This happened to me when Amazon KDP's fraud prevention AI hallucinated that my Kindle version was plagiarizing my paperback (yes, it's the same book). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40992654
Unfortunately, I'm not sure a human ever really looked at my case, or was strongly disincentivized to go against the AI. I got nothing but bland, contentless denials of my appeals that got vaguer each time. And I was never able to go viral, so I'm banned from KDP for life for complete nonsense.
I think my mom spends several hours a week talking to a live person at Compuserve because she lost her password or various other reasons. They don't seem to be under any time pressure and are happy to chat with her as long as she wants.
My first serious web programming job was creating a complicated web-app with lots of JavaScript that had to support IE-4/4.5/5 and Netscape Communicator.
I don't miss those days at all... A major client of my employer around 2000-2001 was "standardized" on Netscape 4.06. And I was expected to make stack diagrams and Gantt charts. I wrote an abstraction library just to draw boxes on the screen targeting the IE/NN 4x/5x differences, having to cover the screen in NN while "drawing" just to prevent the flickering effect causing someone a seizure. ILayer/IFrames, ugh... dynamic forms were horrible, having to mirror multiple forms into a composite hidden field form next to the submit button.
So many hacks... Not to mention the IE 5.0.0 select api bug, or the later uncatchable error in IE8's JSON parser... those were some rough years.
Well, JavaScript didn't have a ton of features back then to muddy up the waters. So that helped. And no frameworks kept things simple.
The most complex part was a dynamic query builder where you could pick columns and various kinds of filters. We could have gone to the server each time the user changed the query, but I found it a lot snappier to do it all with document.write().
For a while, JavaScript was shunned by a lot of web shops. Applets and Flash were the future! Then Google Maps came out and showed what you could really do, and JS became cool again.
I finally figured out the confusion here. What a terribly worded article. Could mean two different things:
1) Some kind of third-party account (whatever that is) can no longer check (fetch) emails from Gmail via POP. I have a test suite that uses POP to fetch emails from Gmail, so this concerns me.
2) Gmail itself can no longer fetch emails from other email accounts over POP (a feature I had no idea existed).
I guess it means #2. But it took me a long time to figure that out. You'd think a $trillion company could word things better.
I‘m using this feature, and I‘ve understood the article right away. Yes it’s #2, a little known but very useful feature that I have no idea how I‘ll replace.
Set your other accounts to forward them to your gmail with ARC headers, which gmail now supports. Used to be forwarding into gmail was almost unusable due to spam false positives, but I've found it to be significantly improved now (albeit not perfect).
I switched to doing this just last week (having been using POP3 previously). It's honestly a lot nicer in IMO, since the emails show up on the gmail side pretty much immediately instead of sometimes being delayed.
Unrelated, but I noticed this in your two comments and it seems to be something you do frequently—you’re using the wrong side of the quotation character as the apostrophe. You’re using ‘ but it should be ’. See the difference: I‘ll VS I’ll.
The page you linked to lists both ’ and ', in that order. There’s no point in being (wrongly) pedantic about either, both have strengths and weaknesses (explained in the Wikipedia pages). The point is that if someone cares to use proper typographic characters not immediately visible in the keyboard (which the person I replied to seems to), they probably care to use the right ones. Both ’ and ' are correct, but ‘ is not.
It’s interesting that you say there’s no point in being pedantic but this entire boring subthread started because you were pedantic about punctuation. A character really doesn’t matter.
Please don’t engage in bad faith. My post was very clear about its goal. It’s one thing to wrongly “correct” someone (as the poster above me did) and quite another to notice that someone is taking the care to do something but is making a mistake, and politely point them in the right direction.
Just because you don’t care about something doesn’t make it worthless or boring. If I didn’t think the OP cared I wouldn’t have pointed it out. Above all my point was constructive and took the other person’s interests into account, it was not a pedantic critique.
If you find the matter boring, I encourage you to move along. Prolonging it seems counterproductive.
Hmm, I transitioned from Gmail to my own domain years ago, but it's still Gmail. However, I'm still both receiving and sending mail from my old @gmail.com address, using POP. Do you know if that's still possible?
