt's behavior. Might well be an improvement if the focus of .org isn't about what .com needs, but about what .org wants to offer to users.

I run my own mail server, not blacklisted. Now I'm a bit of a special case, I know mail well.

But when a moderately technical colleague wanted to do the same, I told her to use Mox, she set it up and Gmail doesn't block her either.

So... would you please elaborate?

I find there are three peopls who comment about hosting email. A small group like us who set it up correctly and never have problems. A larger group who set it up but get the dns wrong and warn people not to. And a third bigger group who never tried but listen to the second group and always comment that you'll have 1% deliverability

It is different than it once was.

It was dead-nuts simple in the 1990s: Just learn enough about DNS to put in an MX record that points to an A record, get sendmail working, and have it begin delivering mail. The end. (Open relay? No spam filter? No virus scanning? No nothin'? Yeah, that kind of was the style at the time...)

It's got a lot more steps today, but it's still do-able. Operationally, keeping a mail server online and treated well just takes one or two people to spend a little bit of time occasionally to stay proactively ahead of new expectations and requirements instead of reacting to them after things change.

It also helps if Carla, from marketing, doesn't wake up one day and decide to spam the entire customer list without asking for guidance first. Maybe I should have put some automatic mitigation into place for that, but whatever: We chatted about that and it never happened again.

(Or at least, I find that to be true with smaller companies. Bigger ones obviously may require more elaborate systems to handle more volume and/or provide better uptime. But the requirements of keeping the reputation up are about the same regardless of scale, and that still only takes one or two people to pay attention to things sometimes. [And the only reason two might be required is in case one of them gets hit by a bus.])

"Blacklisted" probably doesn't have a sufficiently clear definition. I don't even run my own server, just use a custom family domain that is served by protonmail, and discovered when trying to go through foster licensing that virtually all of the agencies were not reading my e-mails because Microsoft and Google alike were routing them into the spam folder, but they weren't being blocked or bounced. I wouldn't have even known if I hadn't called a few and asked them to check.

I am definitely not being flagged for any actual spam-like behavior. I might send out 40 e-mails a year, and even though it's a "family" domain, I'm the only one who has ever used it, ironically enough, as part of my decade-old effort to de-Google.

I'm curious, what about Microsoft/Outlook?

I also have my own MTA. No problems with anyone ..... except Microsoft, who (silently) never delivers the mail.

Microsoft is the worst. I think our emails usually go through to them now, but they've been blocking our emails when no one else was.

FWIW the same approach was proposed in the nineties. IIRC the main argument against was that the argument to support it is even worse than for v6. The first few sites to get non-4 addresses aren't reachable by anyone, and have to ask everyone to extend their stack and listen to an endless series of answers along the lines of "our existing stack has IP routing to everyone else, why don't you deal with your problem instead of bothering us".

I guess it's an RFC 1925 reference. Truth 6: If you can make a few specific people responsible for making everyone migrate/extend, life's simpler for everyone (else). And truth 11: 30 years later, the same proposal but garnished with JWT.