Don't just put a link into your mail that directly verifies an email when visited. At least put some button or code input field there.

Why? There are mail clients that will automatically open links for users and if that link is now invalid the user is confused about being able to click them.

The Big Problem™ however is case sensitivity in the local-part, because there multiple incompatible things collide:

1. Users are not universally aware of case (in)sensitivity in one direction or the other

2. Existing systems may or may not interpret case at all

My preferred solution would be to adjust the standard to ignore case in the local part by forcing it to lowercase. That aligns with most of the systems and mental model of technically proficient users anyways. It makes much more sense from an UX standpoint since the goal is to be imambiguous.

If we were to enforce the opposite: case sensitivity in the local part this would have multiple downsides:

1. It is inconsistent with itself by making the local part case sensitive but the host part not, that is harder to explain

2. You have to train users to be precise about case on entry. As someone who worked in IT-support, this is a very bad idea. This includes second-order issues like phishing attacks by silbling emails where just the case differs

3. If your service stores email addresses it will need to know whether that specific Mailserver/client/etc treats the email as case-sensitive or not

In my eyes email servers that allow case sensitive local-parts are functionally broken, even if they don't break any rules.

E.g. let's say two people edit the body element depending on the content of the Edit the best solution¹ could be to take both contents (in which order?), to just take one, to take neither or to merge them semantically into a new third thing.

Meaning there are two obvious ways of going for a better merging solution:

1. Retain the ambiguity (if there is one) and present it to the users and let them decide

2. Use an LLM to guess the intent of both edits and task it to resolve the ambiguity if resolveable

¹: with best I mean the the solution real humans merging text from two pieces of paper would chose

The right UX for scenarios where accuracy is essential is to let users know when they are offline. The offline-enabled approach is not suitable for a lot of situations.

I think we've gone far enough down the road of "we can solve all CRDT merge conflicts through technical wizardry" that the next steps are "what is the right merge conflict UX when people should be communicating?" not just "what can we solve technically and never show the user?"

The exception is their PO series stuff which is actually kind of affordable for what you can get out of them.

I personally think I would fail my students on a personal level if I let them go through my education and have them ill-prepared for the world that faces them outside. I have worked as a freelancer in the field I am teaching for years so I know very well what I wish someone would have thought me. You can sell a lot of dry stuff by tying it to a practical application that makes them see the use more clearly. That works pretty well and student like it. Real education should feel like gaining a superpower. That means practical applications are crucial, you should basically build the theory around solving actual problems and not the other way around. Pure theorizing should also have its place for those who like it of course.

But I would advice a little bit of caution to hold too strong thoughts about teaching if you have never done so for at least some period yourself. It is much harder and exhausting to do in practise than most people think it is. Especially with big group sizes some things we wish were possible are not necessarily so.

While it is great that you are willing to help those in need catch up, something has gone horribly wrong with primary sources of education and lived experience if someone reaches the university level before being prepared for the world. In fact, given the immense cost of going to university, allowing them into university before they've gained that preparedness is quite unethical. It used to be that university had stringent admission standards as to not prey on those showing up mindlessness. Why do you think that fell apart?

I think the GP's idea is that university is part of getting prepared for the world. And for many students, university is the final culmination of their preparation.

Of course I can't catch all of my students deficiencies (alone for the reason that I can't discover all), but my base assumption is that there are fields and topics everybody has gaps in and this is normal. As a software developer I have met people who worked a decade in the field, did good work and they haven't heard of a fundamental concept in networking before. Everybody has their gaps, even people I worked with who are the most knowledgeable people I have ever worked with sometimes have gaps in basic stuff. Maybe your former teachers neglected them, you never really had to apply it, or whatever. Normal.

Good teaching means you quickly recap the required knowledge before you apply it. I can't recap simple arithmetics, but if we need integration or trigonometry I will recap in a beginner course.

An important aspect of University is that it is more free than school education. That means it teaches people to organize their own learning to a much higher degree (which you also may need after you graduate or drop out). If someone has gaps they should get the feeling that they know what to work on and not hit a brick wall and shatter.