I also have an old Gmail account that I don't use directly anymore. Instead of POP, I set it up to forward everything to my mailbox.org account. It works for me this way for several years now. The only issue is that I don't get the spam forwarded, so you can't see if there are false positives. You can still see it in Gmail if you occasionally log in. For me, since this is a rarely used account, the spam I get is usually indeed spam, so I don't miss it. It might be different for a more active account, though.
For sending in Mailbox.org webmail there is a thing called alternative senders where I can add email addresses to send from. I have something similar on my Android K9 app, where it's under Manage identities where I can also add the allowed senders.
I set it up a long time ago this way and I'm unsure of I had to somehow configure Gmail to be able to send from my other account. But I have the same also for @live.com and @zoho.com as I was trying different providers. This allows me to easily reply to forwarded emails with the old email addresses.
Google Workspace handles this nicely (for $10/month...). I used to use the to-be-deprecated feature but ran into some occasional issues, so I bit the bullet to go to Workspace.
Feels overkill just to achieve the same outcome as we previously had for free, though.
The other account may provide IMAP but it won't help you because GMail only supports POP (which is now going away). GMail does NOT support IMAP for 3rd party accounts.
The GMail mobile app does support IMAP, but that is different from GMail as a service supporting it. The mobile app having IMAP support does nothing for people who use a web browser.
It's a shame. I use this functionality to retrieve and delete messages from other mailboxes on a daily basis in order to use Gmail as my primary email interface.
The problem is unless you know what "third-party accounts" means, it's ambiguous as to which account is being connected to and which account is doing the connecting over POP. "Gmail will no longer support checking emails from [thing I'm unclear on] over POP."
The whole sentence hinges on knowing that Gmail itself can (or could) become a client and go out to other email accounts and fetch emails over POP. In my mind I'm wondering, "Are they talking about something like where Slack connects to gmail?"
#2 was frequently used as a spam filter for private domain emails that don't want to deal with setting up spam filters on their mail servers. I used this a decade or so ago in one of my online store it was very good at spam filtering and you get to use one webmail client to process all your emails from different domains.
I have a test suite that accesses a gmail account through POP. It's a regular gmail account. Will that be affected?
Edit: Okay I think not. But man is this confusing over whether it's Gmail that's doing the fetching over POP (a feature I had no idea existed) or somehting they're calling a third-party account fetching Gmail emails over POP.
This never happened to me in a job interview before I turned 40. But once I knew I was too old to look the part, and therefore and had to knock it out of the park, mind blank came roaring in. I have so much empathy now for anyone it ever happened to when I was giving the a job interview. Performing under that kind of pressure has nothing to do with actual ability to do the job.
Nick Fuentes built his entire empire on hating Charlie Kirk, and his fans (groypers) are insane. Laura Loomer just came out and attacked Kirk a couple days ago. It's entirely possible he was fragged from the right.
I’ve thought this as well. There is a lot of disagreement within political parties. Given the polarization, I’d wager this is more true today.
You may be stuck with extreme people you disagree with despite leaning one way or another. You just want to dabble in politics but supporters of the parties can be rabid. It can be even harder to get a word out within the echo chamber.
Yeah I don’t care about haxxor789 on hackernews either. Could be an llm, a foreign agent or a teenage troll. The more divisive the event the less I trust the online comments.
Yes but in the aggregate, you can make inferences about public sentiment. I guess I've just resolved to be more tuned-in to what's going on in the world. I do admit, it's not for everyone...
I saw the comments everywhere from right-wingers, saying all left-wingers should be rounded up and imprisoned or killed. Are those the comments you're talking about?
It's really not great of all those right-wingers to advocate for violence against those they disagree with.
Of course, both you and I probably saw carefully curated outrage feeds, rather than actual data. I'm sure the actual data shows those openly advocating for violence are the minority across the board.
Are you seriously "both sidesing" this? Or wait, you're "neither siding" this, saying that it's all an artifact of the algorithm. Well, okay. I don't know what to say to that!
Well yeah, I assume that every consumer of social media knows that the major ones actively curate posts that make you angry, because they've calculated that you will stay on the site longer if you're outraged than if you're happy, and more time on the site makes them more money selling you as the product.
