GMail disagrees with you, because GMail users disagree with you. They are clicking "report spam" on your emails. Whether or not you think what you're sending is spam, the recipients think it is, and that's what matters. (Based on the other comments in this thread it's not hard to see why they might think so.)
Users definitely click "report spam" in large numbers on things that are not spam. At work we've long had problems of getting reported for spam when the only things we send are:
• A receipt when a person comes to our site and purchases something.
• Their license key if what they purchased requires a license key.
• Replies if they send email to customer support.
• If they have purchased an automatically renewing subscription we email a receipt after it renews or a notice that it was declined if the charge does not go through. This is required by the major credit card companies.
• If they have an automatically renewing subscription and they are on a plan other than monthly we send a reminder before it tries to renew. This is required by the major credit card companies and by the consumer protection laws in many jurisdictions.
> If they have purchased an automatically renewing subscription we email a receipt after it renews (..) This is required by the major credit card companies.
The problem here is that "we are legally required to send it" and "our customers want to receive it" aren't necessarily the same thing. I'd probably be pretty annoyed by those if I had more than a few subscriptions!
I have a really simple algorithm to reporting something as spam:
> Was this email solicited by me?
The author describes unsolicited emails and somehow misses the point that spam is a term for unsolicited emails.
The reminder email in your list sounds unsolicited, so I'd probably report that one as spam as well. I wasn't aware it was mandatory, probably because it's not where I live.
My transactional inboxes are mostly clean as a result. My "spam" inbox, however, is full of crap (the email I use to sign up to freemium services).
I would describe myself as strict and dogmatic about email etiquette and consent as they come, but I am with avianlyric about the subscription reminders.
Legal requirements aside — when I have an ongoing business relationship with a company, "we are about to take money from you again" is an expected, useful and welcome message.
Last week, my monitoring system sent me 20k emails in a few hours in response to a server attack.
When those hit my gmail inbox, gmail marked them all as spam. Myself, the user, did not mark them as spam. Gmail did that for me. But their reputation system is behaving as if 20k people marked 20k emails from us as spam.
In response to those 20k emails marked as spam, now our domain sender reputation with gmail is LOW, and our low volume of legitimate email with customers goes to their spam folders.
The gmail client gives me no way to unmark these messages as spam, except to click on each message, one at a time, and dig into a submenu to find the "Not spam" button.
Perhaps a stupid question, but why do notifications need to be stored in a database in persistent storage at all?
OK, maybe they can be stored until they're dismissed in case the battery suddenly dies, so they can be displayed again on next boot and are not lost, but it sounds like they are being stored long after they are dismissed.
This is the sort of economics that small companies face when working with large companies, particularly when physical things/CAPEX are involved. Large companies expect net 30/60 terms to pay you. That's much simpler for their accounting/purchasing department. This bureaucracy occasionally necessitates nudging, especially if the intermediary you're dealing with didn't set up the invoice request on time in whichever SAP/Salesforce/Oracle system they use.
This is usually the same the other way; many vendors will give business clients net 30. That's nice if you're a small company and need to plan ahead. But occasionally, because you're considered small (liability), some vendors will want the money up-front. So unless you're very careful with cashflow, you end up in situations where your main sources of income (big contracts) are coming in after you need to spend money on a widget to fulfill deliverables.
Depending on the situation, the contract can demand the client purchase/ship things and work doesn't start until you have them in hand. This is usually the best route as you now have an out, and it's not an unreasonable request, but it doesn't always pan out that way!
I took "good client" to mean, "is easy to work with/communicates well/knows what they want", not just "pays on time". The inverse being, the ones who don't pay on time were already a pain in the ass to work with.
There have been so many cases of Apple, Google, etc. doing this that it's hard to have any sympathy for them at this point. If it was some grandma who didn't know better that would be another story, but the author was surely aware
- that Apple *can* always *just* disable their account
- that Apple regularly *does* do that
- that Apple does not care about them at all
and they chose to bet their entire digital life on Apple's benevolence anyway. They lost that bet.
We need more stories like this hitting the mainstream news until even a non-technical person's reaction to this is "well, what did you expect?"
The number of monsters on the screen doesn't seem to affect playing speed for me, but when the wall of fire appears it slows down the game very noticeably. (Using Firefox on desktop.)
Just tried it and, apart from the UI being highly confusing (you just get a blank workspace basically, and it's unclear how to see other DBs and objects in them) it seems to have no support for PG schemas. When I did manage to connect to my DB it showed me the tables in the "public" schema only.
ah, sorry for the confusion. That's because the last 20 trades are excluded from the table/chart if you don't have the appropriate access level to view, in this case a Gold membership. That means when you are looking at the chart / table with starting year 2022 you are only seeing the trades up to 3/24/2023 instead of the present.
Exactly, but if you compare to the market, even though 5.7% absolute returns is a poor 15 month performance, much of the model's relative outperformance came from those 15 months where at the same point, the SPX was still highly negative
> This is a pay-per-call work and we need you to join as a interviewee (not interview candidates) for technical calls.
> Are you strong enough to pass technical interview?
> We will pay $100 for per call whether you pass the call or not, but hope you try your best to keep working with us.
I've never seen this kind of thing in a legitimate job at. It smells like a scam to get bank details, especially combined with the very generic description here and lack of any company details.
That is the second-shortest job application form I've ever seen. (The shortest one asked for a name, email and LinkedIn without a free-text field. I think "who are you" is more important than "name".)
Yea right! People seem to like it :) the last one I posted here got more than 200 applicants, many curious, great minds here. Could the job ad be connected with how companies are building product?
I like the brevity of it, but I don't like the assumption that every good candidate will have everything that they want to share with a prospective employer on their LinkedIn page. Something like "Link to resume, LinkedIn, GitHub, etc. (whatever you want to show us)" would be more inclusive.
reply