I would be more cautious in generalizing this feeling. To me that interface feels daunting and cognitively taxing, compared to a CLI or command palette.
This is also not Reddit where you call for mods to remove things you find uncomfortable. I'd rather this guy be talked out of his delusions rather than letting him become more aggravated alone. Failing that, other people who were about to consider embarking on the same delusions would be hopefully discouraged by the rational replies.
> I'd rather this guy be talked out of his delusions
Do you have an estimate for the likelihood of success for that enterprise? Or, is the measure of success rather to prevent others from embarking on similar delusional pursuits irrespective of whether the original proponent abandoned them or not?
> Beyond that, is there a viable competitor available for an US allied nation to purchase?
Not available yet, but Korean KF-21 and Turkish Kaan/TF-X (which Spain is thinking about buying/co-producing IIRC), though they're both considered 4.5th gen fighter jets rather than 5th like the F-35.
How do you deal with emails bouncing or going to spam? I have been looking to move away from Gmail but last I read it was the only reliable option out there.
You should be fine on the big providers. There's a weird horseshoe situation where anti-Google doomposting looks a lot like pro-Google FUD that I think leads people to believe only Google and maybe Microsoft are capable of sending mail any more.
Something like mailbox.org should be fine. Even a carefully-chosen VPS running your own email server should be fine (works for me, no delivery problems in ~2 years)
Tell me you haven't run a large email server without telling me.
There's a reason even large corporates that can easily afford the resources to run email their email themselves decide against it.
There are a handful of good providers, not just Google and Microsoft, but the two hyperscalers do have very good offerings, so of course they have a lot of the market.
A $xxxx 2.5 year old laptop, one that's probably much more powerful than an average laptop bought today and probably next year as well. I don't think it's a fair reference point.
The article is pretty good overall, but the title did irk me a little. I assumed when reading "2.5 year old" that it was fairly low-spec only to find out it was an M2 Macbook Pro with 64 GB of unified memory, so it can run models bigger than what an Nvidia 5090 can handle.
I suppose that it could be intended to be read as "my laptop is only 2.5 years old, and therefore fairly modern/powerful" but I doubt that was the intention.