That's to say nothing of the discovery years ago that malicious actors, foreign nation states in particular, engage in influence operations on the sites with bots. Some do this to swing opinion to their side, others have bots inflammatorily posting on both sides of an issue just to foment unrest among the populace.
My comment above was to illustrate this: that what you see on the site isn't what everybody is posting on the site. Likewise for me. We both look at the same algorithmically-run site and are served with 2 totally different experiences, and I guess now you can see why.
In short, no matter what social media company you patronize, it likely does not have your best interests in mind, and definitely is not a statistically representative sample of people.
You've dodged the question twice now - which prominent left-wing politicians are applauding this?
I've seen all kinds of reactions, but the only one I've seen from political officials is condemnation. On both sides of the aisle, regardless of what the x.com peanut gallery insists on.
I'm not dodging the question, I refuse to accept that your question is relevant to the discussion just because you think it'll make your point for you (the wrong point, but hey, you'll take any win you can get when you don't have a logical way to attack an argument I suppose)
If we are going to use rando twitters to define groups of people, the right are white nationalists and support the mass murder of civilians. They vote too!
> So, every poster on the internet is a real and authentic person saying real and authentic things? Cmon, try harder.
> Sample garbage and you get garbage results.
Are you saying that it's mostly AI? What are you saying exactly?
Okay, where can I get reality? Maybe I can get it from the news media, who will just take a sampling of posts on the internet? Maybe I can get it from academia, who will do the same? Or can I cut out the middlemen?
I'm literally reading them now in this HN comment section.
Surreal it is. Even if you were a twisted leftist who was totally happy with this, you'd think you'd keep quiet, or at least limited it to "he was mean but violence bad ok?" - but can't hold back their implicit support for the killing - almost peeved that we're bothered about his killing and not focusing on the mean things he said.
Like, the brazenness of it.
Even the dishonesty of your own comment - what prominent left wing figure would be so demented as to destroy their career by publicly supporting this, even if they do in fact support it.
The real mentality of the left are what we're seeing freely spewing out onto the internet now. They literally are as vile and twisted as all their strongest critics have said.
I agree, nobody prominent is celebrating this. Just a lot of people who vote. I have to confess, I don't really understand the point of this discussion. Nobody reading this is going to start out agreeing with me and then see your post and go "oh, yeah, good point, I guess it's fine that lots of people are celebrating this, because they aren't prominent!" I guess this means I have nothing more to say.
The point for most people is while there is plenty of hateful rethoric from left comment sections on the internet, unlike the right, you won't find the same energy amongst the political leadership.
Someone can go from relative unknown to POTUS in just a few years. Candidates appear out of nowhere these days (probably because it's hard to find candidates who have a clean record). I look to the voting public as the driver of tone for political parties, not the leaders, who are fleeting.
If you are getting this worked up by anonymous comments on the internet it is time to touch grass. I promise you the sun will still rise in the morning no matter what some teenage edgelord posts.
Do you think that "anonymous comments" are not backed by real humans? Do you think that the internet is a magical bubble with no relation to the real world? Touch all the grass you want, roll in it, eat that grass, mulch it up and drink it, I'll stick to understanding humans by what they SAY on the internet, thank you very much.
It's not impossible, but I find this to be very unlikely.
Nick Fuentes has repeatedly condemned political violence for years, he and his followers have also been trying to get Kirk to debate him, so killing is counter-productive from that perspective. Furthermore, the "attacks" by Laura Loomer that I've seen don't get anywhere near calling for violence.
If you were going to have an organized hit from some kind of unnamed leftist extremist group, I could think of a dozen more impactful targets than Kirk off the top of my head. So I don't know how much sense that theory makes either.
If it's a lone nut, that could come from anywhere.
> It's not impossible, but I find this to be very unlikely.
Now that it turned out to be a groyper, you'll have to recalibrate your priors. Turns out it's the people who buy the most guns who are the most violent.
> Now that it turned out to be a groyper, you'll have to recalibrate your priors.