Absolutely. Which is why we've built a society where helping others close those gaps is natural and considered to be part of a life-long process. Again, it is great that you are playing your part, but you'd be doing the same if you were standing beside someone on an assembly line. It is not clear what the significance of university is, unless you are simply biased by it being central to much of your experience?

> it is more free than school education. [...] If someone has gaps they should get the feeling that they know what to work on and not hit a brick wall and shatter.

Which is why youth life doesn't end at school. In fact, school is supposed to be just a small part of that existence. We encourage them to do things like babysit young children, get jobs, etc. where hitting a wall and shattering is plain unacceptable and even catastrophic. This forces them to quickly get up to speed on how to learn and feeling like they can learn when things get real.

It is inevitable that someone will end up living a completely sheltered life and miss out on those fundamentals, but compelling them to first un-shelter themselves is what university entrance requirements are for. If you are regularly seeing students both sheltered and accepted into university, our fundamental assumptions about university have broken down and we need to step back. You working hard to offer a bandaid is noble, but not a good solution.

Meaning it is kind of like teaching a language in a engineering school: sure it is needed, but you can't just go all hardline on your requirements if you teach that class, otherwise you're going to lose everybody, because someone who studied engineering may have done so precisely with the background that they were bad with languages during school.

Same here. Art students are generally not the abstract maths type (although there are exceptions). My goal is to teach them at least that maths can be a very good tool in their belt if they want to know how things will work out before put into reality.

I still try to demand a lot of the students and they will certainly leave better educated than they entered. I just have to do it more in a boil-the-frog-way, presenting math as a way that allows us to avoid having to do unnecessary work or spend unnecessary money. This works pretty well.

I could of course also do it like my predecessor and just do a lecture on the physics of light, writing down equations nobody will understand and then have 90% fail and curse at my existence. But I don't really see the point of why I would want to do that in terms of the outcome.

The one most important goal many beginning (or bad) educators miss is making students care before going all explainy. My subjects are very practical (Media technology, Electronics) and I have repeatedly seen students who understand a theoretical explaination and then fail utterly to apply what was explained in a practical situation. Coincidentally the latter makes most of them care instantly.

The solution in my case was to weave the theory together with something practical tangible. If everybody knows what they are working towards, and you weave in small practical tasks where it has to be applied that knowledge serves a purpose and students are much, much more willing to understand.

When you then go all meta and details after they understood what it is for and how it is used that worked much better than front loading the a struct stuff.

So (1) the dumb explainations that avoid them hurting themselves or breaking things, geared towards "this is what we need in 5 minutes", (2) applying the dumb thing to a practical solution, (3) theory how does it actually work, (4) another practical thing, this time armed with knowledge, watching out for details that we now notice because of knowing the theory.

Students soak that up like sponges. But teaching is hard, especially if the knowledge levels of the students in a group are disparate or you have students that aren't actually fit to receive education for mental reasons in that moment.

Sure using the mysteriously free webmail client of that ad-company may be convenient, but the people who have to interact with you (or with whom you chose to interact) did maybe not make that choice. Forcing on them is not only rude, it should be illegal.

I am not saying you need to run your own mailserver (although I do, mailcow is great), but maybe paying for an email service that respects your another peoples privacy makes sense in a world where a single email is the key to your kingdom.

And I say that because AI that writes responses has to read your mails first. I am sure Google won't use that gathered information for any other purpose than suggesting a reply. /s

I think he would face discipline from his airline after the fact, but in the moment, he is in charge.

This is pretty wide of the mark. They have a lot of authority, yes, as it's the flipside of the flight's safety being their responsibility. They still aren't allowed to assault a passenger, say, or commit tax fraud, or needlessly break the air laws.

Also, while the plane is en route? As in, the captain throwing someone out of the plane mid-flight?

And yes, the captain's authority is greater while the plane is en route compared to on the ground. En route the captain can divert pretty much anywhere if they think it's the right thing to do. They can dump fuel over the ocean or even over houses if they believe the alternative is worse. When the plane is on the ground realistically all they're going to do for anything is deplane everyone, either at the gate or via an evacuation.

What are some things Israeli settlers shout before they murder Palestinians? Shout a couple of those on a plane and see what happens.