It's trivially easy to get BPA-free thermal paper now.

It used to be a lot worse, but now it's actually really low (I get to see all the pictures drawn, even if they don't go up into the final gallery).

Fixed now

A direct thing he wrote is "Britain should be a kingdom primarily for the Brits", where previously he has unambigiously defined "Brits" and "native Brits" as "white British people". That's racist.

The quote in the London post is

>There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.

with no mention of Brits being defined as "white British people". I'm not sure the source for the Brits=white thing?

When he's discussing "native Brits" he is clearly, if indirectly, referring to white British people. He links to a Wikipedia page as citation for his statistic, and that statistic on Wikipedia is _explicitly_ about white people.

He says 1/3 of London is now native brits. Given this article he links to, how else might you interpret that? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

The source is DHH himself. There is no other possible good faith interpretation of "about a third" "native Brits" based on the Wikipedia article he himself cited. I show this in the post: https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...

He links to some census statistics from Wikipedia about the demographic makeup of London over time, and then says:

> In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third

Those figures line up with the "White British" row of the table: 59.79% in 2001, 36.8% in 2021.

So it seems pretty clear his definition of "native Brit" means "White British person".

I think you might've shared the wrong ChatGPT conversation.

Hmmm I hope not. What does it show for you? For me when I open the link the prompt is the first of OPs examples.

Jelly itself does the sending, although we are exploring sending from your existing mail provider.

Please get in touch, we'd like to help.

Email sent!

Check your inbox <3

Jelly doesn't directly integrate with Office365 or any existing shared mailboxes, at least not at the moment. You just forward email into it, from any source, and then use the Jelly web application to collaborate on those emails.

In the future we'll be looking at ways to streamline the setup with existing mail providers like Google, Office365 and so on, but we're starting out simple. There are lots of teams sharing logins to single email accounts whose lives we want to improve.

Ah, okay. I’ll keep an eye on Jelly. It looks really nice and could be something they go for, though I know a nice smooth transition would be nice and the possibility of falling back to the shared mailbox if necessary.

I’ve thought about putting for serious effort to setup discourse like they explain using it as a ticketing system with email but this seems better.

This is why Jelly doesn't price-per-seat -- other tools get expensive, fast.

And those other tools do a lot more too, and they're definitely a great choice if you've got great revenue and dedicated customer support "agents", or you want AI to answer your 10,000 daily support queries.

Jelly tries to serve the rest of us: companies, teams and other groups who just want to collaborate on email, and not get stung in the wallet every time somebody new joins in.