It did not "turn out to be a groyper". There is zero substantial evidence for this claim, its a complete fabrication. Elle Reeve, a journalist at CNN who has followed the far-right since the infamous Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally in 2017, said of those claiming that the shooter was a Groyper that, "It’s like they’re grasping at vapor."
Saying "there is zero substantial evidence" is cope at this point, they caught the guy. There was zero substantial evidence for it being a leftist/immigrant/woke/trans person. Now that they have the person, all evidence is pointing the other way: terminally online/incel/white/Mormon/rural/gamer/gun nut. Those people aren't leftists, they're groypers. So you have to update your estimate from "very unlikely" to "actually pretty likely".
> There was zero substantial evidence for it being a leftist/immigrant/woke/trans person.
I've did not claim it was someone who is trans, an immigrant, or woke, however all evidence currently available points to him being a leftist. Some people early on were lead to believe that the shooter was trans due to reports of "trans-ideology" being found on the casings, but that was a rash, pre-mature extrapolation. The relevant text can be attributed to a wider array of groups/online sub-cultures (notably, the text cannot be clearly attributed to the groypers).
There is, however, evidence that the shooter was on the far-left.
1. Terminology used by the radical-left-wing to slander Kirk found on the casings ("hey fascist! CATCH!"). No Groyper would ever use such a phrase, they don't think of Kirk as a fascist and themselves get accused of being fascists.
2. Reference to an anti-fascist song most often played by far-left figures, particularly those identifying themselves as "anti-fascist".
3. A high school friend described the killer as being left-leaning on issues and that he was the only member of his family who was a leftist. This is hearsay so I take it with a grain of salt, but its still important evidence which fits perfectly with the other points.
Furthermore, all of the "evidence" you put forward cannot be considered by any reasonable person to be evidence that someone is a Groyper.
1. Being online a lot isn't evidence that someone is a Groyper. Massive numbers of apolotical, right-leaning, and left-leaning people are "terminally online".
2. I am aware of no evidence at this point that the killer was an "incel" in the sense that the term is typically used.
3. Being white does not make someone a Groyper. Funnily enough, on the contrary, among the online far-right the groypers are often accused of being non-white due to their relative openness to other racial groups.
4. Being Mormon is not evidence of being a Groyper. On the contrary, Catholics are most represented among the groypers with only a few figures being Mormon.
5. Playing video games is not evidence that someone is a Groyper.
6. I am aware of no evidence at this point that the killer was a "gun nut". Furthermore, even if he was, this would not be evidence that he was a Groyper since guns are not one of the primary issues addressed by groypers and would only tangentially be related.
In summary, none of what you said is evidence of your claims. I am begging you, and others, to engage honestly about this instead of spreading false claims.
An individual remix of a song added to a playlist, which most people have never heard of, multiple years ago does not make it a "groyper meme".
Before the other day when this misinformation campaign began, nobody ever associated the song with groypers. Its always been associated with anti-Fascist, anti-Nazi groups, which contain a completely different set of beliefs. In recent history the only people to ever use the song for political purposes have been left-wing groups: Protestors against the AfD in Germany, communist priest Andrea Gallo, movement against Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, left-wing protests against Meloni in Italy.
Combining the lack of substantial evidence of association with groypers with the history of the song being used by left-wing movements, in addition to the evidence in my post above and elsewhere, its clear that this cannot be reasonably associated with groypers by any evidence-oriented person.
Here's the shooter in a groyper halloween costume that his sister says is "from some meme": https://imgur.com/XeYByuq
"hey fascist! Catch! Up arrow, right arrow, three down arrow" is a video game reference from a video game called Helldivers 2 that groypers use all the time.
Every bullet casing had a different groyper meme on it. It's either a groyper or a really elaborate groyper false flag. Those are the only two options.
Acting like it's all a coincidence is just spreading disinfo. Thankfully the bots don't make it to HN very often, or this place would be a disaster.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure a human ever really looked at my case, or was strongly disincentivized to go against the AI. I got nothing but bland, contentless denials of my appeals that got vaguer each time. And I was never able to go viral, so I'm banned from KDP for life for complete nonsense.
reply