I filter emails with the word "unsubscribe" into a separate folder (label in Gmail). If you can unsubscribe from it, it's probably not critical. The vast majority of transactional emails (password resets, magic login links, 2fa codes) don't have that wording in the email body.

This fails under CASL (Canadian Anti Spam Law) where transactional mail is required to provide an unsub mechanism. A lot of senders likely don’t bother personalising those emails based on recipient country.

There must be some nuance to this - e.g. I just double-checked a bank 2FA email from a bank that only has Canadian operations, and it doesn't have an unsub mechanism. I don't know how an unsubscribe mechanism for a 2FA email that you get after entering a correct password would even function.

The unsub would only be for marketing emails, not for transactional ones, even if included in the transactional email.

Maybe it’s ok to email a person after they click a button that says “mail me my 2fa” code? Not a lawyer but it feels right that if I say it’s ok to send me a one off email explicitly, it can omit an unsubscribe

I don't think I've ever seen a button that says "mail me my 2fa code". The workflow basically always goes like this:

1. I enter username/password and click "sign in". 2. Agorithms run on the server. 3. If the algorithms think "suspicious" I'm redirected to an "enter your emailed code" page and automatically send me an email.

In any case, the top of this thread was specifically referring to this type of transactional email.

Taking a quick look at my email history, I have a whole pile of transactional mail (from Canadian entities) with no unsubscribe links: a bank email notifying reception of a complaint, a bank email about my paycheque saying "You received this mandatory email alert to update you on transaction details", various order confirmation emails for things I purchased online, etc.

I see them all the time. Usually it’s in the form of “choose your 2FA method” and it gives you a choice between SMS/email/phone call or whatever.

I do this too, and in my experience, if it's important enough and I've missed it they'll call. Currently undergoing a major (positive) life event that's had more than a few of those cases. The other issue I run into is when somebody forwards me an email. I don't know if gmail filters can whitelist those but that's always led to me missing something important.

Allow people to build more housing. It's simple. These rules will help current renters at the expense of future Los Angelenos, make building more housing less desirable for developers, and will let local politicians pretend they solved the issue while actually doing the exact opposite.

Mostly nobody is against building more housing. The big issues, especially in California, are the Water supply issues. The cities largely run at capacity and the water system can't really handle the increased load. Then you have traffic and other safety concerns like electricity. It's not as simple as building more houses, it's a long road of improving infrastructure. I used to date a housing advocate who attended city hall hearings for a non profit, and no one objected, it would always get to close to being approved, then the water guy comes in and they can't do it.

Roughly 80% of developed water use in SoCal is agriculture. Population is a secondary concern when it comes to water use in the area. Severance of riparian rights through eminent domain is looking increasingly appealing.

Most people are for more housing somewhere else or with so many caveats that they are effectively against it.

Do we have specific numbers how much water costs and why? In a new place?

Most people have no number sense. E.g. the Brian Williams on-air segment where he (and apparently his presumably college-educated staff) thought a $500 million campaign investment by Bloomberg meant he could give every American $1 million. That's not just a simple math error--it's a fundamental lack of numerical intuition about society-scale numbers. Prices are even more complex--a dynamic equilibrium between supply and demand. You can't get people to understand that. You might as well expect them to do jumping jacks while standing on their hands.

You can't lecture people about supply and demand. What you need is an electorate that has correctly aligned gut feelings. You need to socialize people from birth to understand that "if you build more, you'll get more; if you build less, you'll get less." You know how your dad says "there's no such thing as a free lunch?" You need to socialize people at that level.

And this exact play has been run so many times, with the same bad results every single time. My only "hope" would be they would pair this limit with such aggressive housing increases that the overall practical effect of this is mitigated.

It was down for about 15 minutes for me. Up now.

Something like "allow app access to last photo" would be ideal for me

Why?

If they have access to the last photo ... every photo you ever took was the last photo. Why mess around giving app's permission to surveil/siphon off your photos at all?

Any carte blanche for apps, and apps will go to great lengths to take advantage of that in unexpected ways, and obscure the fact they are doing so.

And privacy losses can never be verifiably reversed.

All most apps need is for you to select photos to upload/import using an Apple supplied photo selector. So they only see and get exactly what you want them to have.

I’m presuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the app only gets access to your last photo when the photo picker is launched. It wouldn’t be able to slurp up every photo in the background.

We have taxes, but the current governing coalition is opposed to raising them.

Tariffs are taxes, they are not opposed to raising them, they just won't call them "taxes." It's honestly remarkable how effective they are in reaching their policy goals, because they understand their voter base extremely clearly. They know that their voters largely go off of key words, so by changing those words, one can make them support whatever policy one wants. It is amazing to witness, really.

Is this the sequel to another article?

The quantity and capriciousness of these tariffs are certainly unusual.

And these tariffs apply to the entire world for some reason?

God. The WTO penalties are gonna be epic (if much of this stuff ever actually goes into effect).

> I expect salaries for non FAANG devs to decrease while salaries for FAANG devs to increase slightly (given the increased value they can now make).

Are you implying that non-FAANG devs aren't able to do more with LLMs?

I'm non-FAANG and I'm so much more productive now. I am a fullstack dev, I use them for help with emails to non tech individuals, analyzing small datasets, code review, code examples.....it is wild how much faster I can develop these days. My job is actually more secure because I can do more, and OWN more mission critical software, vs outsourcing it.

If there is a good reason, the administration is welcome to communicate to the public. This is reportedly a democracy, after all.