FWIW, I have been using the companyname@mydomain.com auto-alias for many years now and I've never had it challenged nor rejected by a human or a machine.
Everybody knows name+something@ maps to name@ so it’s trivial for bad actors to strip the plus part and just spam you directly, losing the per-correspondent distinction.
Which is covered by GP's second suggestion. I add short random password-like strings to these aliases to thwart spammers who might be trying obvious aliases, turning e.g paypal@example.com into paypal.nsi873g@example.com
On Gmail foo+bar@gmail.com is an “alias” for foo@gmail.com. So if you give someone foo+randomstring@gmail.com hoping that will help you map random string to that particular sender, you’re fucked - because anyone who sees foo+randomstring@gmail.com knows it’s an alias for foo@gmail.com, they can just email that directly and bypass your cleverness.
If you’re using a sane alias provider like you described, then it’s likely not an issue.
To be fair, I think the fractured rights thing is a big thing a well. I can subscribe to one music service - Spotify, Amazon, Apple, Tidal - and pretty much every new release is available on all of them (or risk a terrible opening week/zero buzz if you go for the 'exclusive' - but ever then, available a week or so later).
The movie/TV companies sell their show to the SVOD platform that offers the most in the territory. Or it's developed by the service themselves. So if you have to subscribe to a handful of services to watch everything your friends recommend.
Most of us can afford one music service. If you're forced into 5 streaming services a lot of people will just pirate. And even for those that do pay - the "we'll show this in the UK a week later than the US" means unless you pirate it, it's spoiled on social media within a few days.
The economics of shoving the entire output of the entertainment industry on a single $15/mo streaming service don't work out. It arguably doesn't even work that well for music. Ask any musician that doesn't rake in platinum records how well Spotify works out for them.
Less money and competition in the entertainment industry means less total content production and less impetus for funding riskier productions.
If you look back at American TV in the 20th century, so much of it was samey and bland because there were only 3-4 programs to choose from at any given time. It was hard to get networks to greenlight anything that didn't fit an already proven formula.
This started to change with cable and streaming. Consumers suddenly had a lot more options, and were also spending a lot more money. You had a lot more networks trying to stand out, and they put out riskier shows that rejected decades of TV norms.
Now that the industry is consolidating again, networks and studios are back to being much more risk averse, and that is hurting the quality of their output.
Personally, I don't think the answer is more all-you-can-eat subscriptions, it's frustrating for consumers and even moreso for creators. I wonder if some kind of usage-based compensation would work, where users can choose between watching a show with ads, or paying 25 or 50 cents per episode to watch ad-free.
Short film SF production house / curated YouTube channel DUST has been around for years, and appear to have a business model that works for them. And while I do not know anything about their finances, and I doubt they make blockbuster money, their content is typically more enjoyable to watch than most stuff I see streaming elsewhere.
Why would I pay for anything when I can make an exact copy without taking away the original?
If you want to argue about copyright infringement, do, but don't equate it to theft. That's an old and tired argument that isn't useful for setting policy.
Because you're an adult who understands that software, films, music, art, books, etc all have (significant) financial costs to produce and the people who make them have a right to the fruit of their labor as long as those fruits are required for them to continue eating. And because it's obvious you are not making an exact copy, because the original is legally licensed and the copy is not.
I'm sure you'd feel this way about someone stealing your identity, right? After all, your SSN can be copied exactly without taking away the original. Just ignore all externalities to the specific act of copying.
Plagiarism is another thing that's super cool under this strictly "immediate and physical" worldview of morality. There's no reason anyone would ever want to stop it, since it isn't tangibly destructive and we don't think of secondary effects when setting policy.
I know it's because you personally get something out of it, but I cannot even fathom trying to say this trite with a straight face. At least be a grown up and just say you want free stuff and don't care if it hurts upstream, like the rest of us. I really can't stand this new-age moral grandstanding piracy where you pretend you aren't a petty thief.
I think you've missed the point of my comment entirely. The point was, don't equate copyright infringement to theft; they're separate activities. If you want to argue that copyright infringement is unethical, argue that, but don't make a trite analogy to "shoplifting" and drop the mic.
As for the rest: I have consistently argued that copyright should not exist, and I will continue to do so. I think it's a net loss.
When these companies make their services so painful and inconvenient, of course people are going to go to (less ethical but more convenient) alternatives.
Certainly there's some, though I would gladly pay for downloadable drm free copies. I have no problem paying, but I do have a problem renting, which is all the digital purchases today are, despite marketing propaganda
Obscure musicians never made a lot of money. That's not Spotify's fault. It's just a. Industry where the majority doesn't make it. Gigs are still the main way to earn money for them.
And for video it wouldn't have to be $15. People easily pay $50-80 for cable channel packages. A comprehensive streaming service could cost similar. The willingness to pay is there. I'm just really sick of this shit paying for tons of different services.
When Netflix was the only game in town I subscribed to it. And prime later. But now I've dropped all my subs and gone back to the jolly roger. As have many people I know.
