Re: I had/have a related problem
Although it wasn't necessarily "leaked by the university" was it? if an external sender sent a mail to co.uk instead of ac.uk that has not been leaked by the university.
1434 publicly visible posts • joined 15 Jul 2008
Single-click cancel might be a bit susceptible to accidental clicks, and I think most people would accept a single, simple, "are you sure".
However this bit:
"Without understanding why they are being asked to check another box, consumers may either not check the boxes or abandon the purchase altogether due to confusion."
Like the "I have read the terms and conditions" check box, the "I have read the privacy policy" check boxes nonsense we have to go through these days?
Not sure what they did to deserve that. It's true that you can use your own web server to publish information and share the links.
Not really a substitute for chatting a-la twitter but it's a decent way to publish stuff. A business whose web address is a facebook page just looks unprofessional.
yeah, it's not unbridled capitalism vs. North Korea-style communism. It's a continuum not all-or-nothing. That would be a false dichotomy. You can have mostly capitalism with regulation and restriction and socially responsible policies.
You have to give the regulators teeth though.
Some of those so-called office phrases are used outside of work. I am sure I have heard things like "Deep Dive", it's pretty obvious what it means especially in context.
Some are useful while others are clearly BS.
I didn't see my personal least favourite which is "Revert" misused to mean "Respond".
Same....I use a couple of domains via IONOS for my email and some family members. Recently this gmail bounce thing started, had to figure out the SPF via IONOS, which fortunately they make easy for slightly-technical users but non-techies would have no clue about adding an entry to a DNS, or even what DNS means.
Then a month later, same on another domain. They seem to be rolling it out gradually.
Shouldn't that be "Regularly"?
But this is the fault of the user, as many have pointed out. Like that previous case with the guy suing an airline who got fictional previous cases from ChatGPT because he thought it was a kind of "Super search engine".
Hopefully the fact that this is not the case is becoming more well-known.
"There's far more content hosted on sites in domains in the original gTLDs and ccTLDs than I'll ever get to. I don't see any need to pay attention to anything sitting in any of the new TLDs."
My understanding was that the context was blocking emails, not talking about which web sites you choose to surf to.
Isn't that like blocking a whole country just because some scammers are there? or taking it to the extreme, some spam comes from a .com domain so .com must mean spam? Clearly that last one is not true but it's only a matter of degree.
Someone should be able to buy and use a valid domain without being tarred by the scam/spam brush.
> You're still accesable over the Internet regardless of where your business is physically registered to.
So if Twitter don't care about Aussie laws they won't complain if the Aussie gov tries to block it. Seems fair.
The average user has no idea what a database is, so they don't turn to one when they have a requirement that needs one.
Whereas they are familiar with spreadsheets and if the requirement seems to be like a big spreadsheet, that's what they'll use.
I do wish all the "helpful" formatting (convert to date etc) was turned OFF by default though.