I use it with Spark on macOS and iOS (Spark Classic) and it just works. Archiving works fine, marking as spam actually moves and 'activates' Fastmail's training. There's email masks, aliases, the UI is always fast and responsive in the web view when I go there.

> Luck for some, risk management for others. Regardless, informed consent is important imho. Relevant precedence is ETFs that exclude Big Tech.

Yup. Coupling this change with "oh, and btw, we also want the option to be able to only put out annual or biannual earnings reports not quarterly" means "We want to offload even more risk."

The way he phrases it makes it clear he doesn't consider himself or his peers as part of the "citizenry". I suppose subjects or peasants or peons might have been a bit too on the nose, even for him.

The one that Apple discontinued not because of demand but memory pricing?

Isn't there a possibility they were killed because the M5 Ultra is coming why waste memory on a M3 series Ultra or any other high memory Mac Studio computer when the next generation is coming within six months?

Possible, to be sure. But given that you could still buy the cheesegrater Mac Pro (with RAM and disk at 2019 prices, and a 2019 CPU at 2019 prices) right up to the week that the the M2 Ultra Mac Pro was announced, that would be something new. Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, to be sure, but still.

And then one that grinds my gears, perhaps more than it should: there's no way to change the default browser without explicit user action or consent.

But do that and the very next thing that happens when you try to open a browser or a link in an email?

"Your browser has been changed from Safari to Chrome. Would you like to use Safari or keep using Chrome?" and for a little salt, the default is "Use Safari".

I mean the goal is that you have multiple earnings report to show sustainability.

Meanwhile some of these companies are also lobbying to be able to only have to submit annual or biannual earnings reports, too.

Everyone is looking for multiple ways to leave the dumb money holding the bag.

Very true. Anthropic just raised money at the end of last week.

There's no way they could have done that without telling those investors the S-1 was prepared and awaiting their signature on the round before they hit Submit, so to speak.

Potentially. However, depending on the nature of the interaction, abandonment is equally a concern for a provider. If I'm treating or begin care of a hypoglycemic patient (and I'm not saying that in this case, such a thing has happened), then legally, I can be found guilty of abandonment if I don't transfer care to a higher level provider or conclude the course of treatment or intervention planned. I can't just say "I can't do anything for you, you're on your own."

I think we are saying the same thing. There is a line that triggers obligation and liability. If the location is abigious or the liability is extremely high, then there is incentive to error on the side of avoidance.

This might mean not taking a patient or class of patients into care.

THat's fair.

One other point to note, in general) is that depending on your provider type, avoidance may not be an option. On duty EMS cannot "avoid" a patient encounter, likewise with emergency medicine (though I'm honestly not sure whether immediate/urgent care is considered there, too).

> It's simply a factual matter that the rules that govern the country are those of the constitution.

How many times has this administration blatantly ignored the Constitution, starting with, for a simple example, separation of powers?

You're all locked in on "scientists should be beholden to the government, as that is the lay and law of the land" which ignoring the rather large mote that is "this current government couldn't give one single fuck about following the laws of the land", like issuing directives to federal agencies to consider federal court rulings as "advisory" or "not final" or "not applicable".

When the corruption of the law of the land starts at the top, you're busy insisting that those trying to follow the stated intention of the institutions that employ them ignore that because, well, what RFK Jr or worse, Stephen Miller, are the way we do things now, law, constitution be damned.

I don't think any of that is relevant to the argument. The fact of the matter is that Congress controls spending of taxpayer dollars, and at times has delegated some of the details of that to the executive branch.

There's no law that says "only scientists and subject matter experts can decide where grant money goes". Congress has largely left it up to the executive branch to set up a group of people, with whatever qualifications it wants (such as "loyal sycophant to the president"), to make these decisions.

I agree that this administration has taken a huge dump on the constitution, but that's a completely separate issue.

We can be angry that this what's happening, and adamant that scientists and experts should be making these decisions, but the people elected a Congress and President that wants to go another way, and that's how our system of government is set up.

We'll have to do better this November and in 2028 if we want to change things.

It's never a valid argument to say that we should ignore the law in one context because someone isn't following the law in a completely different context.

The question of whether scientists should have independence from the political system in deciding how to spend taxpayer funds is one that can be answered entirely starting from the principles of our republican government, without any consideration of what else the current administration may or may not be doing.

Yup. Even though it requires an explicit user action to make Chrome your default browser, don't worry, next time you click on a link, Apple will pop up a dialog saying that your default has changed, and your options are "Use Safari", or "Keep using Chrome", and guess what the default option is?