We have a saying in Holland: he who looks too deep in the can gets the lid on his nose. It's a bit akin to the American saying of having your cake and eat it. But the thing is there's lucky so many profits you can extract especially if you're competing with free but more hassle.
I think you need an 'a' in there? Or an 's' at the end?
I'd also explain that ever so slightly more - something like:
"Turns your Slack & Email into a living task list.
Weesp is an AI bot that works inside your existing Slack and Email apps to make sure you get things done."
Something like that. Set up the premise for the rest of the page without me scrolling, basically.
2 small requests that (I think) would help with the UX: consider moving (or duplicating) the play button - maybe directly in the middle below the editor, or on that panel itself. It took me a few confusing seconds to realise where it was. Also, could you consider making each fourth (or first) column a very slightly lighter grey? So if I want my kick on 1, 3, 10 and 11 it's really easy to see where to click without counting?
> Also, could you consider making each fourth (or first) column a very slightly lighter grey
This could be a component logic; a row of drop downs for customizing the UI and a good examples are color and grid count. This could even be a toml/json config file that can be imported/exported.
My own addition is ability to import samples from my own device.
Diet and exercise is the first thing. In my specific case saturated fats and sugars increase my LDL. I take fiber pills (pulls out cholesterol containing compounds used in digestion), “Red Yeast Rice” which is the yeast that makes statins - I’m taking it as a low dose statin -, Bergamot extract which interferes with cholesterol production, and Plant Sterols which block dietary cholesterol absorption.
Six months will show if it’s working. If not I’ll go on a full dose of a statin.
There's something deeply connecting (and often very moving) about listening to a record and having your attention forced on it. So much that I usually start by thinking "I hope they turn it up," and by the end, when it has your sole focus, it's almost deafening.
When I travel for work, being in meetings all day and in an unusual place can be draining. Many years ago, I developed the habit of when I get back to my hotel room:
* Turn off all the lights
* Lay flat on my back in bed
* Put on headphones
* Listen to a few songs and give them my full attention
It very much helps me unwind after a long day. But it's also astonishing how much more I hear in the music itself when I do this. I remember the first time I listened to Portishead's "Wandering Stars" this way, I could immediately hear the slight push and pull where the organ riff isn't exactly on beat. I'd never noticed that (consciously) before.
Some years ago, I snagged a great deal on some Sennheiser HD600s. After also acquiring a Schiit stack (Magni + Modi) and finding high-quality audio sources, I would close my eyes, lay down on the couch, and just listen...actually, I'll call it perceive the music. No other audio experience compares, just like a huge screen which fills your vision is truly the best way to experience a movie.
Virtually all people on the planet perceive the world with their eyes but push the other four physical senses into the background. There's good reason for this reality, of course: of our five physical senses, the eyes are capable of providing the richest information. And yet, most discussion around increasing perceptual abilities are vision-centric. Learning to perceive with your ears, smell, touch, and taste in addition to eyes should also be learned.
I’ve been producing music as a side interest for a long time, and I learned early on that to really hear what’s going on during a mix I have to close my eyes and wait about 30 seconds for my ears to “open up”. My visual sense overrides the soundstage — I can make some technical choices about frequency masking and so forth, but I can’t fully hear with eyes open.
Similarly, it places you in a room, turns off the lights, and you listen to an audio performance. Though it is more soundscapes interlaced musically than the Pitch Black Playback's focus on albums.
Yeah but a callback is just a reference to a previous joke, not a tying together of unrelated points. Does the latter have a name? It seems so hard that I can't remember seeing it much.
I fully get this, but I think the reality is more complicated.
Prior to Spotify, if you didn't have money you were pirating. Whilst there was something magical about knowing every drumfill on an album as a 15 year old because you could only afford to buy one or two a month, Spotify absolutely opened up the world. As a listener you could discover without cost or piracy. Being a musician (that made money) was never easy, but now it could be done without a label and with some hustle.
Aside from a few 'Tidal only' exclusives, the music industry has mostly avoided the fractured model the TV and Film industry suffers from. Pretty much every record ends up on pretty much every service (as opposed to me needing to subscribe to Netflix, Prime and Disney).
It pains me to think we'll end up (back) in a world where you need 3 subscriptions (or worse) piracy. And sure, people could go back to buying every record, but they won't.
Anyway. Complicated.
And FWIW, I agree, Spotify does itself zero favours and could do soooo much better for artists.
I've recently discovered there's a lot of stuff like covers even by relatively mainstream artists that you can get from YouTube Music but not on the other platforms like Spotify.
What could they do? They have a pot of all the money they make, 70% gets paid out to artists, 30% goes to Spotify. Same as Tidal, more than Apple Music. Any plan will involve shuffling around the same pot of money and the last time they tried to "concentrate" the money by dropping songs with less than 1000 plays everyone hated it.
Zooming out to all the services, how the royalty model currently works out is that's all the money there is in streaming. And divided up it's pennies. All that can be reasonably done is shift how we allocate it. And large rightsholders who have the most leverage love the current system where the allocation is by total plays globally across the service.
name+service@gmail.com or service@myowndomain.com
...to figure out where the spam originated?